A Mormon friend said that Mormons were Christians and I chuckled because I thought he was kidding. He wasn’t. He is very active in his church and in evangelism, so I assumed that he knew the distinctions. I pointed out that a foundation of Mormonism is that it is the true church and we are not a part of it. I said that I wasn’t offended that Mormonism says we’re different, so why is he?
Does Mormonism condemn other religions, including Christianity? Yes. Here’s just one of many examples:
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . . (Joseph Smith, “History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)
Got that? He must “join none of them” [other sects of Christianity] . . . they were all wrong . . . all their creeds were an abomination in [God's] sight . . . those professors were all corrupt.“ There are many other clear passages like this in the Book of Mormon and in other writings.
I encourage people to read the comment thread at this post about Mormonism relative to Christianity. There was an extended dialogue between a Mormon and several Christians that highlighted many of the key issues.
The Mormon would go in circles quite a bit, claiming that Mormons are Christians and that we are as well, even though he said we don’t have the same access to God and the founders of his faith completely disagreed with him. It is the basic theme they usually come with: Mormons are Christians, but Christians aren’t Christians. After all, if we are authentic Christians, why do we need to join their organization to be right with God?
The other commenters did a good job of pointing out how Mormonism and Christianity start with radically different views of Jesus (i.e., eternal creator God vs. a man who became God and is the spirit brother of Lucifer) and that we can’t both be right.
The Mormon also said that “The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is not another gospel. It is the same gospel of Jesus Christ that has been revealed from heaven and preached by holy men since the world began.” But if it is the same Gospel preached since the world began then why does it need to be restored?
The Mormon would eventually fall back to the “I know Mormonism is right because God told me so” line, which of course could be used by any religion or cult. Christianity, on the other hand, points to reason and historical evidence. The Mormon ignored that whoever told him that might not have been God:
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
As always, if Mormonism is teaching the same Gospel as Christianity then it is redundant at best. If it teaches a different Gospel then we must heed the warning from Galatians 1. Since there are so many clear foundational differences we can be assured that it is the latter.
Here is a brief but excellent piece on the difference between the LDS church and Christianity
Filed under: Bible, Christian worldview, False teachers, Favorites | Tagged: Bible, God, Jesus, LDS, Mormon, religion
Very informative post.
I knew some of the differences, and never quite knew how to finish my thoughts about it.
I will want to go to the related posts too. Thanks.
Barb
I agree completely. I love how Smith reasoned… “No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join.” Ah yes… he was the only one ever to come along with clear thinking.
This is the problem with the cults, that the leader of the cult is the only one ever to have any clear thoughts since Christ, and has been sent with a new message from God, differing from the old message of God, therefore we should listen to him/her.
My cult experience was being raised as a Christian Scientist. Mary Baker Eddy makes the same claims, but says that a spirit came upon her and revealed the truth to her. No doubt, a spirit did come upon her, but I have no misconceptions about the spirit being the Holy Spirit. She, like Smith, was deluded by their own flesh and desire for power and wealth.
That is ultimately at the heart of the cult leaders. The cult followers are induced because they ultimately reject Christianity, and feel a special allegiance to their own special “prophet.” Since they are following their own special “prophet,” not only do they have the Bible, but his/her revelations and therefore are superior to just the regular Christian. They have their special knowledge.
Which should tell us something because the true Christian is always to be humble and not boast in his own being, but in Christ alone. If we know anything at all, it’s because He has taught it to us.
No, Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians. They are cults of Christianity and to be rejected completely by every Christian, no matter how nice and family oriented said cult may be. In fact, I would say they are even worse that the cults like Koresh, Jim Jones, etc. because those are obviously wicked to the non trained. But even to the elect, the other cults seem seductive because they are so moral. But morality has damned more people than we can imagine, because the moral person rests in their morality, not Christ alone for salvation.
Excellent points, Timothy. You’ve highlighted how these things get started and why they have such staying power.
Thank you for this post. It is interesting.
I noticed in a recent article that Gene Robinson uses much the same language as Joseph Smith, “I am doing what I discern God is calling me to do”.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24521220/
He claims a special pipeline to God. I wonder how the rest of us are supposed to discern between the “message” given to him and the “message” given to Joseph Smith. or Muhammed? or Buddha”
BTW he also brings up the eating pork red herring. Sigh. Even though he claims to be a bishop, it’s obvious he’s never read Acts 15, which addresses this question.
Good points, Ivan. If we don’t test things in light of scripture we’ll rationalize all sorts of evil. Of course, this is the main problem with cults and pro-gay theology: Abandoning the authority of scripture.
Robinson claims that “The table that God invites us to includes everyone.” That is wrong, of course. God invites everyone who repents and believes in Jesus. Robinson is still in rebellion. It is repulsive to see him equate himself with Jesus and to play the martyr role, all the while helping to destroy his denomination and to bring discredit to the church.
As you highlighted, he did bring up the pork red herring: “It is called an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, but, he writes, the Bible also says it is an abomination to eat pork or shellfish, to wear clothing made of two different fibers, or to sow two different types of seed in the same field.” That is what makes me most angry. Anyone in his position should know better (actually, anyone with some basic Bible study should know better) than to trot out the lame shellfish argument. In a media moment going mostly to unbelievers Robinson has perpetuated myth and arrogance about the Bible. What an enemy of the Gospel.
I wish the best for Mr. Robinson and that he will one day repent of this wickedness. Too bad the article didn’t focus on the root of his problems: His parents wanted a girl and thought he wasn’t going to live, so they named him Vicki Imogene and never changed the names. Ya think that might have caused him some identify issues?
It’s very sad that the Devil goes around in sheep’s clothing, pretending to be righteous but all the time is a wolf seeking whom he may devour. It is very obvious to Bible believers that the Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists and the rest are devilish; they add to Scripture and distort the truth. Unfortunately, the rest of the world lumps us all together and tars us with the same brush. If it ever thinks about us it assumes that Roman Catholics are the genuine article and the rest of us Cultists. The problem is enhanced because so many mainstream Christians are themselves heretics and have no regard for Scripture. But listen: it was always so. In Seventeenth Century England a Bishop in the Church of England was heard to opine that Christianity was no longer a subject for enquiry, but simply one for mirth and mockery. How surprised he must have been by Whitefield and Wesley! All around the world we are witnessing enormous revival. If the Western Church is warped by unbelief and wantoness God will send his blessings elsewhere – to Africa, China, South America and Korea.
Wow. There sure are some strong opinions here about Mormons–otherwise words like “cultish” and “devilish” wouldn’t be used to describe me–as a Mormon. Something about the name-calling also seems to be quite contrary to the teachings of Jesus. I’m not one to get defensive because I don’t really feel the need to prove anything. I’m more into having a genial conversation. We can still disagree without being disagreeable.
Having said that, I don’t feel like I should allow misunderstandings to continue without some clarification. No matter how many “Christian” evangelicals try to say otherwise, I am a Mormon, AND I am a Christian. I’m not saying this in an effort to be included as part of some national “Christian club” or as one of “the group”, but only to say who and what I really am. I strive to follow Christ and live by Christian teachings/morals/values.
Most of the time, people try to exclude Mormons from being Christian because we don’t buy into the Nicene creed and the “Christian” understanding of the Trinity. If this truly were a prerequisite for being Christian, then PLEASE count me out simply because it’s not biblical. In fact, count Jesus himself out because he wasn’t around for the Nicene creed either, and he himself didn’t believe in the Trinity that many, if not most, of modern Christianity say they believe in. To me, this is one of the most disastrous results of the Great Apostasy–totally altering belief in and understanding of the nature of God.
We’re also criticized for not accepting that the scriptural canon was closed after the death of the apostles; for believing that God is perfectly able to talk to prophets today as He did in ancient times. Once again, I’m glad I don’t conform to the “Christian Club” if it means that I believe every word God spoke up until the Bible was finished-as long as he doesn’t speak another word. Who are we to say God can’t continue to speak? I could go on, but Stephen E. Robinson said it best already in his book “Are Mormons Christian?”. This book deepened my understanding of the issue and informed me as to the basis of the name calling and labeling of us as a “cult”. The claim doesn’t really hold much water.
One of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (preferred name to “the Mormon Church” which is just a nickname) recently said that “the Lord told the ancients this latter-day work would be ‘a marvellous work and a wonder’, and it is. But even as we invite one and all to examine closely the marvel of it, there is one thing we would not like anyone to wonder about—that is whether or not we are “Christians.” So while we can agree that we have plenty of doctrinal differences, we can still have a very christian conversation without reverting to personal attacks. There’s really nothing to fear except misunderstanding. We both have lot’s to learn from each other if willing to venture into conversation.
Doctrinal beliefs aside, I certainly don’t judge a true Christian by what church he or she goes to, but by how he or she lives. That’s why I can hope that others will do the same with me.
On a side note, I noticed the quote you listed by Joseph Smith that some might interpret to be offensive. I recently have entertained the question of how people should respond to the claim that “all other creeds were an abomination”, and I thought I’d share some of what people had to say about it on my blog.
One commenter: “I’m not quite sure that there is need for anyone to take offense to the statement mentioned BECAUSE I don’t feel like God was saying all of the people who were practicing those various faiths were an abomination, but rather, that the preachers who were preaching damnation to all who didn’t join their church were an abomination. I feel like that statement was more of a distaste for what was being taught, which was not what Christ had taught, that was an abomination to God.”
Another commenter:
“Abomination” may seem like strong language to us, but maybe that’s because we’re not God. Try to look at it from something like his perspective: if divine authority really does matter — and it’s certainly reasonable to propose that God might think it does — then any church that falsely claims to have divine authority is likely to seem pretty abominable to God. And any church that claims to preach eternal truth without a claim to divine authority isn’t going to be much better. With this issue as with so many others, the question is whether or not Joseph Smith saw and heard what he claims he saw and heard. If, in fact, God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and said what he reports they said, then our opinion about what they said doesn’t really matter much — our job is to listen and heed. If, however, God and Jesus Christ did not appear to him and say those things, then we should ignore his report of the experience altogether. Either way, our opinion about the word “abomination” is pretty much irrelevant, I think.”
Another response:
“I’d like to think that the “abomination” lies not within the members or clergy who with a pure heart attend their church, but those who knowingly pervert the Lord’s word by molding it into something that fits their own agenda, which I think are few in number. I would also like to think that the vast majority of people who attend their individual churches have the best intentions and worship according to their conscience, just as we do in our own church. I don’t think it’s wrong for us to believe that we have the truth, because doesn’t everyone believe that they are right? At the same time, if we have the fullness of truth, does that equal a monopoly on truth? I personally don’t think so.”
One more commenter:
“Members of the LDS Church don’t hate members of other churches. That is not where the conflict lies. The teachings of the apostate churches are hypocritical and abominations. I believe the exact quote is, “I was answered that I must join none of them [the then-current churches], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith History 1:19)
We love people of other faiths! Most protestants I’ve met are warm, caring, decent people who genuinely follow the Savior’s path!
We also know that God does not like His truth distorted, nor does he look kindly on those who knowingly twist His words. These “professors” aren’t necessarily all pastors and teachers, but many of them are. Joseph Smith ran up against a good number of them in his lifetime.”
One last commenter (not a Mormon):
“Personally speaking, I don’t take offence at the “…all other churches/creeds are abominations…” statement. Of course, it might give the post-modernist more ammunition to fire his gun with and further his contempt that all transcedent truth are mere power statements.
“I liken J.Smith’s claim about all other creeds as abominations (we’ll assume it’s a claim at the moment) to Jesus’ claim of being the only Way, Truth and Life in John 14. In the same way that Jesus was asserting His uniqueness, the same might be said for J. Smith’s assertion for the LDS church’s uniqueness =)
“With Jesus’ example, he backed-up everything he said with miracles, through excorcisms, power over the elements, healing the sick, raising the dead etc. and through prophecies, which were to come true. I mean, can you imagine the look on people’s faces as he claimed to be the ONLY way to the Father? I don’t think the people were ready to hear the claim as I’m sure they were asking for an objective way to the Father…and not the fact that THE way is through Jesus alone?! It is of no wonder that Jesus was charged with blasphemy =) But the dilemma for them I guess is, with Jesus’ ability to create all these miracles – AND claim to be the ONLY WAY – what can you do but believe him?
“So, I guess the issue is not about how to communicate the LDS church’s uniqueness in a ‘neighbourly’ way – in much the same way that Jesus did not dress up his claims in a ‘neighbourly’ fashion either…the issue is: if it is true (that the LDS church is the only true church), then it is to be CELEBRATED! Because if truth is truth, it will stand up to any scrutiny =)
“In the same way that if Jesus really did die on the cross and was raised up on the third day, then it is also the most wonderful news.”
Hi Clean Cut,
Thanks for charitably presenting your views.
Labeling LDS views as “cultish” is completely accurate. It is a cult of Christianity. I concede that the label of “devilish” may not be a productive advancer of the conversation, but would also note that technically it is true.
I think your commenters are being overly generous to Joseph Smith, but even if they were correct they have a lot more quotes from Smith and other LDS leaders to deal with.
No one is saying that God couldn’t reveal new things, but He won’t contradict scripture as Mormon teachings do. The fact is that Joseph Smith’s revelations disagree with the Bible. Also, all the other NT writers were either Apostles with direct contact with Jesus or close followers of the Apostles. Smith fails on both counts. It is also interesting that God chose to reveal himself to Smith in a brand new, non-Biblical way: With the gold plates that just happened to have been taken back to Heaven. The physical and historical evidence for Mormonism just isn’t there. 2 Peter 1:21 doesn’t hint at things like gold plates (”For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”).
Lots more here on the false beliefs of the LDS organization – http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
As always, I think Mormons are very nice people and fantastic neighbors. I really like them. I also think they have been deceived by false teachings about the nature of God. I realize that it is a strong delusion and that few will escape, but I do seek to prevent others from being taken in. It is the loving thing to do.
Boy do I feel the love. (grin) Just a few thoughts. I really do admire you for your firmly held beliefs. I just beg to differ that those beliefs are as accurate as you think they are. You shared an apologetics web site. I thought I’d return the favor for an LDS apologetics site or two:
Neil said: Thanks for being a good sport. I really do mean it when I say that Mormons make terrific friends, neighbors and co-workers. This topic is too important to sugarcoat, though, and to pretend we’re all pretty much the same.
I had to delete the Mormon apologetic links, because that wouldn’t be kind of me to promote. On-topic comments are welcomed here but I don’t advertise for other religions. If you want to put the links I’ve posted on your Mormon sites that is ok with me
.
I’m not really into apologetics. I’ve been around the block enough to know that the things of God are only comprehended by the Spirit of God.
Neil said: As explored in the link in the post, that is what the Mormon defender there kept coming back to. Of course, one could use that to justify anything and everything. God told you the book of Mormon is true? Well, He told me it isn’t. So where does that leave us? I point to the historic and evidential truth claims of the Bible, which counter the LDS church left and right. God is eternal, not created, Jesus is the eternal creator God, we don’t live as pre-mortal beings before coming to earth, we are saved by grace through faith and not by “all we can do,” etc.
Of the truthfulness of the restored gospel I can personally testify. My faith is not based on reasoned academics and logic. (Although if it were only up to logic I do think we’d have a pretty good leg to stand on). My faith is based on the promptings of the Spirit of God. The “Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit” of not just some truth, but the Spirit speaks the truth of ALL things.
Neil said: And Satan masquerades as an angel of light. I’m not saying that you are satanic, just that religious views are from God or from Satan.
It is through that Spirit that I have come to know that The Book of Mormon is true, and in every way another testament of Jesus Christ. It’s impact on my life and love for the Savior are real. One can argue over knit picky reasons over why it can’t be true, but no one can argue with my personal testimony that it IS true.
Neil said: No one can argue that you think it is true, but we can argue whether the Book of Mormon is true.
I know it’s a work of Holy Scripture, and anyone who reads it prayerfully and carefully will recognize the same thing. It brings people to Christ!
Neil said: You are begging the question. It brings them to the one you describe as “Christ,” but that is not the Christ of the Bible.
Consequently, the Book of Mormon is proof of the prophetic calling Joseph Smith. But we do not worship Joseph Smith. Salvation comes only through the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and ordinances of Jesus Christ and in no other way.
Joseph Smith was but a man–imperfect man. But through Joseph Smith the Lord restored His Church and His pure and full gospel to the earth. It has only enhanced my knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph explained that Jesus Christ is the central figure in the doctrine of Church: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”.
Neil said: We agree that Joseph Smith was an imperfect man, as were all writers of scripture. But his imperfections spilled over into his writings, whereas the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I know you all tend to be skilled in quoting verses and saying things that Christians do about Jesus. The problem for you is that the farther back you go in defining who Jesus really is the bigger the differences become. We are simply talking about a different Jesus than you, and I find the Mormon approach to be very disingenuous.
I do dare say that many of your firmly held beliefs as to the “false beliefs” of the Latter-day Saints are actually based on either falsehoods, distortions of the truth, or seldom give the full story themselves. And why should they? You have nothing much to gain from presenting Mormonism in a favorable light. But don’t make the mistake of spending time tearing down my faith when you could be bringing forward all the good that you have and simply seeing if we can add anything to it.
Neil said: Unless you are saying I’m not a Christian, then what would I have against Mormonism if it were really Christianity? I would be glad to promote it. I go to a Methodist church, but I don’t go around trying to convert Bible-believing Presbyterians, for example. Yet when Mormons come to my door they don’t leave when I tell them I’m a Christian. They think they have a different belief system that I must follow to be right with God. I enjoy visiting with them, but oddly enough I’m I think I’m on their “do not call” list now.
The truth is that I have spent many hours trying to understand what Mormons really believe, reading their pieces and talking directly to them. I have not mischaracterized their views in any way.
My only advice 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).
Neil said: Uh, I think you just shot yourself in the foot. If the true church had left the planet and Joseph Smith had to restore it as you claim, then that passage would have meant that the work of the early church was of human origin, not divine. The Mormon view is that the “real church” must have been overthrown and Smith had to restore it. But in that case it wasn’t real to begin with. The LDS loses either way. Thanks for the new argument
.
Something tells me that you read the Book of Mormon about as quickly and flippantly as you just responded to my last comment…
I wasn’t being flippant at all. I chose those words carefully. I didn’t claim to have read all the book of Mormon. I’ve read parts of it, and have read enough of it to know it if false.
I’ll ask again: Is the Mormon gospel the same as the Gospel of the Bible?
Before answering, consider Galatians 1:8-9 very carefully, even noting the part about the angel: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
If the gospel according to the Book of Mormon is the same as what Paul preached, then it is redundant and I don’t need any new revelations (unless you are claiming that the Bible doesn’t contain the Gospel Paul preached but that the Book of Mormon does, which would be an interesting argument).
If the gospel according to the Book of Mormon is different then I shouldn’t trust it and you shouldn’t teach it.
Either way, if you say you believe the Bible then you can’t make a case for the necessity of the Book of Mormon without denying Galatians 1:8-9.
Peace,
Neil
The Book of Mormon supports the teachings of the Bible…it does not conflict, or run contrary to the words in the Bible. While the Book of Mormon does contain some redundant passages that can be found in the Bible, it stands as another witness to the divinity and existence of Jesus the Christ. Redundancy in scripture does relieve the true follower of Christ of the duty to read those parts that are redundant….consider the many Gospels that account for Christ’s life…are they not redundant? Yet, each one gives us an interesting glimpse on the same events in Christ’s life. The Book of Mormon as a cannon of scripture is no different in that regard. I learn something new each time I read and I’ve read it dozens of times through. The Bible has the same effect as I read it….all of which brings me closer to Christ. Redundancy is how we learn and we have the need to be constantly nourished by the Good Word, or Gospel. This constant nourishment through redundancy is what keeps me on the straight and narrow path. As far as the Galations quote goes…Jesus taught his disciples how to discern a false prophet…”by their fruits shall ye know them”. If the Latter-Day Saints be not of God, then the work will come to naught. But if they are right, you will see the fruit of their labors…and the work will not only continue, but flourish. Nothing will be able to stop it. Seems to me that your observations point to a very black and white scenario…Latter-Day Saints are either the True Christians or they are definitely not. That’s ok. I’m not trying to convice, just offering my thoughts. I’ve already decided.
Sorry,
Meant to say…
“Redundancy in scripture does NOT relieve the true follower of Christ….”
Hi Steve,
You seem to be saying the Book of Mormon is redundant and does not disagree with the Bible. I think that statement is in error on multiple levels (LDS teaches salvation by “doing all you can,” that Jesus is not the creator God, that God was created, and more).
But for the sake of argument, if your book really is redundant then I don’t need it (I’ll be generous and ignore all the errors and sloppy grammar of Smith and the new mode of communication – i.e., missing plates vs. the Holy Spirit). I could just use the Bible and belong to the one true church. I wouldn’t need a redundant book that came along 1800 years later through questionable means.
But that isn’t what the LDS church teaches and believes, is it? You think I need Mormon teachings that are not in the Bible to be right with God. How come the missionaries don’t leave when they hear I trust the Bible?
“If the Latter-Day Saints be not of God, then the work will come to naught. But if they are right, you will see the fruit of their labors…and the work will not only continue, but flourish.”
In an eternal sense I agree, but in the short run (which could be hundreds of years), their works-based righteousness model will tend to show “good deeds” by their followers. That proves nothing. You have misunderstood Jesus’ statement about “fruits.” If that was the case, then any do-gooder atheist doing things for his own glory would qualify. Real believers will show good works, but that doesn’t mean that non-Christians never do nice things.
Steve, if the Book of Mormon is redundant, why do Mormans claim that God went to all that trouble to entrust that book to Joseph Smith?
The central historical claim of Mormonism — that Smith was witness to miracle after miracle and was visited by numerous figures of the Bible, all in order to receive the Book of Mormon to correct the Christian church — necessarily leads to the conclusion that the contents of that book is and must be radically different from the Bible.
The historical claims of Mormonism require nothing less than a very radical break from the theology of Christian orthodoxy, and yet Mormons are consistently dishonest on this point. They act as if Mormonism is essentially a subset of Protestant Christianity, when Protestants introduced no new authority but simply reaffirmed the authority of the canon that was established 1500 years prior; and they act as if the Book of Mormon is a practically redundant text when their claims about its origin make it absolutely clear that redundancy is, logically, the one attribute the book cannot have.
Shall we judge Mormons by their fruit? They are consistently dishonest about the fundamentals of their faith, and that dishonesty isn’t ameliorated by their being pleasant neighbors.
The teaching of the LDS church is wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christ. Be that as it may, there are some things the Mormons teach that the Christian church would do well to emulate. The passion for lost souls, for instance. How much more could the church of God increase if we all had the same fervor? They are very family oriented people, another trait the Christians would do well to emulate. The family that prays together, stays together, but how many Christian families have forgotten this maxim? If we placed the same importance on family as do the Mormons we would be a much more cohesive church, don’t you agree?
Mark, you are right on. I mean this in all seriousness: If it weren’t for the fact that the LDS church and orthodox Christians are talking about a different J-e-s-u-s, we actually have a lot in common and a lot of things to emulate from them.
When my LDS friend stopped by at work and outlined his beliefs, I noted that I actually had more in common with him than I do with theologically liberal Christians: We both hold high views of scripture, are pro-family, pro-life, believe in the physical resurrection, that Jesus is the only way, the atonement, etc.
Someone said, “The Book of Mormon supports the teachings of the Bible…it does not conflict, or run contrary to the words in the Bible.”
Wrong. The Bible clearly teaches there is one God. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods and that man can become a god.
Believe what you will, but don’t say you are Christian. Christians believe there is one God – Mormons believe there are an infinite number of gods. Mormonism is polytheistic. Christianity is monotheistic.
Neil, with your permission…
http://noblather.blogspot.com/2006/07/are-mormons-christians.html
Great link, Ms. Green!
“The claim is made that certain LDS doctrines are so bizarre, so totally foreign to biblical or historical Christianity, that they simply cannot be tolerated. In terms of the LDS doctrines most often criticized on these grounds, however –the doctrine of deification and its corollary, the plurality of gods–this claim does not hold up to historical scrutiny. Early Christian saints and theologians, later Greek Orthodoxy, modern Protestant evangelists, and even C. S. Lewis have all professed their belief in a doctrine of deification. The scriptures themselves talk of many “gods” and use the term god in a limited sense for beings other than the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost. If this language is to be tolerated in scripture and in ancient and modern orthodox Christians without cries of “polytheism!” then it must be similarly tolerated in the Latter-day Saints. If scripture can use the term gods for nonultimate beings, if the early Church could, if Christ himself could, then Latter-day Saints cannot conceivably be accused of being outside the Christian tradition for using the same term in the same way.
Again, I am not arguing that the doctrine is true, although I certainly believe it is.
I am only arguing that other Christians of unimpeachable orthodoxy have believed in deification long before the Latter-day Saints came along, and that it has been accepted and tolerated in them as part of their genuine Christianity. Fair play demands the same treatment for the Latter-day Saints.”
Neil said: Please don’t be passive-aggressive here. If you believe it is true, which you said you do, then admit that you are arguing for it.
The quote is a distortion, by the way. Lewis was brilliant but had universalist leanings, so it is possible he erred on that as well. The only unimpeachable thing we have is the Bible. But my guess is that he was taken out of context.
The use of people as “gods” in the Bible merely states that God gives some people the right to judge on his behalf. It in no way means that we become real, live Gods. Study passages like Isaiah 43:10 (“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.)
You falsely imply that since others made this mistake that it is no big deal if the LDS makes it. That also ignore the other false LDS teachings.
The only implication is that you cannot claim we are not Christian for believing the same things as other Christians–even if we are in error.
Clean Cut,
You said, “The only implication is that you cannot claim we are not Christian for believing the same things as other Christians–even if we are in error.”
If you were believing the same thing, then that would be true. The real problem is that you are not believing the same thing. Mormonism teaches/implies that Elohim and Mary had sex which resulted in the birth of Jesus. It teaches that Jesus has gone to his own planet to be god just as Elohim was god over this planet. It teaches the goal of every Mormon man is to become a god over their own planet, just like Elohim and Jesus.
You can say you believe the same thing because Mormonism uses the same vocabulary, but, in reality, it uses a different dictionary.
I am one who HAS read the Book of Mormon, cover to cover. (I did not feel any burning in my bosom.) I have known many Mormons and have nothing against people who believe in Mormonism; just as I have nothing against the people who believe in Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other false religion. Those people are merely on a search for God and have been duped into believing teachings from a false teacher/prophet.
I write this not to offend you; that is not my intention. Why would I offend someone I have never met? My intention is, however, to assert that Mormonism IS NOT Christianity.
It seems that no one does PR better than the new LDS…
If you do not believe that God is the ONLY god ever, Jesus is God’s ONLY begotten Son, that He came down from Heaven and was born of the virgin Mary, lived the perfect life where we cannot, did many miracles while on earth, fulfilled all 330+ prophecies of the Old Testament perfectly, (and most importantly) that Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross is the ONLY way that anyone can be forgiven of his sins and saved to eternal life in Heaven through the movement of the Holy Spirit in his heart- by GRACE alone, in His bodily Resurrection, and that He will come back from His throne in Heaven to judge the earth any time now, then you are NOT Christian.
ALL CHRISTIAN denominations believe this without exception or addition.
All others are pagan.
Hence, so is Mormonism. Mormons twist the Gospel of Jesus Christ into works-based salvation. There is a list of things you must preform to become god of your own planet before you die. Yahweh of the Bible is not the only god to them. They believe, as Neil stated above, that Satan and Christ are brothers. They learn the Bible to combat Christians and have written a book that is more important than God’s Holy Bible to them. When you speak to them about the things of God, they take a little bit of truth and twist it, so that parts sound right, but the rest is a lie. This is the same tactic that Satan used in the Garden, gave to those like Joseph Smith, and still uses today. What Mormons believe is not of God and can not hold up in the Light of Scripture. It’s path leads to death and destruction in the spiritual sense. Dangerous, dangerous stuff.
Bro Rick,
You said it better and more graceful than I.
The thing that concerns me most is that I do not want any one else being tricked by these false religions as so many others were. Such sweet people are being misled in droves and do not understand all that the LDS, and CS for that matter, believe.
The other term that I hear tossed around today is “compatible to Christianity.” If it is “compatible to Christianity” it is NOT Christian. The only thing religions “compatible to Christianity” lead to is doom, not salvation through Jesus Christ.
I don’t wish that doom on any one.
No wonder there are such strong feelings here! Most of the things you just said that “Mormons” believe are so far out there not even I believe them! I wonder where it is you learn what “we” believe. Certainly you’ve never read it our scriptures nor would you ever have read it in our church publications or even over the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting. I can now see that there is enough bogus information listed above as to what Mormons “really” believe to make myself cringe, and to make you think we very different than what we really are.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter. I belong to the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. Based on some descriptions above people must assume we’re the church of some weird science fiction space cadet. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Please don’t rush into judgment so quickly about what you sound convinced it is we believe. I also think it is wise in trying to understand what it is we really believe to go directly to a member of the Church, and not to pastors of other churches to find out what it is Mormons believe. I certainly wouldn’t ask you what it is a Catholic believes. I’d go ask a Catholic. Yet that practice is consistently repeated in various Christian churches nationwide. People think they know what’s in the Book of Mormon who have never sincerely read the Book of Mormon, because their church has some “expert” who’s already read it and made up their mind for them.
I don’t think anyone here believes “we’re the same”, but when you accuse us of believing we can save ourselves, you do err. We certainly don’t believe in a gospel of works-based salvation. You’ve been badly misinformed.
I would guess that there are some Church members who perhaps misunderstood our own doctrine/scriptures and think of the gospel as a gospel of works. However, that was the Law of Moses. The good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that Christ saves! He even saves us from ourselves. When through our faith in Him we enter into a covenant relationship with Him through baptism, we turn ourselves over to Him. However, just like a husband and wife who enter into a marriage covenant are expected to be faithful to each other, He expects us to be faithful to Him and love Him more than we love anything or anyone else. Hence the scriptural analogy with Christ as the groom and the Church (and its members) as the bride.
The Book of Mormon clearly teaches, “Since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself” (Alma 22:14). “There can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world” (Alma 34:12; see also 2 Ne. 9:7; Alma 34:8–16). “Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; … he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law” (2 Ne. 2:6–7). Consequently, “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” (2 Ne. 2:8). And so we “rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ … that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Ne. 25:26).
I quote from Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles:
“These teachings obviously stand in opposition to the belief or assumption of some mortals (perhaps even some members of our Church) that they have no need of Christ because they can think they can save themselves by their own works.
“As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we testify with the Book of Mormon prophet-king Benjamin that “there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
“For behold … salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ” (Mosiah 3:17–18).
And so we say to all, in the words the prophet Moroni wrote as a conclusion to the Book of Mormon:
“Come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ. …
“And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot” (Moroni 10:32–33).”
This is our doctrine. This is what you should judge us on–not obscure and out of context quotes of fringe beliefs of dead church leaders (none of whom were perfect). Judge us on the pure doctrine of Christ as so plainly found in The Book of Mormon–Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith could not have written that book. It’s not just any other book, but the very word of God. As you prayerfully read it, you will recognize His voice, for his “sheep hear [His] voice”. And there is a power in that book that can change lives. Millions have come to feel the truth of that book and the power it has to bring us to Christ and rely wholly on His merits, mercy, and grace (and not our own.) Take it or leave, it is exactly what it purports to be.
Clean Cut, your efforts to make Mormonism sound less radical than it is, simply does not account for Mormon’s historical claims about the Book of Mormon.
Let me be plain in my question: Are the contents of the Book of Mormon radically different from the contents of the Bible? Or are they redundant duplicates of the contents of the Bible?
If it’s the former, then your arguing that early Christian writers embraced doctrines that can be found in the Book of Mormon begs the question, if they reached those doctrines without that book, why is the book necessary?
And If it’s the latter, well, you have a different conundrum: why would God go to so much trouble to entrust Joseph Smith with a copy of this book if it’s contents are redundant?
–
I think your evidence is weak that “Early Christian saints and theologians, later Greek Orthodoxy, modern Protestant evangelists, and even C. S. Lewis have all professed their belief in a doctrine of deification.” (Lewis, for instance, was clearly a monotheist.)
But let’s suppose that you’re right that Christians can and have embraced “the doctrine of deification and its corollary, the plurality of gods” — i.e., polytheism — all on their own, without the Book of Mormon. Why, then, was that book necessary?
In downplaying the truly radical claims of Mormonism, you undermine the necessity of Mormonism’s central historical claim.
By the way, CC’s comment here, intentionally or not, reinforces the idea that Mormons treat their book, not simply as a book to compliment the Bible, but as a book to replace the Bible, whereas the Bible is accepted only insofar as it conforms to the Book of Mormon:
“Judge us on the pure doctrine of Christ as so plainly found in The Book of Mormon–Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith could not have written that book. It’s not just any other book, but the very word of God.”
Mormons will point to the Bible to show Christians that their beliefs are oh-so-similar, but ulimately their doctrines are from the Book of Mormon, not the Bible. I have never met a Mormon who is truly honest about the radical nature of their theological claims; their efforts at evangelism — and CC”s comments here are attempts to convert — are built on dishonesty.
Clean Cut, you said
“Let’s get to the heart of the matter. I belong to the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. Based on some descriptions above people must assume we’re the church of some weird science fiction space cadet. Nothing could be further from the truth”
I agree – we need to get to the heart of the matter. In that regard, do you or do you not believe:
-That god & his wife had children (spirit or otherwise)?
-That god is currently living on another planet with his wife?
-That Jesus & Lucifer are “spirit” brothers?
-That men can one day become a god on their own planet with a wife (wives)?
These are only a few of the hundreds of questions that could be asked but since they were brought up above, & conveniently ignored, I thought I’d ask directly.
Clean cut,
Much of what I have learned about Mormonism is what I have gleaned from http://www.mormon.org and http://www.lds.org. I have read the “Pearl of Great Price”. I have read “Doctrines and Covenants” I have read the writings of Kent Nielson, (and others) which I found utterly astounding (not in a good way). I have even read most of the lyrics of the LDS Hymnal! Why would I go to other sources to learn about what the LDS church teaches so plainly? Specifically, which part of what I said do you deny?
“Let’s get to the heart of the matter”: the Jesus Christ of LDS is not the same Jesus Christ of the Bible. (same vocabulary, different definitions)
I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in; so many young people, like yourself, do not do that today, nor do they even KNOW what they believe, but are willing to follow anyone who is willing to lead. I know your convictions are strong; your mission in Guayaquil obviously solidified your beliefs. ( I have been to Guayaquil and know how hard it can be!) You must understand: I am not attacking you. I am asking you to look again with new eyes and a searching heart at the integrity, veracity, and authority of the Book of Mormon AND the LDS first prophet. If, indeed, it were all true, then YES! it would be a cause for celebration. If, however, Joseph Smith was duped by an angel not of the Lord, but identifying himself as one, (which the Bible warns specifically against), then there is cause for mourning. I, as much as you believe the first case to be true, believe the second case to be true.
These questions have already been answered. I did not ignore them. All of these frequently asked questions have been addressed by common members such as myself. If Neil won’t allow me to post links to back up my position or correct these false beliefs, I can’t control that. Perhaps you will at least allow your readers to visit http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/ for answers to these frequently asked questions. If not, I’d be happy to answer them one by one. It would just take some time.
Terry said, “It is very obvious to Bible believers that the Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists and the rest are devilish; they add to Scripture and distort the truth.”
hmmm – That sounds very much like so much other religioius talk, regardless of the religion. You put yourself at “the top” of the heap. Everyone else is beneath you.
To me, at least, you sound very much like the radical Muslims. It’s all very sad
Hi Mark – I haven’t seen you comment for a while – great to have you back!
I am not offended that Muslism think their way is right. I am offended if they want to kill me for not believing them.
I am not offended that Mormons think they are right. But I am offended by their extended-play disingenuous in how they present themselves (back to the point of this post). They act as if we are the same while knowing that if you peel back the layers they have radically different definitions of God and Jesus, and while trying to convert you to their works-based salvation method.
Neil,
I too am continually amazed at the efforts the LDS Church will go through to make itself appear legitimate. I spent way too much time this morning reading through their official websites again. They have a whole “office” (better lack of better term) that deals with telling Mormon writers how to spin stories to make the LDS Church look good.
One interesting thing I realized this morning is the Mormon concept of a “Heavenly Mother”. Now, there’s something you just don’t find in the Bible! I had read about the concept a long time ago, but I never gave it any thought or real scrutiny until today. I suppose that if your religion’s goal was to make you like Elohim and make spirit babies, you’d have to have a woman to make them babies with, hence “Eternal Marriages” and “Heavenly Mothers”. Yikes!
“Oh, what a tangled web…”
Elisa, Neil
Elisa said, “If you do not believe that God is the ONLY god ever, Jesus is God’s ONLY begotten Son, that He came down from Heaven and was born of the virgin Mary, lived the perfect life where we cannot, did many miracles while on earth, fulfilled all 330+ prophecies of the Old Testament perfectly, (and most importantly) that Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross is the ONLY way that anyone can be forgiven of his sins and saved to eternal life in Heaven through the movement of the Holy Spirit in his heart- by GRACE alone, in His bodily Resurrection, and that He will come back from His throne in Heaven to judge the earth any time now, then you are NOT Christian.
ALL CHRISTIAN denominations believe this without exception or addition.”
I’m having trouble following this. Neil says that Jesus IS God. If he IS God, then why would Jesus speak of God as his father? Was he talking to himself? This is not a joke. I’ve never understood how he IS God and the Son of God at the same time. Sounds like some sort of holy incestuous relationship…
Thanks, Neil. I’ve been very busy. Glad to be back.
WOZ
-That god & his wife had children (spirit or otherwise)?
-That god is currently living on another planet with his wife?
-That Jesus & Lucifer are “spirit” brothers?
-That men can one day become a god on their own planet with a wife (wives)?
umm. yeah…
Tom Cruise, anyone?
Thank you Neil for always comming with something interesting. It is funny how different sects think there way is the only right way. I was in a class not long ago and we got off track. The teacher asked if anybody would be offended if we dicussed religion. The class reply was we are all believers. I assumed everyone was christian later I found out one lady was a Jevhovah witness. I know I had heard about unviversal christian, but I didn’t realize how real it was.
Mark,
My answer to all these was obviously a simple no. I guess CC didn’t find the answer, whether yes or no, so easy.
Tom Cruise is great. He’s the poster child for Xenu-a 75 million year old (or did he live 75 million years ago) galatic warlord that destroyed the galaxy and left us with the thetans.
Between Joseph Smith & Tom Cruise I think P.T.Barnum was right………
Mark:
I’m having trouble following this. Neil says that Jesus IS God. If he IS God, then why would Jesus speak of God as his father? Was he talking to himself? This is not a joke. I’ve never understood how he IS God and the Son of God at the same time. Sounds like some sort of holy incestuous relationship…
It’s not just Neil who said it: the doctrine of the Trinity is not only central to historical Christianity, it’s also firmly rooted in the Bible and — more specifically — in the words of Jesus Christ Himself.
Jesus not only refered to Himself as the Son, He also claimed to be God Himself:
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
The idea of the Trinity is that God is three distinct Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Spirit — in one Being:
- The Father is God.
- The Son is God.
- The Spirit is God.
But:
- The Father is not the Son.
- The Son is not the Spirit.
- The Spirit is not the Father.
This difficult for us to grasp, but it’s not contradictory: it is an idea that is beyond reason (that is, reason cannot itself lead to the Trinity) but it isn’t contrary to reason. This is why Christian theology calls the doctrine a “mystery” and not a paradox.
–
An analogy might help you see things more clearly.
Imagine a cylinder, like a soup can. If you look at the cylinder from the side — where all you can see is the label — the cylinder looks like a rectangle. If you look at it from above — where all you can see is the top — it looks like a circle.
A soup can is a single solid composed of two shapes.
Similarly, God is a single Being comprised of three Persons.
This isn’t easy to grasp, but who ever said that a finite mortal should find every aspect of an infinite God easy to understand?
People mock what they don’t understand. If you’ll honestly read the Book of Mormon like you read your precious Holy Bible, your mind will be enlightened…you’ll begin to understand many things you did not realize before. It will have a familiar whisper to it. It will not answer any of the questions posed by Mark above because that simply is not the basis of the doctrine Christ taught His followers. I am talking about the milk before the meat. I am talking about not casting pearls before swine. If you tried to explain calculus to a young child, they would look extremely bored and lost…they might get a little nervous around you and even think you were crazy. They might even start to make fun of you because you didn’t make any sense, or because they thought you were weird. Why? Because you need the fundamentals of mathematics (addition, subtraction, division, and mutiplication) before calculus can even begin to make sense. Christ was teaching fundamentals of His Gospel to His followers. Salvation is not rocket science. You mock things that are beyond your grasp to understand and you skip over the fundmentals of Christ’s teachings which are the foundation of Mormonism and your own “Christian” religion. These fundamentals come from the Bible…and the Book of Mormon, which supports the Bible. I also believe other scripture has and will come forth that will support both of these cannons. Most Christians posting on this site already believe what’s in the Book of Mormon, you just don’t know that yet because you haven’t taken the time to read it and realize what it really says. Your minds are blinded by your preconceived notions about Mormons taught to you by those whom you love and trust. That’s ok…someday every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. Someday we will all know the fullness of the truth.
Mark,
I’m sorry I got confusing. I get long winded, typically and was trying to not be.
What you’re asking about is something called the Trinity- the Triune God, a Theophany.
God is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Or we can put it this way- God the Father. God the Son. God the Holy Spirit.
There is One God who is One Essence, but three Persons. This is not more than one god- polytheism. He is always God, always the Son, and always the Holy Spirit. He is three people in One Being. I think St. Augustine was able to see it in his mind’s eye better, when he saw a little boy on a beach digging a hole that filled with a wave. The hole was certainly still a part of the sea, yet a different entity with a different role, than the sea itself.
As humans, the creation, we can not understand tall of this fully this side of Heaven. Just as we don’t understand HOW life begins. We know without a doubt WHEN it does and THAT it does. It’s the same way with the character, glory, and Person of God. He is SO very awesome, so very complex, that we can only understand that which He has revealed to us through Scripture. Other things we have to take on faith. By Scripture we know that the Trinity exists and is God- one essence, three persons. We don’t comprehend HOW it works, but THAT it does.
I think that the Nicene Creed explains what we believe so well- much better than I. As stated in the Trinity Hymnal that I’m using, “The Nicene Creed originated at the Council of Nicea (325), and an expanded form was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon (451). It was formulated to answer the heresies that denied the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Christ.” It is a statement of faith that Christian denominations around the world believe and helps to unify us. I’m going to post it below for you to read and think upon. I hope this helps.
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
**The Holy Catholic and Apostolic church is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic, in this context, means universal, and we are professing that there is one true church made up of the elect throughout the ages. There are those who are elect within the RCC, but the elect are not bound by that man-made institution. The Apostolic church is simply the church that was founded upon the teaching and doctrines of the apostles (Ephesians 2:22).
Woz, aside from the silliness, the questions you ask seem to denote that you think those are the heart and soul of the restored gospel. I assure you they are not. I’ve probably spent less than 1% (really, closer to none) of my life even thinking about those questions. They really are of non-importance in our faith. So it really stuns me when I see on this blog that those are the issues that are constantly brought up.
Could it be out of fear of what you might find (if you could get past those distractor questions that really have no bearing on my faith and my salvation) if you were to look at the heart and soul of the restored gospel? It has deeply affected my life for good–it’s very dear to me. It is a figurative pearl of great price and instead of evaluating the pearl, you seem to want to spend time evaluating the shell the pearl comes in, or the water in which it was found.
I’m not here to argue. And I’m certainly not trying to put some kind of “spin” on the conversation (by the way, I have no clue as to what “office” that might be Bro. Rick-might be nice to learn about) I’m not trying to convert here either (it’s not up to me to convert anyway–that’s the Spirit’s job) . I’m simply trying to have a discussion, as if we were sitting in the same room together. I’m not trying to prove truth. I just don’t want to have my faith smeared and misrepresented. I want to be understood and not misunderstood.
The late Krister Stendahl, emeritus Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm and professor emeritus of Harvard Divinity School, established three rules for religious understanding: (1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies; (2) don’t compare your best to their worst; and (3) leave room for “holy envy” by finding elements in other faiths to emulate. I think that’s great advice.
Steve, I will ask it again: if the Book of Mormon is redundant, why do Mormans claim that God went to all that trouble to entrust that book to Joseph Smith?
You write, “Most Christians posting on this site already believe what’s in the Book of Mormon, you just don’t know that yet because you haven’t taken the time to read it and realize what it really says.”
If most Christians already believe the contents of the Book of Mormon without ever having read it, why do you believe that God went to such extraordinary, miraculous lengths to entrust that book to Joseph Smith.
Again, Mormonism’s central historcial claim about the origin of the Book of Mormon LOGICALLY REQUIRES that that book have radically different contents. To act like it doesn’t, isn’t withholding “meat” from spiritual infants who need milk. It’s being dishonest about the tenets of your faith.
You insisted that Mormons be judged by their fruits, and you continue to demonstrate that Mormons are dishonest about the central theological claims of your faith.
Steve,
No one can add to or take away from Scripture, as the Bible itself commands. If something is “compatible with Christianity” it is NOT Christian. It has taken something away from it or has added to the Bible and/or the Gospel. It is false, a lie, and ultimately from the devil, the father of lies.
You also are assuming that we have not read the Book of Mormon, know, love and are friends with those who are Mormon, and/or have studied the cult. We’re not going to write about and combat something we’re ignorant about.
As for the cult Christian Science- Timothy and his family were (some still are) CS.
As true Christians, we are called to teach, preach and defend the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ. We can not support any other, for the eternal consequences of those to whom we are called. If it is wrong and leading some astray, we must guard the faith against the teachings of false prophets. Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Patterson Glover Eddy are two such.
Finally:
And yet No Mormon posting here has YET answered what they believe in these questions. They are yes or no questions.
As Mormons, do you or do you not believe these questions:
-That god & his wife had children (spirit or otherwise)?
-That god is currently living on another planet with his wife?
-That Jesus & Lucifer are “spirit” brothers?
-That men can one day become a god on their own planet with a wife (wives)?
CC:
Woz, aside from the silliness, the questions you ask seem to denote that you think those are the heart and soul of the restored gospel. I assure you they are not. I’ve probably spent less than 1% (really, closer to none) of my life even thinking about those questions. They really are of non-importance in our faith. So it really stuns me when I see on this blog that those are the issues that are constantly brought up.
Okay, I’ll bite. What are the important theological differences between Mormonism and Christianity?
If there are no important differences, why do you believe God went to so much trouble, miracle after miracle, with appearances of numerous figures of the Bible, in order to entrust the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? Why is the Book of Mormon so important if its contents are redundant?
(For that matter, why do Mormons attempt to convert Baptists and Catholics is our theological differences are so minor?)
I can list many of the numerous points of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics — sola scriptura, salvation by grace alone, transubstantiation, Mary’s perpetual virginity, and indulgences, just to name a few. What are the key differences between Mormonism’s supposed “restored gospel” and the beliefs of Baptists and Catholics?
Y’all are very quick to make clear that we misunderstand the fundamentals of Mormonism, but you never get around to explaining the essential differences that would justify the Mormon claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
Steve,
That is perhaps one of the most arrogant statements I have ever heard regarding Mormonism. How would you like the same statement applied to you, that you couldn’t possibly understand Christianity because you cannot grasp the teachings of Christ. (1Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.)
As one who has indeed prayerfully read the Book of Mormon, I disagree that you will be enlightened and that it will have a familiar whisper. Every time I read from it I am completely amazed at its Shakespearean English. There was no reason to translate it in that style except that Smith wanted for it to have that “familiar whisper” that you spoke about. No offense to you intended, but the book doesn’t hold water. It is a poorly written imitation of God’s word.
You have definitely spoken truth, well not verbatim, but at least the gist: Philippians 2:10-11 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…”
You then went on to say, “Someday we will all know the fullness of the truth.” So true.
Clean Cut,
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/
Like I said, “Office” for lack of a better word.
The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our testimony of truth. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, divine authority, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it.
I came late to the party, but you haven’t even touched the 3000+ changes to the Book of Mormon. That seems suprising to me since J. Smith supposedly translated it letter by letter with angelic help. Also, no one has mentioned that archeology has affirmed exactly none of the Book of Mormon. Nice try guys.
CC, what are the “claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it”?
What, specifically, are the significant theological differences between the contents of the Bible and the contents of the Book of Mormon?
What doctrines within that book justifies the Mormons’ claims about the origin of that book?
The question can be put a number of different ways. What doctrine is supposedly being “restored” that could not have been found in the Bible and that therefore justified the many, many miracles that supposedly attended the Book of Mormon’s being entrusted to Joseph Smith? What Christian doctrines are so heretical and so thoroughly ingrained in the Bible and all the historical documents of Christendom that God’s only response was to perform miracle after miracle in order to convey a wholly new text to Smith?
A vague analogy about keystones and arches is not an answer to my very reasonable question.
Clean Cut,
You are spot on! Everything in Mormonism depends on the testimony and truth of the Book of Mormon AND in Joseph Smith. You almost act as if you have never read it yourself. Do you not see the inconsistencies? or, in the words of Steve above, are you just trusting those whom you “love and trust” to be telling you the truth?
Craig,
I think my favorite one of the parts of the Book of Mormon that was changed/deleted/corrected was the one about the “Quaker-like people inhabiting the moon”. When the astronauts got there, no people. Better change the book. Better get a new revelation from god.
Several years ago, I had a chance to buy a first edition Book of Mormon. It was a little out of my price range at the time, but I sure wish I would have invested in it.
When you mention 3000+ changes, I assume you are talking about the “new revelations”? Has the Bible changed that much, too?
Jeff Lindsay: “Critics of the Church have charged that the Book of Mormon is a fraud because thousands of changes have been made in it over the years, as if the Church were trying to cover up blunders in Joseph Smith’s work. Certainly there have been many minor changes in the text of the Book of Mormon, as there have been in the text of the King James Version of the Bible (and other translations as well) over the years. These changes have been minor, usually trivial, primarily dealing with punctuation, correction of typographical errors, and modification of awkward grammar for clarity. I have examined the allegedly most “serious” changes pointed to by critics and have not seen anything representing a real change in doctrine or anything that would cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon. I’ll discuss major examples below.
In the early 1800s, spelling and grammar were not yet standardized. Joseph dictated the translation to scribes who spelled many words in ways that are nonstandard today. Hundreds of spelling variants had to be corrected in the first edition and in subsequent editions of the printed text. For example, “ware sorraful” in 1 Nephi 7:20 was changed to “were sorrowful.” Likewise, we should not be outraged to find Nephi writing on “plates” today when Joseph’s scribes had him writing on “plaits” in 1 Nephi 13:23. Hundreds of such changes have been necessary.
Years ago, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published a book claiming to identify 3,000 changes between the original 1830 edition and the then present version. Now I’ve heard the number of 4,000 mentioned in e-mail. Whatever the number, critics are trying to create the impression that the Church has something to hide about the Book of Mormon. The critics often charge that there is a great cover-up about the changes in the text compared to the original Book of Mormon, completely ignoring the fact that anybody can buy reprints of the 1830 edition from LDS bookstores and that LDS scholars freely and openly discuss and write about the nature of these changes. Changes in the text have been discussed in official Church publications like the Ensign magazine and by widely respected, private LDS groups like the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The critics infer that the Church is embarrassed about the original Book of Mormon and has had to make changes in it to “improve” the doctrine or resolve blunders. Such arguments are truly dishonest. The driving force for virtually all changes has been to (1) ensure that the printed text is faithful to the original manuscript and (2) to ensure that the text is accessible and readable. Alleged departures from the original text generally turn out to be simple clarifications or reworkings of awkward grammar rather than doctrinal changes.
The many changes that critics are so indignant over are corrections of the very kind one would expect in putting a hand-written document into type with crude technology and under difficult circumstances – and in a time with many varying spelling practices. Many of the changes are due to the fact that the Book of Mormon was dictated to scribes without punctuation and without division between verses and chapter – just as one might expect from a fairly direct translation of an ancient Hebraic or Semitic text, written without punctuation. The lack of punctuation in the original required much work after dictation to put it in a presentable form – but that work was not done to cover up mistakes in the original and did not involve changing stories, doctrine, or anything else of substance. Numerous minor errors were printed in the original 1830 edition because of errors in preparing handwritten printer’s manuscripts from the original manuscript, and because of additional printing errors. Again, many of the changes in the Book of Mormon over the years have been necessary to make the text correspond more perfectly with the original manuscript. It’s simply untrue to say that the Church has departed from the original or that there were gross blunders in the original manuscript that needed to be fixed because they showed the Book to be a fraud.
In fact, many of the changes, including the need to add punctuation and chapter breaks, reflect the Semitic origins of the Book of Mormon. In several cases, sentences that showed classic Hebraic constructions and phrases made very poor English, and these needed modification to ensure readability. Many of the changes made involved deleting redundant “and it came to pass” phrases, a phrase which has also been deleted many times in the King James Version and other English translations of the Old Testament. Numerous deletions of “and it came to pass” in English translations of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not because of any cover up on the part of the translators, but because that commonly used Semitic phrase becomes overly awkward in English”
ps: Can I ask where you get your information about “Quaker-like people inhabiting the moon”. That’s pretty funny.
See http://latterdaycommentary.blogspot.com/2008/05/changes-to-book-of-mormon.html
Clean Cut:
The driving force for virtually all changes has been to (1) ensure that the printed text is faithful to the original manuscript and (2) to ensure that the text is accessible and readable.
The “original manuscript”? Do you mean, the supposed golden plates that are no longer on this planet? If you do, by what means do Mormon scholars ascertain a printed text’s faithfulness to these plates?
And, for the third time, I will ask you to answer my question: what are the significant theological differences in the Book of Mormon that justify the Mormons’ claims about the book’s origin?
Bubba, you ask “what are the significant theological differences in the Book of Mormon that justify the Mormons’ claims about the book’s origin?”
I actually don’t really understand the question. Are you asking about what differences there are in the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible? Are you asking how I know that it is of divine origin? Or are you asking something different? I’ll do my best to respond sincerely.
Bubba,
Please note too that those guys have not yet said what they do believe or not believe pertaining to those questions asked earlier this afternoon. They are skirting them and talking around them. They claim that we’ve made a mistake with them but have not answered them at all.
So just in case they’ve forgotten the questions that WOZ asked, I’m copying and pasting the yet again.
As Mormons, do you or do you not believe these questions:
“-That god & his wife had children (spirit or otherwise)?
-That god is currently living on another planet with his wife?
-That Jesus & Lucifer are “spirit” brothers?
-That men can one day become a god on their own planet with a wife (wives)?”
And here’s the one you’ve asked them that I’d like a straight answer on too:
“And, for the third time, I will ask you to answer my question: what are the significant theological differences in the Book of Mormon that justify the Mormons’ claims about the book’s origin?”
Do I believe these questions?:
-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!)
-That god is currently living on another planet with his wife?
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? 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!”)
-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.
-That men can one day become a god on their own planet with a wife (wives)?”
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.)
CC:
I actually don’t really understand the question. Are you asking about what differences there are in the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible? Are you asking how I know that it is of divine origin? Or are you asking something different? I’ll do my best to respond sincerely.
What I’m asking is the first question in this paragraph.
More specifically, what are the significant theological differences between what the Bible teaches and what the Book of Mormon teaches? I ask because significant theological differences are the only thing that would justify Mormons’ extraordinary claims about the book’s origin.
“So it can be said that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father”
This completely disagrees with the Bible. Jesus is the word made flesh (John 1), He is the creator (Colossians), etc.
Clean Cut,
The source is from a Cultural Sociology class at the University of Oklahoma sometime around 1984. I distinctly remember the (very secular) professor commenting on it in reference to how things change because of technology.
Upon a quick Google of the subject, the closest thing I can find is a reference to it in “The Young Woman’s Journal” Vol. 3, pages 263-264, which doesn’t appear to answer our specific acusation, but it is the best that is going to happen tonight.
What I DID find in that same Google search on the subject was lots of Mormon denials of Joseph Smith believing in “moonmen” and LOTS of excuses for him, if he did. One Mormon writer (Stephen R Gibson) went so far as to say this: “At the present time, man has no scientific or revealed knowledge of whether or not there are inhabitants on the earth’s moon. The fact that a handful of astronauts didn’t see any inhabitants in the tiny area they viewed when they landed on the moon decades ago certainly gives no definitive information…” Oh My Goodness!!!!
BTW, you did an expert job of appearing to answer the questions posed by WOZ, et al., but upon closer scrutiny, you simply skirted most ofthe questions, giving appearance of compliance. You ask the question, “Why all the speculation?” Why? Because, from the outside, Mormons give the appearance of only wanting to talk about the similarities of Christianity and Mormonism; never the differences. And the differences are Legion.
I must agree with Neil: your answer (about Jesus & Lucifer) conflicts with Biblical Truth.
Oh, BTW, I found this in Doctrines & Covenants 89:12,13 on the LDS website:
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/89
Wassup with that?
Also, the words of the prophet and founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith:
The mind of man is as immortal as God himself… God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p.615, reprinted in History of the Church, vol. 6, pp.310-ll).
What? God NEVER had the power to create the spirit of man? Hmmmm. Somehow, that doesn’t sound right. Perhaps it is out of context? It is in a thread of thought that deals with the doctrine of pre-existence leading up to the LDS assertion in Mormon theology that “a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind” (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p.157). This idea comes directly from Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon which says that the skins of the Indians became “dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression …” (Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6).
I guess it is a good thing for Africans, Indians, and South Americans that there was a new revelation, huh? In the words of the SNL Church Lady, “How Convenient!”
Re 3k+ changes. If the BOM was translated letter by letter with divine/angelic help, who exactly is to blame for the “grammatical changes”. I note that you don’t want to touch the archeology problems.
Wow, 63 comments and growing. I missed out on this and need to go back and digest it all. I do have a question to Clean Cut and some of the other LDS followers (I apologize if that’s the wrong term). There is a book called “So What’s the Difference?” I wonder if you could agree with that book?
The book describes what the author calls “Mainline Christianity” and then goes on to have a chapter on every major religion, cult, or movement. Each chapter describes what that group believes. My impression has always been that someone like yourself would agree with the chapter on LDS, as a Muslim would agee with the chapter on Islam, etc.
I have read books and movies that desribed the LDS faith and left them with the idea that they were so false that no one would agree with them. I firmly believe someone can twist the “Mormon testatment” (again my apologies if that’s the wrong words) to say anything they want.
I’ve even see writing that compared Christianity with cannibalism (after all, we eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood). “So What’s the Difference?” isn’t about twisting words like that, it’s just basic facts.
I’d be very curious of your or anyone else’s comments on this book.
Randy–I find your humility refreshing. I’ll have to the check out the book. I’m not familiar with it. I’ll look into it. However, I have read “How Wide the Divide?” by Craig L. Blomberg & Stephen E. Robinson. It’s basically a very insightful conversation between an Evangelical and a Mormon. It’s worth looking into.
Bubba, thank you for clarifying your question for me. I’ll give it a try, although I too 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).
As for you question: “What are the significant theological differences between what the Bible teaches and what the Book of Mormon teaches?”
I don’t think you’re going to find any significant differences in theology. You will find a rich reserve of additional words of Christ and beautiful clarifications and expansions of doctrine you won’t find in the Bible. But all scripture compliment one another. Are there any theological differences between the various accounts of Christ’s ministry between the various Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
I would think that any sincere follower of Christ would welcome any and all scripture that glorify and testify of the divinity and Messianic mission of Jesus Christ.
In the interest of time, let me quote from a friend who has written:
“It is a volume of scripture relating God’s dealings with ancient people in the Americas, in much the same way that the Bible is a record of God’s dealing with people in one region of the Old World. With the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a second witness (”In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” – 2 Corinthians 13:1), confirming the validity of Biblical doctrine and verifying the divinity of Jesus Christ through the inspired words of other sheep in Christ’s fold (see John 10:16).
The Book of Mormon is a complex book covering a variety of historical, religious, political, and military events in a variety of ancient communities. Much of the Book of Mormon deals with descendants of a man named Lehi, a 6th century B.C. prophet who lived in the Jerusalem area but was warned by the Lord to flee the area with his family and several other people. They would eventually be guided on a dangerous journey to the New World where a small civilization would be founded. The sacred history kept by his descendants covers a span of 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.
It provides a powerful independent witness of the reality of Jesus Christ and his divine mission. It restores plain and beautiful truths about the Gospel of Christ which have been obscured for centuries by the teachings of men. It proves that the heavens are not sealed, that truth and revelations yet remain for us to feast upon. And it indirectly confirms that the translator of this monumental ancient record, Joseph Smith, Jr., was indeed a prophet of the living God.” (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BOMIntro.shtml)
Now I can already hear the voices shouting: “We’ve already got a Bible!”
“Yes, and we should praise God for it. But didn’t God say that we should live by every word that proceeds from His mouth (Matt.4:4, Deut. 8:3)? If He has spoken more – and yet speaks more – that He wants us to know, should we not receive it with gratitude rather than stopping our ears? Hear the prophetic words of the Lord given to Nephi, near 570 B.C. (2 Nephi 29):
“…my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel;
3 And because my words shall hiss forth–many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible….
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.”
Clean Cut,
Message to me received, “Loud and Clear”.
Clean Cut:
Please address this “how shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” Deut. 18:20-22. In other words the prophecies of true prophets always come true. In Doctrines and Covenats 114 given to Joesph Smith on April 17, 1838 he says “thus saith the Lord:it is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business … that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name…” This prophecy is that David W. Patten and eleven others are going to go on a mission in the spring on 1839. Later they get a specific departure dat of April 26, 1839 D&C Section 114. Did David W. Patten go on this mission? No. Why? Because David W. Patten died on October 25, 1838. When prophecy fails, a prophet is not true. I have distant relations who are members of the LDS church, but when they and you follow a false prophet, it is clear that you are in a cult and not the church. There are other false prophecies of Joseph Smith, but let’s start with this one.
Ivan, it’s been addressed: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml
Impressive list of fulfilled prophecies…
Now that you mention it, I suppose a true prophet really should also be able to pick out the winning lotto numbers and the lucky cereal box with a prize in it, don’t you think? (kidding) I’ll try not to be sarcastic.
The most important evidence for Joseph’s divine calling as a prophet of Christ is the Book of Mormon , which is why I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
CC, your lottery analogy is flawed.
It’s not that a true prophet is able to predict everything about the future. It’s that, what he does predict, does come true. As Ivan writes, the Bible is clear that a single wrong prophecy demonstrates that a person is not a true prophet.
CC, that passage you cite is interesting for a variety of reasons. When I think of “hissing”, God is not the first figure of the Bible who comes to mind. That passage, supposedly written a half-millenium before Christ, repeatedly includes a word that is not mentioned in almost any translation of the Bible: the word “Bible” itself isn’t found in the King James, the NASB, the NRV, or any other translation found here except for the very loose paraphrase called The Message. The books of the Bible never refer to the Bible as the Bible, so it strikes me as anachronistic that this supposedly 2500-year-old book would do so. It’s almost as anachronistic as the use of Elizabethan English: the New Testament was written in common Greek, and the King James translation was written in the common language of its time, but even though Smith was a 19th-century American, it appears that he’s aping KJV English to give his writing a false sense of authority that the Bible itself never needed.
And an appeal to II Corinthians 13:1 is question begging, since A) we already have multiple witnesses to who Christ is — namely, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul — and since B) Paul never acted as if we had to wait until we heard from a lost civilization to know that Christ is who He says He is.
But, be that as it may, CC, I appreciate your answer, but it seems muddled.
You write, regarding the comparison of the Book of Mormon, “I don’t think you’re going to find any significant differences in theology.”
That (AGAIN) raises the question of, why? Why do you think God went to all that trouble to entrust that book to Smith if all it contains is “beautiful clarifications and expansions of doctrine”. It is my understanding that Mormons consider Baptists and Catholics to be not merely spiritually immature in need of an expanded doctrine, but apostates in need of correction. Hence, Mormons’ attempt to evangelize Christians. If all the Book of Mormon does is confirm what Christians already believe, why in the world do we need to convert?
But, then, apparently quoting your friend, you write that the book “restores plain and beautiful truths about the Gospel of Christ which have been obscured for centuries by the teachings of men.”
Okay then. WHAT TRUTHS? What truths have been obscured for centuries and need to be restored?
Are these truths significant?
If they aren’t, why did God go to so much unprecedented trouble to reveal/restore these insignificant truths?
Or, if they are significant, why can’t you be more forthright about it?
To be clear, CC, I’m not intending to play “word games.” Instead, I’m seeking to find an answer to a question that Christians ought to ask more often, and an answer that Mormons seem worryingly reluctant to answer: what is in the contents of the Book of Mormon that could possibly justify the claims regarding the book’s origin? The claims are so extraordinary that it seems implausible that God would go to so much trouble just to confirm what Christians had already been believing for nearly two millennia, but Mormons tend to minimize the radical differences that must necessarily exist between Christianity and Mormonism to justify the Mormon claimyous about the origins of their book.
This discrepancy between the radical theological differences that must exist and the apparently consistent effort to whitewash those differences gives me reason to pause: the neighborliness of the typical Mormon hardly ameliorates a concerted effort to be less than forthright about his faith.
–
But on the subject of semantics, it is interesting that you (and Mormons in general) refer to the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ.”
To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
The word “Testament” does not mean “testimony”.
Instead, it’s archaic definition is “a covenant between man and God,” and its etymology is rooted to the idea of a covenant, not a testimony: the Latin Vulgate, for instance, used testamentum where modern translations use “covenant”.
The Old Testament is “the old covenant”, the covenant of law that was made with Abraham and instituted under Moses.
The New Testament is “the new covenant,” the covenant of grace that was instituted by Christ.
Is the Mormon “testament” another covenant? Or does this subtitle for the Book of Mormon suggest that whoever coined the phrase didn’t know the difference between a testament and a testimony?
Hi. I am “the Mormon.” If I may, let me help correct some of your assumption of my conversation on the other blog.
First, your assumption that we believe “Mormons are Christians, but Christians aren’t Christians” is unfounded. I said that we are both Christians. We both believe in Christ, that he is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. We both believe in his atonement and sacrifice. We both believe that he died on the cross and resurrected on the third day. We both believe he ascended into heaven. These are the foundational beliefs of every Christian. Anyone who believes them is a Christian.
Neil said: I really encourage people to read the whole thread over there. You are being disingenuous here. You said, “But we do not believe that they have a fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ that will bring them into the presence of God. We say, bring all the truth that you have and let us add to it.”
So we can’t come to the presence of God with “just” the information from the Bible? Interesting. But you say we’re all Christians, right?
It is true that we can’t both be right about our differences in interpretation, but who among all the sects of Christiandom has all the same interpretations? Everyone has different interpretations. This is not what makes people Christian or not. We are Christian if we believe in Jesus Christ. If only those who have the exact same interpretation of Christianity as you are the only Christians, then Christianity is very small, to say the least.
Neil said: You are missing the key point here. I could name my dog Jesus Christ but he isn’t going to save you. Mormons preach and teach a different Jesus. It is that simple.
Why did it need to be restored? The gospel of Jesus was lost on the earth shortly after the death of Jesus Christ and the martyrdom of all of his apostles. This was because of an apostasy from the true doctrines and ordinances of Christ’s gospel. This apostasy lasted until 1830 when God restored his full gospel back to the earth through a chosen prophet, with all of the doctrines, principles, and ordinances that Christ established in the meridian of time.
Neil said: Too bad the early church historians recorded so many things so well, because that really annihilates that point. You can put together virtually the whole NT just by quotes of early church fathers.
“Christianity, on the other hand, points to reason and historical evidence.” Really? If that kind of Christianity were the case, then everyone would become Christians, wouldn’t they?
Neil said: Hardly. Read Romans 1. People will suppress the truth in unrighteousness, just like you are doing here.
It would make perfect sense to all. Paul said, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). That is not exactly “reason and historical evidence.”
Neil said: Faith is trust in something, not some wishful thinking that you teach.
As for Gal. 1:8-9, I said several times that these words do not apply to the restored gospel, because it is the same gospel that Christ himself preached. It is not a different gospel. There is only one true gospel. Churches may have more or less of this gospel, but there is not another true gospel.
Neil said: Yes, you keep saying that, but it still isn’t true. The Gospel Paul preached (which is the same one Jesus and others preached) is in the NT. The LDS gospel is different. Take your pick, but quit pretending they are both the same.
The restored gospel as found in the LDS Church is certainly not redundant. It restores all of the plain and precious parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ that were lost shortly after the first century (priesthood, baptism for the dead, temples, sealing of families, etc.).
Neil said: Then you finally agree that it is different. Good. That means you should heed Galatians 1:8-9 or don’t be surprised later.
Bryce, about reason and evidence, never mind whether Paul is the author of Hebrews, Paul most certainly appealed to evidence when, in possibly reciting an early creed, he listed the many, many witnesses to the Resurrection in I Corinthians.
And on the subject of evidence, there is no evidence that these so-called “plain and precious parts” of the gospel were at all present in the first century. There is no evidence of a discontinuity between what the Apostles preached (and wrote) in the first century and what the early church believed in the centuries that followed.
–
But, more to the point, your list of what constitutes Christianity and your list of those “plain and precious parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ that were lost shortly after the first century” miss one obvious subject: monotheism.
This is the elephant in the room that Mormons tend to downplay: Judaism is clearly monotheistic, as is Christianity, which claims to fulfill its messianic prophecies. Christianity is not a religion about which its monotheistic character is up for debate: “monotheistic Christianity” is redundant, and “polytheistic Christianity” — which I believe Mormonism claims to be — is a contradiction in terms.
It’s disturbing that you don’t even make mention of this question of whether there is one God or many. That’s kind of an important subject.
But, that said, I appreciate your honesty about some of the other radically different theological positions that are contained in the Book of Mormon that aren’t in the Bible. A radically different theology would justify the extreme measures that Mormons believe God used to restore His church, but two more things are worth saying:
1) I still believe that Mormons should not downplay the differences. If Baptists and Catholics’ beliefs are so corrupted that God had to go to such extreme measures to entrust the truth to Joseph Smith, and we’re in such dire straits that we need to be evangelized, then you do your faith no credit by pretending that Mormon theology is less radically different than it is.
2) I reject the claim that Mormonism restores Christianity, and I do so in no uncertain terms. The God I worship established the Hebrew priesthood and temple worship as a mere shadow and prelude to crucifixion of Christ: Christ came, not to replace one system of priests and temples with another, but to fulfill the old system and obliterate the need for any further priests or temples.
Mormonism is a manmade system of earthly power that misses the glorious, liberating truth of the New Testament, and it is a religion that, like Islam, has all the hallmarks of a fraud. I still have quite a bit of room to grow in my relationship with God, but I know His proverbial handwriting well enough to know a forgery when I see it.
I will also add that, if the Mormon claim that the Christian church underwent an apostasy after the first century were remotely plausible, Mormons could show how their doctrines are the necessary consequence of those first-century texts that were compiled as the New Testament. They could show that their “plain and precious” doctrines are clearly taught in the Gospels and the Epistles.
In fact, a group that argued that the Christian church had deviated in their doctrines did precisely that: we’re called Protestants, and this effort to go back to the New Testament of the 1st century and to take it “as it is” was the driving force behind the Reformation and its central doctrine of sola scriptura.
If essentially Mormon doctrine reigned supreme in the first century, Smith should have been another Luther or Calvin who simply read the Bible on his own and relayed the truth as he found. God shouldn’t have needed golden plates from a long-lost civilization: all He needed to have done was show Smith the truth that was there in the Bible. Or, in the very worst case, God should have shown Smith preserved copies of first-century Christian documents that weren’t preserved by those second-century apostates: the Pauline epistle that preceded I Corinthians (see I Cor 5:9-11) or some other epistle by Peter or John.
The claim is that the first-century Christians held essentially Mormon doctrines.
This isn’t argued from the idea that Smith read the extant Christian texts of the first century — i.e., the New Testament — and saw that these doctrines were there, clear as crystal.
This isn’t argued from the idea that Smith had a vision where God pointed out the Mormon doctrines in the New Testament, showing what had been hidden by preconceptions but is clearly there once your eyes are opened.
This isn’t even argued from the idea that Smith received from God preserved copies of first-century gospels or epistles that should have been in the New Testament, controversial texts that the second-century apostates excluded and were then lost.
No, the argument is that God gave Smith golden plates containing texts from a long-lost civilization that had nothing to do with the first-century Christian church.
If you’ll pardon the pun, this is quite an unorthodox way to demonstrate what the first-century Christians believed.
I think that it is amazing that Christians, such as yourself, will cry polytheism when even they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These three are not mentioned and referred to separately in the scriptures for no reason. And believing in them does not constitute polytheism.
Neil said: Go read up on the Trinity. Or give up on trying to pretend you believe the Bible, because it is purely monotheistic.
Do you know why these “radically different theological positions,” are not in the Bible? Because they were taken out. God had to restore them today, in their fullness.
Neil said: Pure conjecture. Unfortunately, there is plenty “left” in the Bible to refute the errors of Mormonism – http://www.carm.org/lds/compare.htm
The LDS Church is “radically different” than mainstream Christianity today. I did not deny that. It is because of how far Christianity has strayed from the doctrines and practices that Christ originally taught. But that doesn’t mean that we are all not still Christians. We believe in Christ.
The God of the Bible is one that established temples in all times and places as sacred spaces in order to worship God and to sacrifice themselves to Him. God has not stopped that today. He has restored temple practices, temple ordinances, and temple sacrifices (of self-will). The Bible itself tells us that Christ and the early Christians worshipped daily in the temple. There would be no need for that if the temple was to be done away with. Christ did not come to do away with the old system, but to fulfill it, and establish a new order of things. That did not obliterate the need for temples or priests, but changed the function of them.
The liberating truth of the restored gospel is that God has established prophets and apostles on the earth again, men who speak with God, just as he has done in every other age of the world, and has restored the ordinances of salvation. How is man to know how to act, what to do, how to worship God, and to follow his will, unless there are chosen servants who have been called to speak in the name of God, as there has been in every other age of the earth? The hallmarks of mainstream Christianity today is that God has ceased to speak, that man has to do nothing, and God will save him. There could not be a greater error.
Neil said: Well, yes, if you mischaractize it that way. Man has to repent and believe. If he really trusts in Christ, he will do good works.
We have shown, extensively, that the doctrines of the restored gospel fit perfectly into the first century New Testament texts. In fact, they fit with the Old Testament texts too, as well as others.
Neil said: Nope. You forget the monotheism thing, among others.
Even you admit that there was an apostasy in the Church after the first century, or else there would be no need for Protestantism.
The Book of Mormon was not brought forth to replace the Bible, or supplant it. It is more of God’s word, word that he revealed to prophets in another time and space. But it does help to clarify and make certain the doctrines of Christ, many of which are not so clear from the Bible alone.
Actually, God did point out the errors in the New Testament, and inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to correct them. It is called the Joseph Smith Translation. That was only part of the restoration.
Joseph Smith knew nothing about the first century Christians, and yet he seems to have produced a wealth of doctrine that fits perfectly into the milieu of early Christian texts, both biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal. The question then becomes, how did he do it?
Neil said: First, he didn’t do it perfectly. Second, if he did do it, here’s how: With help from Satan. Satan has a long memory and, as Galatians 1 said, a false angel could bring you a different message than what Paul preached and recorded in the Bible.
Clean Cut,
I’ll add “How Wide the Divide?” to my reading list (I’m about 6 books behind already). The thing I liked about “So What’s the Difference?” is that it allowed me to read the chapters I was concerned about and talk intelligently to my kids and others about the subject du jour. At the time, I was interested in ideas about LDS (I had a neighbor who was an LDS) and Seventh Day Adventists.
From what I’ve read here (and my old memories), one of the big differences is the question of who is Jesus Christ. The Son of God, Creator or created, Divine or no? To me personally, those are important questions and important differences. It’s unlikely that anything I could say would “convert” you or vice versa and it’s unlikely that a book would do so either.
I think we can agree to disagree, and both learn from each other. I would feel the same way about a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc.
As for humility, it’s unlik
The thing that amuses me about most arguments against Mormons being Christian is that they are the same arguments used by the Jews against the Church of Jesus Christ when it was first established under Peter.
Why do so many people listen more to angry people than they do to the faithful?
Frankly, I don’t care whether or not you call me Christian. It makes no difference to my faith or to my relationship with my Savior and Father. Any who are willing and interested in actually learning what I believe are more than welcome to visit me.
Hi SilverRain,
I don’t find that factual or amusing, but whatever. Not sure about your angry / faithful distinction either. I suppose we’re angry about the lies and distortions, but we are faithful as well.
SilverRain:
The thing that amuses me about most arguments against Mormons being Christian is that they are the same arguments used by the Jews against the Church of Jesus Christ when it was first established under Peter.
Let’s get two things straight:
1) Jesus’ church was not first established under Peter. It was established under Jesus, crazy as that sounds.
2) I was wondering when someone was going to try to compare Mormanism to either Judaism or Protestantism, but there is a significant difference between Mormonism and Judaism: Jewish Scriptures clearly predicts a new covenant and the Messiah. Jews and Christians don’t disagree on this promise, only on whether Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled this promise. On the other hand, the Christian Bible does not predict a worldwide apostasy and subsequent restoration through teachings from a long-lost civilization: the claims of Mormonism are whole-cloth additions to Christianity.
(Likewise, there is a significant difference between Mormonism and the Protestant Reformation: neither Luther nor Calvin claimed to be witness of divine visions and recipients of whole new scriptural texts. Instead, they simply went back to the original Scripture and took it as it is.)
No, Mormonism isn’t like early Christianity.
Instead, with its prophet claiming a unique and unverifiable revelation, who presented a whole new text whose authority supercedes the Bible, and who pays lip-service to the name of Jesus while radically redefining who Jesus is and what Jesus did, Mormonism is more like Islam than anything else.
It’s a popular but nevertheless heretical cult reacting and distorting Biblical Christianity.
I just noticed that Bryce did compare Mormonism to the Protestant Reformation. As I said, the two aren’t comparable: Luther went back to Scripture, Smith introduced new texts; and unlike Smith, Luther never claimed a worldwide apostasy that required divine intervention of a dramatic fashion.
–
Now:
I think that it is amazing that Christians, such as yourself, will cry polytheism when even they believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These three are not mentioned and referred to separately in the scriptures for no reason. And believing in them does not constitute polytheism.
First, trinitarian monotheism isn’t unitarian, but it is still monotheistic. And if you deny the doctrine of the Trinity but rather assert that there are multiple deities, that makes you polytheistic.
–
Do you know why these “radically different theological positions,” are not in the Bible? Because they were taken out. God had to restore them today, in their fullness.
Muslims say the same thing about the Bible, that it’s been corrupted and — lo and behold — their book just happens to be a perfect corrective for the Bible that they say they revere but ultimately judge in light of the Koran.
And Smith’s claim that passages in the New Testament were removed is just as unsubstantiated as Mohammed’s claim that Jesus didn’t die on the cross.
–
Ultimately, one reason I think you reject Christianity is because you don’t understand Christianity — not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but of the true good news (i.e., “gospel” ) of Jesus: that He is the one priest we need, that He made a final sacrifice, once and for all time, for all our sins…
…that when He said, “It is finished,” He meant it.
The liberating truth of the restored gospel is that God has established prophets and apostles on the earth again, men who speak with God, just as he has done in every other age of the world, and has restored the ordinances of salvation. How is man to know how to act, what to do, how to worship God, and to follow his will, unless there are chosen servants who have been called to speak in the name of God, as there has been in every other age of the earth? The hallmarks of mainstream Christianity today is that God has ceased to speak, that man has to do nothing, and God will save him. There could not be a greater error.
The age of the prophets culminated with the coming of Christ, and we no longer need human intermediaries to communion with God: the veil has been split in two, and we neither have nor need any other intecessor but Christ alone.
There are no ordinances of salvation. There is only faith alone, in God’s grace alone, provided by Christ alone through His death on the cross.
How is man to know how to act? We have the record of God’s written word, the example of the Incarnate Word, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We need no false prophets to tell us what to think, what to do, or what to eat or drink.
God still speaks, but it is no longer through human intermediaries: He became one of us, and He communicated all we need to know through His hand-picked Apostles, so that now the Old Testament prophecy can be fulfilled:
“The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.” – Jer 31:31-34, emphasis mine
And man can do nothing to save himself. God save us, through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. There’s nothing more we need to add to that, and indeed there’s nothing more we could add to that.
And there is nothing — ABSOLUTELY NOTHING — that is liberating about the denial of the free gift of grace to embrace a futile chase to earn salvation by works and ordinances, and the decision to subjugate yourself to a man-made religion and its false leaders when God Himself earnestly desires to dwell within you and to restore His relationship with you personally.
Bubba asked: “Is the Mormon “testament” another covenant? Or does this subtitle for the Book of Mormon suggest that whoever coined the phrase didn’t know the difference between a testament and a testimony?”
I’d like to see the LDS answer for that. I tried the answer page that CC recommended but didn’t see anything. I never noticed that before. The error is right there on the cover!
“This discrepancy between the radical theological differences that must exist and the apparently consistent effort to whitewash those differences gives me reason to pause: the neighborliness of the typical Mormon hardly ameliorates a concerted effort to be less than forthright about his faith.”
Just one of your many excellent points here, Bubba. That captures the theme of the post well. Disingenuousness is not a good work.
It has only recently become fashionable for Mormons to claim to be Christians. In the past, they would proudly proclaim the differences and proudly claim to be the one true church. I believe the shift in tone comes from the Mormon leadership and printing houses capitalizing on the shift towards pluralism in our (American) culture to swell their numbers.
Of course, Joel Osteen says they are Christians, so who am I to argue with that intellectual giant?
I’m a little discouraged to continue in a conversation with so much meanness, smugness, pride, attacks, and arrogance. There is no place for that among any sincere follower of Jesus Christ. Sincere questions are fine. They actually do me a favor by serving as an impetus for me to learn how to more effectively share (and if necessary, defend) my faith. But a quick rush to criticize and judge that which you haven’t paid the price to understand seems so condescending–and unfair. It seems that when you don’t understand something about us or our faith, you attack. A quiet inquiry, an anxious desire to grasp the principle behind what’s simply on the surface, could bring greater understanding and appreciation.
A recent commenter on my blog spoke the truth: “Perceptions are established one conversation at a time, and not only by what we say, but how we go about saying it. It is the manner of our communication which perhaps has the greatest impact. People often do not remember the content of their conversations, but they will never forget how they were treated.”
I’d like to paraphrase/quote a favorite post I read on “Dave’s Mormon Inquiry” about how to be a good anti-Mormon. It seems like it could be applicable here:
“Most people have better things to do with their life than to be an “anti” anything. But for the benefit of Evangelical Christians who think it’s their calling in life to become religious stalkers to Mormons and Mormonism, it is worth taking a few minutes to talk about how to at least be a good anti-Mormon (one that can one day stand confidently before God to report on their labors) as opposed to a bad one.
“My thoughts here were motivated by a post from an Evangelical who is just figuring out that the strategy of attacking another’s religion and religious beliefs does that person harm rather than good. That’s a great place to start.
“The first step to being a good anti-Mormon is to be a good Christian. This means making an effort to bring your actions and words into accord with the New Testament directives and examples you are always throwing around. Perhaps you think grace gives you some sort of free pass for your offensive actions vis-a-vis Mormons or perhaps you think you have some higher duty to attack the Mormon faith.
“If so, you’re wrong. Here’s how Jesus counseled those he sent out: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” So be more like sheep and doves and less like wolves. Which should make you more of a gentle Christian and less of an adversarial anti-Mormon.
“Second, consider New Testament examples. When Jesus visited Samaria and talked with the woman at the well, he didn’t tell her, “Samaritans aren’t real Jews; you are apostates.” No, he took her beliefs seriously and delivered his own positive message. Must have been a nice lesson for his disciples to observe. And the Jews thought even less of Samaritans than Evangelicals think of Mormons.
“Or consider Paul at Athens, who (we are told) “was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.” So did he lead by telling his Greek audience they were a bunch of idol-worshipping pagans? No, he started out with: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.” There really is no biblical precedent for the sort of aggressive anti-Mormon message and tactics employed by some so-called Christians.
“Third, try some self-criticism. Mormons are pretty good at this. Just browse around Mormon blogs and you’ll see all kinds of self-questioning about our doctrine, our history, and our religious practices and culture. It’s a sign of self-confidence. I see precious little self-criticism by Evangelicals in the many blogs I’ve visited. Maybe you’re too busy attacking the beliefs of others. Maybe you think criticism is for you to dish out rather than receive. Maybe you just feel your faith is too weak or ungrounded to survive self-criticism. In any case, Jesus commended self-criticism: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? … You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Sounds like good advice. And there is plenty of material to work with.
“Fourth, try reading a few books. It always helps to speak from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Here are a few recommendations: (1) The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by religious historian Mark Noll. (2) Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman, a professor of religious studies. (3) How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation. Since the point of the book is that the divide isn’t really so wide, this seems like the sort of thing an Evangelical ought to read before launching their own personal crusade predicated on a different perception of Mormonism.”
Here’s a better idea, CC: Stop the name-calling, write shorter comments and stop being passive-aggressive (”Maybe you just feel your faith is too weak or ungrounded to survive self-criticism.”).
Just answer the questions and quit pretending that Mormons don’t attack other faiths as being false. You are just re-proving the point of my post.
I believe that Mormonism is false and poisonous, so the loving thing is to highlight that for people so they don’t think it is just another Christian denomination. Am I gentler in person? Yes, but having scanned these comments again I think everyone has been pretty even handed. The only comment that wasn’t productive was a P.T. Barnum line pointed to Scientologists and Mormons.
Why you would recommend Bart Erhman is beyond me. He is not a Christian or a Mormon, and while conceding that we know what the original scriptures said he insists that any transmission errors are proof that the originals were not inspired.
We didn’t make quick judgments. We have read books. We have talked to Mormons – for many hours – to understand what they believe and why the believe it. We want the best for them and for those they are trying to deceive (whether they realize they are deceiving them or not).
So how about cutting out the straw men and just answer the questions and defend your faith? Or don’t. I’m OK either way. What I’m not OK with is the continued disingenuousness. It does not go in your good works category.
I love it. When gospel truth is presented, lies are shown for what they are, the defending party of the lies starts to cry about the meanness and rudeness of the attacks.
Clean Cut,
No one has attacked you personally, but presented arguments against your position. Maybe you really should listen to what they say. But alas, you have the special truth that we Christians seem to lack. BTW, Paul never tolerated those who spoke a false gospel. Here, you have been tolerated and we have made a defense for it. So to say that you have been mistreated is of your own thinking.
Blessings
Clean Cut,
BTW, the message that I received from you to me is that you thought I wasn’t genuine, humble, and only wanted to re-hash questions that you say have already been answered a gazillion times.
I’ve never had a Mormon answer my questions. I’ve only had them point to what someone else wrote.
To be able to learn from each other is to be able to dialog. My personal use of the word “dialog” is an exchange/interchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.
You said that you are discouraged to continue “a conversation with so much meanness, smugness, pride, attacks, and arrogance.” Uh, hello pot, I’m kettle.
So, here is my honest, “quiet inquiry” (if it has already been answered somewhere else, please answer it again in your own words):
Do you believe in a “Heavenly Mother?”
Do you believe that God (Elohim) was/is married?
Do you believe that Jesus (Jehovah) was/is married?
I am not concerned about the teaching of the LDS Church; I want to know what YOU believe, the common “Mormon on the street” so to speak.
I would assume that these are simple yes or no questions to ask and to answer. There is no trick involved. I really want to know what Mormons believe.
Bro. Rick, the problem is I feel like anything I say–no matter what–will be pounced on like Texas fire ants during summer yard work.
I’ll take you at your word that you just sincerely want to know, and not that it is your calling to criticize what I say. I really am just different when learning about other faiths. My love for people leads me to really want to understand the heart of what people believe–what makes them tick.
Your questions don’t fall into that category of “the heart of what I believe or what makes me tick”, but I have no problem trying to answer a sincere “quiet inquiry”–and in my own words.
Nothing has been revealed at all that would answer those three questions. There is no scripture to even to give grounds for “belief”, so anything said on those three points is pure speculation. The answer is, “We don’t know”. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I’ll share my opinion if that’s what you’re wanting me to do, but I would hope nobody would use my “speculation” as ammunition, or better yet as proof, that I’m wrong and they’re right. That’s not what I’m about. And frankly, I don’t care.
But you asked:
“Do you believe in a “Heavenly Mother?”
I think that’s a logical thing to believe. If you’re demanding a yes or no–I’d say yes. But it’s not like we teach that or emphasize that. The only other person I’m familiar with who speculated in writing was a well known poet named Eliza R. Snow. She wrote:
“I had learned to call thee Father, Through thy Spirit from on high,
But until the key of knowledge Was restored, I knew not why.
In the heavens are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason, truth eternal Tells me I’ve a mother there.”
Next question: “Do you believe that God (Elohim) was/is married?”
It would seem very logical to believe so, so I would say “yes”. I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough after we pass on how that’s all worked out. But Latter-day Saints do place a high degree of importance on marriage and family, and that families can be together forever. I think of God as my heavenly father and the human race as one big family. It would seem natural if there was a mother in there somewhere. It certainly wouldn’t offend me or lesson the greatness and grandness of God. After all, I believe that marriage is ordained of God–it’s exalting.
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a significant proclamation on the family in 1995. In part it says explains that “The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.” (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,105-1-11-1,00.html)
Your last question: (And I do hope I’m keeping these short so as not to offend Neil)
“Do you believe that Jesus (Jehovah) was/is married?”
Pure speculation. We don’t know. But for me personally, I think he very well could have been married. Anyone living there in that day and age, 33 years old and single, would probably have been considered a freak to society. But I don’t usually spend much time or give much thought to this. And I certainly don’t go out and share my speculations or teach them as doctrine. Plus, it would just bring up a lot more questions. If Jesus was married, who was he married to? And did they have any children? Again, there are no answers–just pure speculation. Some might think it would be fun to debate it, but it’s really not worth my time. My time would be much better used seeking to have more and stronger faith in Jesus and His infinite atonement.
Neil said: CC, when you open with five paragraphs of caveats and sprinkle more in the rest of the text, there isn’t much to pounce on
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that all the things that were supposedly “restored”–celestial marriage, temple work, baptism for the dead, polygamy, and so many other things about Mormonism–aren’t even in the Book of Mormon–this book which supposedly contains “the FULLNESS of the Everlasting Gospel” and which supposedly “restored the plain and precious truths” that were lost by “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327).
Yet that same Bible, which was corrupted and subverted by these awful men, is the same Bible that a Mormon missionary will show up at your door with, and quote from.
It’s also interesting, isn’t it, that God supposedly thinks it’s OK now for His “Latter-day Saints” to be considered to be of the same fold as those churches whose creeds were an abomination in his sight–as if the church in America today is any better shape than it was in 1820.
I’m surprised some LDS hasn’t made the claim that “Well, we do have Jesus’ name in the title of our organization!” OK, fine. Jehovah’s Witnesses have Jehovah’s name in their title. Do they worship God, too? How about “Christian Scientists?” They claim to be “Christian.” Are they? What about the FLDS? Same question.
The reason that Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian is because the LDS teach:
A different God (who was born of another, higher “God” and started out as a man [see King Folett Discourse; Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 3, page 8])
A different Jesus (created, not eternal; His body conceived by sexual relations btw God the Father and Mary; not begotten by the Holy Ghost [see Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18])
That everybody goes to some kind of glory (even though traditional Christianity only teaches Heaven and Hell)
That we are “spirit children” of God and existed before we were born into this world
That we can become “Gods” like Elohim
That there are billions of “Gods”
That there is indeed a “Heavenly Mother” (see Gospel Principles, page 11; Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, chapter 6, page 14).
I could go on……
Clean Cut,
Thank you for your answers. I am sincere in saying that I do not want to attack you, that is why I asked what you BELIEVE. What someone believes often differs from orthodox doctrine, but in this case, I wanted to know from a regular Mormon, not from a president or prophet. Speculation is just fine, after all, it is ALL by faith, is it not?
I appreciate your answering them plainly. You are the first one to ever answer those questions for me.
You said that this isn’t the sort of things that make you tick, so please, allow me to ask one more (not ‘yes or no’ ) that is a little more deep. It isn’t meant to be an attack, but another honest question, one that I have had for a very long time.
Here goes: If the LDS church believes the Bible, how do you reconcile the verse in Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” with the gospel the angel that Joseph Smith spoke with.
I assume the answer is that Moroni didn’t give a different gospel; that what he gave is a restoration of the gospel. If that is the case, then why wasn’t all of the truths in the Book of Mormon presented in the Bible in the first place? I say it like that because, as a Christian, my opinion is that the message of Mormonism isn’t the same as Christianity.
If that isn’t the case, then please excuse my putting words in your mouth (or comment box) and please go ahead.
That winky emoticon is supposed to be a closed parenthesis, not that silly winky thing.
Neil said: I fixed it (this is a full service blog!). That “feature” just started in the last couple days. Anytime someone puts an apostrophe or a quote symbol followed by a right parenthesis it turns it into a smiley. That’s happened to me 2-3 times and to others as well. I hope WordPress or somebody fixes it!
On July 22, 1883, Wilford Woodruff recorded the words of Joseph F. Smith in his journal. At the time Woodruff was an LDS apostle while Smith was a member of the First Presidency serving as second counselor to President John Taylor.
Woodruff wrote, “Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883, spelling left intact).
“Now there was actually a marriage [at Cana]; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified” (Journal of Discourses 2:82; 10/6/1854, given in conference).
Neil, Thanks, I’ll have to remember that in the future when commenting!
Fourpointer, wow. Was Dan Brown Mormon?
Fourpointer–great example. Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Even prophets can have personal opinions, but that doesn’t mean “The Church” teaches that or even has to believe that collectively. But that’s a separate topic. (ie: Not everything a prophet says means he’s speaking for the Lord).
Bro. Rick. I just had a late lunch and took my scriptures with me so I could read over Galatians 1 and make an attempt to answer your question. It helps to read the whole chapter so as to understand everything in context. I don’t claim to be an expert scriptorian by any means, but I don’t think verse 8 is the great stumbling block some might think it is.
As I understand it, In verse 6 Paul “marveled” that they had so quickly fallen into individual apostasy. In verse 7 he warns that there are some out there who “trouble you”–that is, they try to agitate, raise doubts, or perplex you. (That obviously is still happening!
) And they “pervert the gospel of Christ”. The word “gospel” of course means good news. The good news is that Jesus Christ has made a perfect atonement for mankind. This I too believe.
So in verse 8, to me, Paul basically says: Don’t be so easily shaken. Don’t worry about those agitators–they’ll be taken care of (or at least “accursed”). The gospel we have received, and that we teach, was received “by revelation of Jesus Christ” (verse 12)–not by man.
Well, I too believe in continued revelation. Both personal revelation, as well as revelation for the Church collectively. In fact, one of the bedrock principles (and one of the major differences between the LDS Church and others) is that the Church claims divine authority by direct revelation.
I too believe in the gospel–that is, the good news–of Christ and his great and marvelous atonement. And nobody–not even “an angel from heaven” (verse
could persuade me to not believe it. The gospel of Jesus Christ is so fundamental to all of us as Christians–those who profess the name of Christ.
Well that’s how I understand it. Take it or leave it. Sorry it’s not as sensational as some would like to believe, but I deeply believe it to be true.
You mentioned the angel Moroni. To me, these verses have nothing to do with Moroni or the Restoration of the gospel. Although I do believe John the Revelator foresaw that the gospel would be restored in the last days by angelic ministry in Revelation 14:6-7:
“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgement is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”
That is understood to be the angel Moroni, along with the Book of Mormon (which also contains the “everlasting gospel”) and is now flooding the earth. Parenthetically, the complete Book of Mormon has been translated into 80 languages. Selections of the Book of Mormon have been translated into an additional 27 languages. Almost quite literally to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.
It stands as a companion volume of holy scripture, along with the Bible which I too love so much. The Bible is a compilation, or library, of only a few of the prophetic writings that had ever been written in that geographical location. I thank God that so much was ever able to be gathered into one great book. But there were many other inspired writings that were not included when the original “compilers” compiled the current Bible as we know it.
Furthermore, God has always commanded that his prophets write holy scripture. “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). But none of those writings, whether from the old world (the Bible) or the new world (the Book of Mormon) have ever been sufficient alone for our salvation. They only point to Christ, the author of our salvation.
Allow me to use the words of another just once in my response:
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:
“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.” (http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-30,00.html)
So my faith in the Bible is not my complete faith. My faith is in Jesus Christ, and I welcome all of His words.
Again, we have a reference to the Book of Mormon being “Another Testament”, which literally means another covenant. It amazes me that this word is so thoroughly abused.
–
CC, you continue to frame the Book of Mormon as something of a “continuing” revelation, rather than as a corrective revelation. Your doing so is in stark contrast with the Mormon claims about the origins of that book, and about the Mormon claims about how the Bible is missing passages, a claim (I will note) that Christians do not make about the Old Testament. Again, the claim that the previous texts are corrupt and need correcting by a more authoritative text is not how Christians approach Jewish Scripture, but how Muslims pay lip service to the Bible.
Only correction from egregious errors — not mere “enhancement” — would justify the extraordinary lengths to which God supposedly entrusted Smith with the Book of Mormon.
And yet, contemporary Mormons seem as reluctant to talk about the seriousness of Christian apostasy as some televanglists are reluctant to talk about the seriousness of sin.
But a Christian who downplays the seriousness of sin begs a question he increasingly cannot answer: why did Jesus Christ die?
Likewise, a Mormon who downplays the serious theological differences undermines the very premise of the book they so revere.
–
Perhaps I can say it best by quoting Albert Mohler, who wrote, “Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.” [emphasis mine]
Mormon PR minimizes the unequivocal rejection of Christian orthodoxy, but this rejection is essential to the claims surrounding the origin of the Book of Mormon. This minimization is deceptive to others and unworthy of a sincerely held faith.
To put it another way, a thoroughly honest Mormon wouldn’t tell a Christian that we worship the same Christ. He would tell us that he worships the true Christ and we worship a false Christ: that’s the implication behind the accusation of apostasy that motivates the implausible origin of the Book of Mormon.
To recommend a book whose point is “the divide isn’t really so wide” is dishonest: the chasm of the claim of universal apostasy is very wide indeed.
It’s very obvious that there are differences in our beliefs and how we understand the Godhead/Trinity. People have raised questions like this since the time of the First Vision, and they continue to raise them 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.
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 our differences–in fact I’ve openly acknowledged them. But I’ll never criticize you for believing differently than me. I have no need to do that. It’s unproductive, and I think it’s been proven to be counterproductive.
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. To somehow accuse us of being dishonest or duplicitous is downright silly.
I’m not afraid to share distinctive LDS beliefs about Jesus and His redemptive mission. But nor am I afraid to explore commonalities.
The Lord’s Church will always look for more effective ways to share the gospel. But as we do so, it’s wise to remember as the Proverb states that “a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1).
We’re also taught in the Restoration scriptures (specifically the Book of Mormon) that “contention is of the devil.”
M. Russell Ballard has said: “There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs. There is no need to become defensive or belligerent. Our position is solid; the Church is true. We simply need to have a conversation, as friends in the same room would have, always guided by the promptings of the Spirit and constantly remembering the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ which reminds us of how precious are the children of our Father in Heaven.”
Clean Cut,
Thank you for the time you invested in answering my question. It appears to be considerable. Of course, what you believe is your own business. Thank you for sharing your heart.
Bubba did happen to raise a valid question that, with your permission, I would like to get your take on.
Is it your position/belief that the LDS church worships/honors/acknowledges the True Christ while the rest of Christianity worships/honors/acknowledges an apostate, false Christ?
Personally speaking, if that was my understanding of God & Scripture, I wouldn’t WANT to be identified as a “Christian”. I would proudly be proclaiming that “Mormons are different; we worship the TRUE Christ!”
“Is it your position/belief that the LDS church worships/honors/acknowledges the True Christ while the rest of Christianity worships/honors/acknowledges an apostate, false Christ?”
Of course not. My belief is simply that Christ–the one and only–built up His church “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building [was] fitly framed together”. (Ephesians 2:19-20) “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-14)
Faith in His gospel always remained to some degree, kept alive by Christian hero’s, even when there was relative “darkness” during the Dark Ages. So I recognize and honor all good Christians who sincerely strive to follow and serve Christ (not just with their mouth and lips, but with their heart)–then and now.
However, His Church, with Jesus as the head and with other officers named, beginning with a foundation of apostles and prophets, and including teachers, saints, elders, evangelists, bishops, deacons, priests and high priests (John 15:16, Mark 3:14-15, Ephesians 2:19-20; 4:11-14) is another story.
CC,
Then am I to imply from what you just said in the last paragraph, that the LDS church is the true church and all the rest of Christianity is the apostate, false church?
Oops – I typed that wrong. I meant “are you implying or am I to infer”.
As for the use of the word “testament” and “covenant”—well, please, we’re not THAT ignorant.
One of my personal favorite books is called “Christ and the New Covenant”, by Jeffrey R. Holland. He clearly explains how we understand the word:
“To help his sons and daughters remember their promises to him—and certainly to help them remember his promises to them—God has directed that the nature and significance of those covenants be recorded. In that process, the texts and documents preserving such promises have also been called “covenants”. In fact, the words “testament” and “covenant” are virtually synonymous in their theological usage, the Latin definition of “testamentum” being “a covenant with God, holy scripture.” Thus, the Old and New Testaments, as we commonly refer to them, are written testimonies or witnesses(the Latin “testis” meaning “witness”) of the covenants between God and man in various dispensations.
“Furthermore, such covenants always deal with the central issue between perfect, immortal God and imperfect, mortal man—why they are separated and how they can again unite. The Latin root for “covenant” is “convenire”, “to agree, unite, come together.” In short, all covenants, all testaments, all holy witnesses since the beginning have essentially been about one thing—the atonement of Jesus Christ, the “at-one-ment” provided every man, woman, and child if they will but receive the witness, the testi-mony of the prophets and apostles, and honor the terms of that coming together, that “convenire”, or covenant, whose central feature is always the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God himself”.
“But even with repeated efforts to teach these truths and reaffirm these promises, God has not always seen his children turn to the gospel of his Son. In our own day he has said, “The whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin.” By and large the modern world has not come unto him, has not accepted the atonement of Jesus Christ, has not received the voice of his prophets, has not made covenants or kept his commandments, has not remembered him always or claimed the promises of exaltation in the kingdom of heaven.
“So he has offered us one last covenant, given us one last testament, as part of his final outreach to fallen man. He has offered us one last written witness of his love and his mercy extended for the final time, speaking dispensationally”
I would submit that this is one reason why the Lord told His church to “Remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon” (Doctrine & Covenants 84:57).
Bro. Rick,
One of the hardest public relation “sells” of the Church is that it is “the one true Church”. That’s not a light position to take. I believe the Catholic Church makes the same claim. One thing that I’d like to clarify is what that statement does NOT mean. It certainly doesn’t mean that all other churches are completely “false” or that you’re not sincere followers of Jesus. (Great discussion about that, by the way, at http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-only-true-church-does-not-mean.html) You know, as well as I do (I visited your blog), that you have much truth and that God has supported you in doing a great work. I do, however, think you are missing out on more—in short, the “fullness” of the gospel.
Anyone would error to put the focus on the wrongs of other churches—again there’s no need for that. In fact that would be very, very arrogant. Plus, truth is truth—it speaks for itself–and it will stand up to any scrutiny. So there is no need to tear anybody else down to lift oneself up. We humbly and gratefully proclaim our message. It is a bold claim. And it is either true, or it is not. It is what it is. And if it is true, than it is to be celebrated.
If you, as a pastor, were to believe in the message of the restoration then the reality is that you would need to find another line of work. We have no paid ministry. But I do believe God calls multiple people—including you—to do His work right where you are. Latter-day Saints can’t do it all alone.
A respect for the diverse beliefs and unique contributions of all the world’s faiths remains one of the hallmarks of Mormonism. From the earliest days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith elevated the principle of religious liberty and tolerance: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” (Articles of Faith 1:11).
In that same spirit, Church President Thomas S. Monson made a plea during our most recent general conference, a semiannual worldwide meeting, for more religious understanding: “I would encourage members of the Church wherever they may be to show kindness and respect for all people everywhere. The world in which we live is filled with diversity. We can and should demonstrate respect toward those whose beliefs differ from ours.” Latter-day Saints accept all sincere believers as equals in the pursuit of faith and in the great work of serving humanity.
Emphasizing God’s love for all people, not just those of one religion, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the First Presidency, the highest governing body of the Church, declared: “We honor and respect sincere souls from all religions, no matter where or when they lived, who have loved God, even without having the fulness of the gospel. We lift our voices in gratitude for their selflessness and courage. We embrace them as brothers and sisters, children of our Heavenly Father. … He hears the prayers of the humble and sincere of every nation, tongue, and people. He grants light to those who seek and honor Him and are willing to obey His commandments.”
“Anyone would error to put the focus on the wrongs of other churches—again there’s no need for that. In fact that would be very, very arrogant.”
CC, your comments have had an endless stream of conflicting statements. If you don’t know what you believe, that is fine. If you know it, then please share it directly and put it out for debate.
But for a Mormon – whose very enterprise was founded on the myth that the real church had vanished and the current ones were in error – that is an amazing statement. Remember that Smith said he must “join none of them [other sects of Christianity] . . . they were all wrong . . . all their creeds were an abomination in [God's] sight . . . those professors were all corrupt.“
But based on your comment he was being very, very arrogant.
But I wouldn’t call him arrogant. If he thought he was right and had the facts to back it up (he doesn’t), then more power to him.
You keep re-proving the premise of my post: the LDS church thinks it is different and unique, but uses a highly disingenuous approach to appear to be orthodox. If you want to be part of orthodox Christianity, then please, please join us. If you want to stay in the LDS organization then do that. But please quit pretending we’re the same.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Thing is, when Joseph Smith said that the creeds of all the other sects were “abominations,” he was indeed condemning the members because they were following those creeds. And guess what? Those are the same creeds we Christians follow today. Yet now it’s OK to follow those creeds.
I read the article CC linked to, and found it to be just so much more LDS double-speak. The problem is, in order to soften their image, and to make it appear that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc, weren’t hostile towards other faiths, they must go against what those early Mormon “prophets” declared.
Like John Taylor– “Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its [Christianity] pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167).
Or J.S. Jr. himself–”…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.” (Prophet Joseph Smith, The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60)
How about Brigham Young–”The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God.” (Journal of Discourses 8:171)
Even President Benson jumped on the bandwagon–”This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth…” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165)
So you see, over the years, nearly every Mormon president/prophet/authority has condemned orthodox Christianity–and by association all those who were of the various Christian denominations–as heathens, apostates, demons, tools of the devil, etc and that salvation could only come from belonging to the LDS.
No matter how much sugar-coating Robert Millet, Jeff Lindsay, Thomas Monson, or whoever else tries to use, there is no escaping the fact that the LDS church has always looked at orthodox Christians as belonging to the church of the devil, and calling us as such. Which is why Brigham Young said:
“I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is antichrist.” (JOD, 9:312).
“In fact, the words “testament” and “covenant” are virtually synonymous in their theological usage”
I would tend to agree, and in that case it leaves the LDS looking rather foolish. There is no hint of a “another testament” in the Bible and even if there was we are back again to the doublespeak highlighted in the post.
Jesus’ words didn’t fall away. The word of God is living and enduring (1 Peter 1:23). There are hundreds of thousands of Bible quotes in early church writings. If writings existed and were then lost they would have been quoted as well.
I am convinced that CC is a really nice guy. I think he’s trying to give readers a hard sell on Mormonism, yet he’s having some serious problems. He doesn’t know what he believes, and doesn’t know what the Mormons believe. There are so many circles, contradictions, and general squirminess, it’s like trying to pin down air. There is so much indeed, I can not trust what he writes.
The BoM is such a contradiction to the Bible that it is repulsive to read the quotes.
People speak about how “close” Mormonism and Christianity are, yet a great, uncrossable chasm divides them. The deities have the same names, yet they are completely different beings. With that, it makes no sense to continue comparing them at all.
Yes, I would wager that CC is indeed a nice guy, though having viewed his website I’m not buying the “gosh, I just don’t know . . .” schtick. He has obviously studied his faith a lot. Nothing wrong with that, unless you present yourself otherwise.
You are right that the deities have the same names but are completely different beings. I just came across this link highlighting changes and discrepancies in LDS writings – http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no110.htm .
Here is one quote from Joseph Smith:
“Joseph Smith laid out his doctrine of God in his sermon delivered at the LDS Conference on April 7, 1844, often referred to as the King Follett Discourse. While the sermon was printed in its entirety in the 1971 April and May issues of the Ensign, quotes since then have been kept to a minimum. In that sermon we read:
My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is . . . God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. . . . I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; . . . it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. . . . Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, . . .”
And let’s not forget that now Salt Lake City doesn’t even believe the Bible contains the “fullness of the everlsating gospel” (From Deseret News):
Another change in the book’s introduction may be of interest to those who question whether Latter-day Saints are Christians, but church officials declined comment about when that change was made.
The second sentence of the introduction in many editions says the book is “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.”
The 2004 edition produced by Doubleday for non-Latter-day Saints omits the phrase, “as does the Bible.” A church spokesman declined comment on when the change was first made or an explanation of why.
I’ve summed up for Mormons the reasons to why Mormonism is not Christianity.
1. It contradicts the Bible and the early beliefs of the Christian church fathers (Apostles).
2. It is a book that is not backed up historically or archaeologically therefore cannot be true revelation.
3.Mormon prophets made false prophecies and therefore are not prophets from God as the book of Deuteronomy ascribes.
4.Mormon belief contradicts itself within its own religious books and doctrines.
5.It does not celebrate Christ as the name above all names the Kyrios, and the Alpha Omega(The Most important reason).
If any Mormons would like to keep this discussion up, I’d prefer it over email (shoot me a line over my blog).
I’ve skimmed through the comments and tried to read most by CC. It seems that we all agree. The Bible and the Book of Mormon do seem to have different doctrines. For instance, whether Christ was a spirit child of the Father, or if he was indeed part of the Creator, the eternal state of marriage -Jesus claimed that there was no marrying in heaven (Matthew 22:30), and the whole doctrine of salvation by grace vs. salvation by works.
However, the LDS will claim that it is because the original testament has been corrupted. Okay, aside from the fact that this is terribly convenient (Did God really say?), let’s look at this claim.
Like Neil stated earlier, there were many historians outside the realm of Christianity and the writers of the NT that can verify many things about what has been said. Also, I do believe in the preservation of God’s word, simply that it is available to all men. As Proverbs 1 says that wisdom cries aloud in the streets. Wisdom does not hide for almost 2 millennia. Yes, there is the Protestant Reformation, but as Bubba points out, it was a matter of getting back to the Word, not some new revelation.
I think the burden is on LDS to prove that the Bible was indeed corrupted. You have one man claiming his own version vs. numerous scribes who have no vested interest in Christianity whatsoever.
Also, let’s look at the doctrine of salvation by grace. Has this doctrine been corrupted? If there is no salvation by grace, why did Christ die for us? You can claim that this doctrine has been corrupted, but it fits too well with the Old Testament. Although God can appear different between the OT and the NT, the core of Christianity seems to fit with the OT pretty well.
So in summary, we say the Bible has not been corrupted. You say it has. We who have faith in the Bible disagree.
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 (Where in the Bible does it say that all religious truth is found in the Bible?) 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
“A more productive question than “Don’t you believe in a different Jesus?” would be “What do you believe about Jesus?”"
Hi CC – I completely disagree, and I think that disagreement sort of some things up (at least until tomorrow, when I examine the saved by works topic again).
Clean Cut,
I agree that not all Mormons believe every single thing, nor do they all march in lockstep with Salt Lake City. I have read comments on other blogs from Mormons who even question the Book of Mormon. So I certainly agree with you on that. I hope I have not put words in your mouth or ascribe to you things you do not believe. If I have, I apologize. What I have tried to do is show you that some things you about the LDS church itself–its history, quotes from earlier Mormon leaders–which you may not have been aware of.
However, I would have to disagree with you about your statement–It would be absurdly contradictory to say on the one hand that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation (Where in the Bible does it say that all religious truth is found in the Bible?) 2nd Timothy 3:16 says, “from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Obviously, Paul is talking about the Old Testament, since much of the New Testament had not even been written yet (neither had the Book of Mormon).
As far as “A more productive question than “Don’t you believe in a different Jesus?” would be “What do you believe about Jesus?”” In fact, what you believe about Jesus determines which Jesus you believe in. 2nd Corinthians 11:4–”For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached…you may well put up with it!” If someone preaches “another Jesus” then they are not preaching the true Jesus, which, in turn, means they are not preaching ANY Jesus, but rather an invention of man.
[...] Also see But they are so nice! and Are Mormons really Christians? Are Christians really Christians? [...]
It’s been interesting to re-read some of these comments. Fourpointer made the last comment ” If someone preaches “another Jesus” then they are not preaching the true Jesus, which, in turn, means they are not preaching ANY Jesus, but rather an invention of man.”
What needs to be mentioned is that I could essentially say the same thing about you. How much of your belief about Jesus has been influenced by the historical creeds where the nature of God seems to be “an invention of man” rather than what was originally preached by the prophets and apostles?
I suppose we’ll always be at a stand still if both sides feel that there are equal amounts of verses in the Bible which support their belief (be it the Trinity or the Godhead). We each feel that our belief is fully biblical. I suppose this would be an interesting point to explore–if it could ever be done so as to be mutually respectful and to gain an education of how we understand our beliefs rather than to win an argument or prove how wrong the other side is. I certainly could use more of an education…
Clean Cut:
I suggest you look into Judaism, considering Christianity derived from that faith and is infact an extension of Judaism, you’ll find that they do not believe God is three beings. The Jews are so adement in this belief they recite the Shema before their deaths, “Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one!” They do not hold God as multiple beings. Christianity clearly carried this tradition, suggested reads, “How on Earth did Jesus become a god?” by Larry Hurtado. One thing he points out is, the early Christians were not persecuted by the Jews simply because they believed Jesus is another god (because there were many pagans of that day) but because they put Jesus equal to YHWH.
Clean cut:
If you want an education without a fight feel free to email me. I’d prefer to do it over the email to keep others from perhaps making a fight about it.
Hey Brooks. I actually don’t see your email listed on your blog, and I’m not registered with WordPress so I can’t “log in” to leave a comment on your blog..
Brooks,
Jesus is NOT another god. He is God. That is the point of the Trinity. All three godheads are fully God, and One, but distinct in their persons, of the same essence as one another. Not three personalities, or modes, but persons. All three are equally God and the fullness dwells in all of them.
Clean Cut:
My email is spectrert1@hotmail dot com.
Timothy:
Where did I say that Jesus is not God?
OOps, sorry, misread you. I thought you were agreeing with what the Jews said about Christ. Sorry about that.
Timothy, do you already know or would you be surprised to know that Latter-day Saints could make the exact same statement of belief that you just said:
“Jesus is NOT another god. He is God. That is the point of the Trinity. All three godheads are fully God, and One, but distinct in their persons, of the same essence as one another. Not three personalities, or modes, but persons. All three are equally God and the fullness dwells in all of them.”
This is indeed enlightening, because I could have fully and sincerely typed the same above profession of belief as you and it would stand for all “Mormon doctrine”. Interesting. (I know that we still could interpret things differently, but I find it interesting how those could very well be my words too).
Clean Cut,
Sorry, but I don’t have time for you. You know that Mormonism is not Christianity, as has been made clear here. If you will not heed other writers here, I do not expect you to heed me either.
Mormonism is not “Traditional Christianity” for sure, based off the tradition of the protestant reformation. But “instead of saying that we are “not Christian,” which is an obvious falsehood by any rational, widely accepted definition of the word Christian, let us agree that Mormons are “nontraditional Christians.” We’ll live with that label quite happily, because it’s true. We are Christians, but nontraditional ones. And if we ever become traditional, we’ll have no reason to exist as a separate religion!”
http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/lets-call-mormons-nontradition.html
Neil said: Cute sound bite, but a faulty premise. You worship a different Jesus than the one in the Bible. End of story. Just more disingenuousness on your part in trying to say you are the same as us, all the while wanting to convert real Christians to your false religion.
Oh, we Mormons may consider all yous apostate and maybe even corrupted. But we still consider you “Christians.”
Sporting of us, no?
And one more thing – wasn’t the “evil spirit” argument used somewhere before?
Oh, wait! I got it!
The wicked Pharisees used it to explain away Jesus Christ. Jesus himself was accused of having a devil.
So I guess we Mormons are in good company eh?
Seth, that is a rather deceptive set of statements. If you consider me a Christian then why do your adherents not leave my door when I tell them I’m a Christian?
I encourage you to repent and believe in the real Jesus, not the fictional Jesus of Mormonism. They are not the same person.
Joseph Smith and the rest of the LDS church preach a Gospel different than what Paul did. That’s a real problem for you, unless you think this passage doesn’t belong in the Bible:
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Neil, being a Christian is nice and all. But it isn’t a free hall pass or anything. You seem to think that just get the “Christian” label is like a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Where on earth did you get that crazy idea?
Just being “Christian” doesn’t mean your religious situation is all set. You still belong to a misguided and apostate faith tradition. You are also without the required Priesthood authority.
But you’re still “Christian,” rest assured.
And no, Mormons do not preach a gospel different than the one Paul taught. We just preach a different gospel than the one that you guys have twisted from Paul’s words.
There’s a difference.
Just because you don’t like my statements doesn’t mean they are deceptive. It just means you don’t like them.
Seth,
Well, that’s progress if we both think that Paul preached the real Gospel, even if we think the other has misinterpreted him.
Feel free to point out the differences between what you think Paul preached as the Gospel and what I preach as the Gospel. Please note chapters and verses regarding where you think I am mistaken.
And then explain why one would need the Book of Mormon plus all the Mormon doctrine not in the book of Mormon in addition to what Paul preached. After all, if they don’t represent a different gospel then they are redundant. If they do represent a different gospel then we’re back to Galatians 1:8-9.
“Neil, being a Christian is nice and all. But it isn’t a free hall pass or anything. You seem to think that just get the “Christian” label is like a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Where on earth did you get that crazy idea?”
I got it from Ephesians 2:8-9 and a bunch of other places, including where Jesus said, “It is finished.” I do good works in response to what Jesus did for me and by his power, but they are not what saves me. The label doesn’t save anyone. Trusting in what the real Jesus did instead of your “good deeds” is what saves.
“After all, if they don’t represent a different gospel then they are redundant.”
You could say the same thing about the four Gospels in the New Testament. Why have four when just one will do? Are you going to lodge a complaint with God that he’s being “redundant?”
Neil said: The four Gospels are in the Bible, as you noted. The Book of Mormon is not. That is a big difference. The BoM does not meet the qualifications for canonization. Not even close. And most of your false doctrines are not even in the BoM, so you need to explain how they were inspired as well.
Remember, your claim is that we are apostate and that you are the real Christians. So if your book is merely redundant then what is wrong with just using the Bible?
The Book of Mormon is an additional witness of Jesus Christ. In my view, you can never have too many witnesses of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon stands for the proposition that God will deal with people in other parts of the world besides just a tiny strip of land on the eastern Mediterranean. God will remember his children in every corner of the earth.
Neil said: Jesus – who is the eternal God, unlike the LDS “Jesus” – already addressed that in Matthew 28.
Nowhere does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible.
However, it does clarify on several points and it does add above and beyond what the Bible does.
Paul’s statement you quoted only speaks of contradicting the Gospel of the Bible. It says absolutely nothing about adding to it, or continuing it. That is, of course, if you think that Paul’s statement was, in fact, referring to the entire Bible, and not just that specific epistle.
Neil said: Just re-read the verses. It said a “different” Gospel, not one that was necessarily contradictory. Adding works to the Gospel, among other things, makes it a different Gospel.
My own personal view is that Galatians 1:8-9 does NOT refer to the entire Bible. It only refers to that specific epistle – in which case, it is silly for debaters to use the passage as a condemnation of anyone who adds to the scriptures – since it would then have to condemn several parts of the New Testament as well, as “adding something different” to what Paul preached in Galatians.
In which case, we would have an instance of ripping a Bible passage out of context – just like I’ve heard people do with Rev 22:18. People use that passage on us all the time too, forgetting that quite a bit of the New Testament was compiled after Revelations. But fortunately for the compilers of the Bible, Rev 22:18 is obviously referring to the Book of Revelations only.
That’s the problem you run into when you overreach and try to make particular scriptures have more of a universal and exclusive application than they really do.
Neil said: Actually, your problem is that you dodged my request. Please don’t post again until you either withdraw or back up your claim that you interpret Paul’s presentation of the Gospel properly and that Christians do not. Again, please note specifically where you think I have misunderstood Paul and where you get the Gospel right and where mine is an apostate version.
Also, you twisted my use of Galatians 1. I agree with your comment on Revelation, but that isn’t the issue here. The Galatians verses couldn’t be more clear: Preaching the same Gospel is good and preaching a different one is bad. You claimed that you properly interpret Paul and are preaching the same Gospel and that we do not. Now is the time to back up your words.
Neil. I have two things to say. One, I hate going in circles with trying to make a productive comment only to be met with this “different Jesus” bunk. It seems to be a dismissal and puts us right back at square one. Will we ever be able to progress to a conversation that will promote better mutual understanding of how we differ in our understandings of the Trinity? Wouldn’t this be the next best route to go?
Neil said: No, it wouldn’t. You are begging the question. Calling the “different Jesus” thing “bunk” doesn’t prove anything. We have demonstrated that Mormons believe in a different Jesus. Christians say Jesus is the eternal God and part of the Trinity. Mormons say “Jesus” was created. And on and on. I realize you don’t like it, but that is the truth. No, we can’t progress from this because you won’t acknowledge the truth.
Second, I really don’t feel like I have all the right answers here, but I’ve been wondering what Seth might say in response to your last comment about backing up the statement that what you believe/teach is different than Paul. I know that you disagree, but simply because you disagree with me doesn’t mean that you’re right and I’m wrong. For one so into having “proof”, there are few things I feel have been proven at all in this strand, one way or the other.
Neil said: We now know what Seth will say: Nothing.
But I’ll take a stab in the dark and perhaps try to share my personal opinion about how you differ from Paul. You’ve brought up the “works” issue here several times. I don’t think you share Paul’s understanding of works at all. You seem to dismiss them entirely. Paul never did that. He was only dismissing those who felt that the works of the Law of Moses could save them, as opposed to relying and trusting in Jesus.
Paul very rightly and necessarily needed to come down hard on people who trusted in the Law of Moses and teach them that they could only be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ–not the “works” of the Law of Moses. You seem to dismiss “good works” altogether, which have little to do with the Law of Moses.
Neil said: You are mistaken. Take a look at my calendar, my checkbook and the rest of this blog and you’ll see. Works are important in response to what Jesus has done for us, but they don’t save us. If you think you are right you need to be educating your fellow Mormons, not me, because they are the ones who teach the works-based salvation.
Not only do I think you misunderstand Paul’s perfect understanding, but I know for sure that you misunderstand the Mormon understanding of works–because it’s the same way that Paul. I think you have been suckered into believing that Mormons think that their works can save them and put an emphasis on works so to gain salvation. That is flat out wrong.
Neil said: You’ve pointed to exactly zero verses to back your claim and to zero things I have actually said. I haven’t been suckered by anything, but if I had it would have been done by all the Mormons I’ve talked to and all the Mormon literature I’ve read.
Mormons believe to the “T” everything Paul actually said. We believe EVERYTHING originally written down to the prophets and the apostles. Nothing in the Bible wrongs contrary to our doctrine. I think your understanding of Paul’s original meaning is probably very good, and mostly correct. But there are some things, such as this understanding of “works” as meant by Paul, in which I feel you are blinded by your own learning and do not quite understand together in your mind and in your heart.
Neil said: You gave zero facts, just your opinions. Duly noted. Please save the rest for your blog or to correct your fellow Mormons.
One thing that would be helpful to know is whether the folks here follow the Arminian or the Calvinist tradition.
If you’re Calvinists, then I would say the entire T.U.L.I.P. is a misread on the Bible. That would be the best example I could come up with.
If you’re Arminians, then the waters are a bit more muddy, since the Arminian tradition is much closer to Mormon belief.
Another example would be the rejection of priestly authority and continuing scripture and revelation. But here, I should clarify. I am not just claiming that traditional Christianity has fallen away from what Paul taught. I am saying it has fallen away from the overall Gospel that he stood for. So I’m really not interested in getting into a limited debate over Paul alone. I’m talking about the overall Gospel that he represented – the whole thing.
We have Arminians and Calvinists here.
“So I’m really not interested in getting into a limited debate over Paul alone.”
So you aren’t interested in backing up your claims then. Since you have not even attempted to show that you understand Paul’s view of the Gospel properly and we do not, and that your interpretation is no different than what the BoM and all the other LDS writings say, then please do not comment further. Either that, or retract your claim and admit that you have no Biblical evidence for it.
My point was never about Paul alone, but about the Gospel that he stood for, which is presented by the Bible. I have already suggested above some ways in which Protestants generally have twisted that Gospel. If that’s not the turf you wanted to play on, I can’t help you much.
Neil said: You said, “And no, Mormons do not preach a gospel different than the one Paul taught. We just preach a different gospel than the one that you guys have twisted from Paul’s words.”
I asked you to back up that bold and specific claim with scripture and examples. You have neglected to do so despite multiple requests, so I can only assume it was fluff on your part. Please stop wasting my time posting here.
But actually Neil, I think you are the one dodging the points I’ve made and refusing to really address them.
You attack the Book of Mormon because it is “doctrinally redundant.” I respond that so are the four Gospels and there is no reason why we should prohibit God from making the same points in different records. Then YOU move the target, and assert that the Book of Mormon is not in the same league with the four Gospels – an utterly irrelevant assertion to the point at hand. You then appeal to some artificial criteria for canonization that your own faith tradition made up, and which I do not accept. This does not answer the question either.
Neil said: I addressed your point and will do so again. I didn’t attack the BoM for being redundant. I said it is either different or it is redundant. If it is redundant, then by definition I don’t need it. I’ll just stick with the Bible, thanks. But of course if you concede that it is redundant then why have the BoM PLUS all the other LDS teachings and why go door-to-door to convert people like me?
If it is different, then Galatians 1:8-9 applies. Be warned!
I find your artificial canonization criteria comment amusing. Do you really find it so odd that the early church determined that writers must have been Apostles of Jesus or their direct companions, for example? Not a gold plate in the bunch, either.
So I don’t really feel like I’ve been answered either.
It would also be nice if you would allow my statements to stand on their own, without inserting your own editorializing. But whatever. It’s your blog – your rules.
If I’m annoying you, and you don’t want to continue, I’ll be just fine bowing out. I do not wish to overstay my welcome.
Neil said: Backing up your claims with scripture would have been nice, but you don’t seem to want to or be able to.
Seth writes:
And no, Mormons do not preach a gospel different than the one Paul taught. We just preach a different gospel than the one that you guys have twisted from Paul’s words.
Neil rightly points out that this implies that the Book of Mormon’s redundant, and Seth seems to miss the point:
You could say the same thing about the four Gospels in the New Testament. Why have four when just one will do? Are you going to lodge a complaint with God that he’s being “redundant?”
Here’s the key question, which I outlined earlier, and which hasn’t been adequately addressed, so far as I can tell: if the Book of Mormon is redundant, why do Mormans claim that God went to all that trouble to entrust that book to Joseph Smith?
As I wrote earlier, Mormonism’s central historcial claim about the origin of the Book of Mormon LOGICALLY REQUIRES that that book have radically different contents.
Neil, another way in which you deviate from the gospel as originally taught (by Paul and others) is that you put all your stock into the Bible alone. The original Christians never did this.
Because of your genuine passion and love for the Bible, you declare that there can be no more authorized scripture beyond the Bible. In thus pronouncing the canon of revelation closed, you shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the ongoing guidance received by God’s anointed prophets and apostles. “We respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity.”
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? Wouldn’t that just have been redundant? 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.
Neil said: CC, that is one big red herring. It doesn’t matter if you ask those questions humbly or not. The Canon is indeed closed, and even if it wasn’t the LDS scriptures don’t hold up to scrutiny. They are from Satan.
Did you notice how Seth can’t back up his claim about Paul? And neither can you. I don’t mean to be rude, but please come back when you can. All your issues were answered in this thread already and I get tired of repeating myself. You worship a different Jesus.
This is just childish baiting Neil. “They are from Satan?” Is that the best you can do?
Neil said: They are from the real God or they are from Satan. They are not from the real God, because they differ wildly from the Bible – the nature of Jesus, whether we lived before coming to earth, baptism of the dead, works-based righteousness and so much more.
And your constant abuse of editorial power to edit our posts is really obnoxious. It’s almost as if you’re afraid to let an opposing viewpoint stand for itself. Instead you have to vandalize it, so that none of your readers risk being persuaded.
Are you really that insecure?
Neil said: Please stop whining. Really. I don’t “edit” your comments in the sense of changing a single letter. I just post mine inside yours. I do that sometimes to save time and make it easier for people to follow the discussion. If you don’t like it, there must be at least 10 or 12 other blogs out there to choose from.
OK, since you seem to have missed my attempts to answer you earlier, here it is in big bold letters, so you can’t possibly miss it:
RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHERE YOU’VE MISINTERPRETED PAUL:
(was that obvious enough for you?)
Neil said: No, it isn’t. Keep reading and you’ll see how you didn’t back up your claim. You shifted to a new claim and pretended that you’ve been backing it up all along.
You are reading Galatians 1 as a blanket statement against an open canon. This is a prime example of a gross perversion of Paul’s original mission and meaning.
Neil said: That isn’t my claim at all. It is your distortion of it. Your Gospel is the same, or it is different. We aren’t even talking about the Canon. Even if the Canon wasn’t closed, your Gospel would have to be the same as Paul’s. It isn’t. You have a different Jesus, among other things.
Paul would probably be disgusted with your attempts to drag a single scriptural verse out of context and re-interpret it as a gag-order on God almighty.
Essentially, what you people are doing is telling God to shut up, because you are happy with the Bible you already have. Heaven forbid you should have to process any additional content from Him.
Well, news flash – God isn’t done talking.
For thousands of years, you have a record of God speaking to his people.
Neil said: And how do we determine if it is really God? We test it in light of existing scripture. The same scriptures the LDS claim to believe.
And then suddenly, for no apparent reason, he goes on a permanent siesta? Really?
If the Book of Mormon holds some repetition of doctrine, that is only because those passages bear repeating – because they are important. But, as it so happens, the Book of Mormon does have original content. It clarifies the Bible in many respects. 2 Nephi, for example, is actually one of the best commentaries on the book of Isiah available.
And you’re going to say that just because of your pet-read on a single word – “different” – God has to shut up and not trouble you with anything new?
Who gave you, or anyone, the authority to declare the canon closed? Because it certainly isn’t in the Bible, and never is a closed canon endorsed by Paul.
Traditional Christianity has a lot of explaining to do. Why did God stop talking to you guys?
Neil said: You have got to be kidding me. Once again you failed to back up your claim:
In dramatic fashion, you pretended that the real claim was a single misinterpretation of Paul regarding the Canon. But re-read your own comment that you have once again failed to support: It is about the Gospel Paul taught and your claim Mormons get it right and we don’t.
Your “explanation” just brings in a new topic, the Canon. It is a red herring and a straw man argument as well. Galatians 1:8-9 wasn’t a presentation of Paul’s view of the Gospel, it was his warning not to preach a different Gospel. It presupposes that he has already made the Gospel clear. So your Canon comments, as flawed as they are, don’t back up your claim at all.
The point you have once again failed to address is this: What, in the LDS world, is Paul’s Gospel, and what is the Gospel we are preaching? How are they different? Using Paul’s words, show me the “real” Gospel and then using my words (or some other authentic Christian) and explain where I disagree with it. You claim to preach Paul’s Gospel and so do we. You claim that you get it right and that we do not. So prove your claim from his words.
That was your claim, and you have done nothing to back it up except change the subject over and over.
P.S. I’ve tried to be patient with you, and have given you more chances than you deserve. You are now on moderation so your comments will not appear immediately. And if you don’t finally back up your claim they won’t appear at all.
P.S.S. Your whole Canon bit is a straw man as well. You use it to accuse us of preventing God’s communications, but that is just a disingenuous claim designed to avoid proving why Joseph Smith and whoever else participated in your “scriptures” should be considered authoritative. Just because someone says they are from God doesn’t mean that they are. I’d be glad to address that in more detail if/when you ever back up your original claim.
Your rudeness is incredible Neil. I think I would have moved on long ago if not out of a feeling that I don’t like to have my words so twisted. You did have some credibility at one point, but you lost that when you exposed your ignorance in greater measure than ever before by saying that the cannon is closed and that LDS scriptures are from Satan. How wrong you are.
Neil said: Now that’s an odd thing for you to say. This post was dormant for 2.5 months before you started up the comments again. In the mean time you sent unsolicited emails with your Mormon message. And now you’re back saying we twisted your words. Indeed.
Your other claim: “You worship a different Jesus.” We’ve already talked about that. I must agree that you worship a Jesus born out of your historical tradition (ie: the Niceane Creed and the Trinity). I worship the true and living God, revealed in all ages of time, including to Paul.
Neil said: Then you aren’t a very good Mormon. Paul believed the OT, just like Jesus did, and it is clear that there is one God. Pauls was also clear that Jesus is God.
Yes, this then will now be the fourth thing that I’ve listed to back up the very bold (and accurate) claim that “Mormons do not preach a gospel different than the one Paul taught. We just preach a different gospel than the one that you guys have twisted from Paul’s words”. Paul never taught the Trinity. There’s no proof for it in the Bible because it’s not a true doctrine.
Neil said: Yes, he did teach that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (e.g., Colossians 2). I assume you aren’t using the fallacy that just because the word “trinity” isn’t specifically used that the concept isn’t there.
You might hate me for saying it, but that’s the truth. There is plenty of Biblical evidence and evidence in modern revelation that there are three distinct individuals who are so entirely at one–and whose complete work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Neil said: Who said I hate you? Spare me the ad hominem attack.
f hope you can change from being so stubborn in your ways and so close minded that you can’t recognize God’s voice as he speaks–not “spake”.
Neil said: Sigh. So it is my stubbornness and close mindedness that are the problem, eh? You realize that I could say the same thing to you, right? But I don’t, because it means nothing.
Neil,
It’s interesting that they keep appealing to the canon and it still being open for their claim. The thought just occurred to me that the reason they do this is that they don’t see God’s word as still alive and well, as a two-edged sword. They fundamentally believe that more revelation is necessary because the 66 books of the Bible wasn’t enough.
Yet, one of the comforting aspects of the Scripture is knowing that it is enough for all that we need to know about God and our salvation. No additions are necessary. When the true gospel is proclaimed, we ARE hearing from God. We ARE hearing Christ. He is speaking to us in all that we need to know for faith and salvation.
Just a thought. Keep up the good work. You are FAR more patient that I was… CC came over and it took two of his posts for me to say “take a hike.” But alas…
You asked how the gospel you advocate is different from the one Paul advocated. I pointed to Gal. 1.
A crucial part of the Gospel message is the idea of continuing communication from God. I pointed out how you have misused Paul’s words to deny this important and central reality of the Gospel.
Neil said: Uh, got any verses for that “central reality” or “crucial part” bit? And even if you can find some that are part of the Gospel message, you still have to demonstrate that I don’t believe those verses (good luck with that). Then you have to demonstrate why LDS materials are from God. Even if God wanted to make further revelations in writing doesn’t mean that Smith’s qualify. There are many, many reasons to believe that the BoM and other LDS literature are false teachings and not revelations from God.
As far as I knew, I answered your question.
Unless I’m just not getting what your question means. That’s also possible, I suppose.
Neil said: Not even close. You distorted your argument. You disorted my position. And you continue to introduce a combo red herring / straw man fallacy.
Remember, here’s your argument:
You haven’t demonstrated what gospel the Mormons preach. And you haven’t demonstrated what Gospel we Christians preach. And you haven’t used Paul’s words to explain your view or any differences.
Your red herring / straw man is the whole Canon / “still speaking” thing. If you’ll check out the theme verse of my Bible Study Blog you’ll find this:
So I am quite on board with the concept that God still speaks through his word. The Holy Spirit is alive and active. You just beg the question and assume that Joseph Smith’s works are also God’s words. Not even close.
And again, even if they were his words, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate what is so important about the new revelations that we must know.
I suggest moving on, as this stopped being fun a while ago.
Very well Neil. Best wishes.
Sorry that I don’t seem to get what you are asking for.
No problem, Seth. Best wishes to you as well.
Peace,
Neil
Some quotes from our LDS friends:
Clean Cut—
Mormonism is not “Traditional Christianity” for sure, based off the tradition of the protestant reformation. But “instead of saying that we are “not Christian,” which is an obvious falsehood by any rational, widely accepted definition of the word Christian, let us agree that Mormons are “nontraditional Christians.”
Neil. I have two things to say. One, I hate going in circles with trying to make a productive comment only to be met with this “different Jesus” bunk. It seems to be a dismissal and puts us right back at square one. Will we ever be able to progress to a conversation that will promote better mutual understanding of how we differ in our understandings of the Trinity? Wouldn’t this be the next best route to go?
The fact that “Mormonism isn’t ‘traditional Christianity’” is not “based off the tradition of the protestant reformation.” Mormons isn’t ‘traditional Christianity’ based off of the Bible! I do not say that out of hatred, but from the Scriptures. How can I say that? Because the LDS system teaches a Christ that is completely different than the one we see in the Bible. And yes, as many times as you try and call yourselves Christian, you are going to be “met with this “different Jesus” bunk.” Because you do teach a different Jesus. You teach a Jesus that, at one point in time, did not exist. When it is quite clear from the Bible that Jesus IS ETERNAL. Romans 1:20–”For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” Now, since Jesus IS God–He is ONE with the father and Holy Ghost–we can see from this verse that Jesus is eternal. There was NEVER a time when Jesus did not exist.
As far as your statement “Will we ever be able to progress to a conversation that will promote better mutual understanding of how we differ in our understandings of the Trinity? Wouldn’t this be the next best route to go?” CC, we DO understand how LDS differ in their understanding of the Trinity than what the Bible shows us. That’s why we keep having to go round and round about it. We keep showing you, over and over again, why the LDS version of the Trinity is blasphemy.
Seth said, Oh, we Mormons may consider all yous [sic] apostate and maybe even corrupted. But we still consider you “Christians.”
That just doesn’t make sense. How can one be an “apostate” and still be “Christian?” See, this is one of the problems that arises when LDS use the same words as Christians, but apply different meanings to them. If one claims to be “Christian” but is apostate, chances are that person never was a follower of Christ to begin with, and most likely isn’t now. However, LDS use the word “apostate” to describe those of us who do not believe Joseph Smith had anything to do with any “restoration” of the gospel, and reject the LDS Christ and the LDS gospel.”
And that is a product of the LDS spin machine—to call us “brothers” and “Christians” in one sentence, then turn around and call us “apostate” the next. The LDS “scriptures” and “prophets” condemn the non-LDS even while they tell their members to say we just believe differently, and to seek “better understanding” of each other—which, if you read between the lines, means that we need to accept Joseph Smith as a “prophet of God” and accept the LDS “gospel” as being the true gospel, and reject everything we know to be true.
Mormons can go on all day saying how we Christians are Christians—and that will not change one whit the fact that we will never call Mormons Christians. Why? Because they’re not. And no, it would not be “the best route” for us to compromise on the truth and call you Christians. Why? Because it goes against Scripture. 2nd John 9-10–”Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God…If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him.”
Jesus is not a “created” being in Mormon theology either. At least, not in the way traditional Christians mean it.
Fourpointer, I do wish that you wouldn’t say that the doctrine I’ve described to you is not biblical. It is biblical. There are verses in the Bible which describe God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son standing next to each other. I realize that I interpret some verses in the Bible differently than you do, but that doesn’t make my interpretation non-biblical. It just means that we’re interpreting certain scriptures differently. We both think we’re right and that our beliefs are fully biblical. I’m okay with agreeing to disagree. But the Bible supports the doctrine of the Godhead.
One other thing I’ve learned from this discussion is that Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints are not saying the same thing when we talk about being “Christian”. Ya’ll seem to be hearing that when LDS say that we’re Christian, you think we’re saying that we’re just like you and believe in the Trinity just like you, as well as a majority of Christianity. But we all know that is not true, and therefore, because we don’t believe that the Father , Son, and Holy Ghost are physically ONE, we believe in a different Jesus. That’s fine, and I understand it, but when LDS say that we’re Christian, we’re not saying any of those things at all. We’re simply saying we believe in Jesus, both as the God of the Old Testament and the Messiah of the New Testament, and that we strive to follow Him as true disciples. We also believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ONE in almost every way, except physically.
We’re not minimizing our differences with Traditional Christianity or with evangelicals. But we object that evangelicals hold a copyright on “Christianity” and therefore anyone that does not believe like them are not Christian. Latter-day Saints believe we hold to biblical Christianity and original Christianity, but not the Christianity born out of the reformation.
Neil said: Yes, you are minimizing the differences. This is tiresome. You don’t hold to full biblical Christianity. You pick and choose what you like to support your false doctrines. Feel free to join in on another post if you like.
Wow all these words on this blog, yet what has been accomplished? The Mormons still believe in their faith and the “Christians” still believe in their faith. Has anyone switched positions? Just accept the fact that we both believe in Christ, or a Savior. Is that so hard? If it’s the wrong Jesus, then let that all be sorted out in the hereafter. Speaking of that, I would suppose that the “Christians” believe Mormons are going to hell, afterall Mormons are “devilish” and “cultish” . Mormons believe “Christians” will get exactly what “Christians” say they are seeking…eternal life as angels signing praises to the Lord, Jesus. I’d say that’s a pretty benevolent belief system on the part of Mormons…that’s why I’m willing to let this sort itself all out…no need to convice anyone on this blog.
Hi Steve,
You mean we’re supposed to be accomplishing something here?!
Remember, debates aren’t always about getting your opponent to switch. Mormonism is a tough thing to leave.
For you to say we both belief in “Christ” misses the point of the discussion. We agree that we’re using the same vocabulary, but the dictionary is different.
My primary aim is to share bits with other Christians or undecideds so they can see for themselves what the differences are. If Mormons ever convert, that is gravy.
[...] I really appreciated his candor, especially in contrast to the kind of responses I got on Part I. I can see that we do double speak, trying to stand on both sides of the line and often feint [...]