Mormon Coffee

Over the last month Beliefnet.com has sponsored an online debate between LDS author Orson Scott Card and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Dr. R. Albert Mohler. As I was reading some of the debate today, one bit from Mr. Card’s argument posted on July 11th caught my attention. While acknowledging that Mormonism and “traditional orthodox Christianity” differ dramatically in their theology, Mr. Card wrote:

“I wish Dr. Mohler would take the tiny, tiny step of saying, not that Mormons are right, but that a person can believe as a Mormon does and still do good works in the name of Christ, that would be acceptable to Christ by that clear, bright standard:

“Even as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

Mr. Card’s biblical quote is from Matthew 25:40. It’s part Jesus’ teaching concerning His future final judgment.

To me, Mr. Card’s request of Dr. Mohler seems unfair. If he had asked Dr. Mohler to agree that people who believe as Mormons still do good works which help relieve the suffering of the poor and needy, Dr. Mohler would likely have been willing to take that “tiny, tiny step.” But Mr. Card goes beyond that and asks Dr. Mohler to assent to the claim that those same good works would be acceptable to Christ — in the context of judgment and salvation. This question ties into theology and is a different matter entirely.

Jesus’ words cited by Mr. Card are directed at “those on His right hand” (v. 34), set there by Christ and identified by Him as “the righteous” (v. 37). They didn’t even realize they were serving Him as they went about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (vv. 37-39). Without getting into an extended exegesis of the Matthew passage surrounding the verse cited by Mr. Card, a commentary note on just the verse he chose says this:

“25:40 the least of these My brethren. Christ’s disciples (10:42; 12:48, 49; 18:14), not the poor and needy in general. The judgment of the nations depends on how they respond to Christians and the gospel (10:40-42), not only because it is through the testimony of Christians that the Gentiles can hear and believe (Rom. 10:14), but also because Christ identifies with His people. Their suffering is His suffering, and compassion shown to them is compassion shown to Him.”

Elsewhere in Scripture God explains the universal condition of unredeemed man:

“but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies; your tongue mutters wickedness…. Their works are works of iniquity, and deeds of violence are in their hands.” (Isaiah 59:1-6)

“We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” (Isaiah 64:6)

“as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;
no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.’ ‘Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.’ ‘The venom of asps is under their lips.’ ‘Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.’ ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.’ ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’” (Romans 3:10-18)

If the Scripture is true, it’s foolhardy to imagine that our “good works” would be “acceptable to Christ” in the context of salvation. How dare we think that we, whose hands are defiled and whose “righteous deeds” are polluted by our iniquities, will merit — by virtue of our “good works” — a place with the “righteous” at the right of Jesus. Given the clear teachings of the Bible, Dr. Mohler would not be free to take the “tiny, tiny step” requested by Mr. Card. Yes, a person believing as a Mormon may do “good works [from a human perspective] in the name of Christ,” but that’s as far as we can go. For Jesus said,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:21-23)

Hear the Word of the Lord.

Related Resource:
One Door to Salvation by Charles H. Spurgeon.

Comments (30)

The state of West Virginia offers financial aid to students via various funds and scholarships. One, PROMISE Scholarship (Providing Real Opportunities for Maximizing In-state Student Excellence), is described on its web site as “a merit-based scholarship program designed to keep qualified students in West Virginia by making college affordable.” As reported in The West Virginia Record,

“A West Virginia University student is suing a state scholarship board, claiming his constitutional rights were violated when his scholarship was taken away because he chose religion over education.

“David Isaac Haws, a 21-year-old Mormon student from Bridgeport, is the subject of a lawsuit filed in federal court July 19 by the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit claims the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission and PROMISE Scholarship Board violated his First Amendment rights to freely exercise his religion.

“Haws claims he was refused a deferment of his PROMISE scholarship when he chose to serve a two-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

After being awarded the PROMISE Scholarship in 2004, Mr. Haws attended the West Virginia University for one year, maintaining a 4.0 GPA. At the end of that academic year Mr. Haws requested a scholarship deferment so he could go on a two year mission for the LDS Church. His request was denied in accordance with scholarship rules. He appealed the board’s decision in August of 2005, losing the appeal.

“The suit says Haws was then forced to choose between his education and his religious calling.

“‘This was a hard decision for Mr. Haws,’ the suit says. ‘But his devotion to Jesus Christ came first, so he chose to serve his mission.’”

Mr. Haws made an admirable choice. After weighing his options and their consequences, he decided to take the road less traveled. He chose commitment to his church over money.

But now Mr. Haws is suing the state scholarship board.

“Haws seeks a declaration that the actions of the boards are unconstitutional, illegal and void. He seeks immediate reinstatement of his scholarship and all the rights and privileges he had when he completed the Spring 2005 semester. He also seeks attorney fees, court costs and other damages.”

To put Mr. Haws’ claims in some sort of context, the PROMISE Scholarship allows for leaves of absence for those requiring family medical leave, bereavement leave, military leave, and unforeseen leave. In other words, it allows for leaves for things outside of the student’s control. In addition, the Leave of Absence Policy states:

1. Personal Leave

The PROMISE Board does not wish to grant personal leaves of absence for any reason.

When Mr. Haws began his college education with the PROMISE Scholarship, the Leave of Absence Policy was in place. When he decided to voluntarily leave school at that particular time in order to serve an LDS mission, he understood that decision would require him to give up the scholarship.

Okay, these are the facts as reported in the media. The courts will decide whether Mr. Haws’ claims have merit. But I’m interested in what you think.

Do you think Mr. Haws’ First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion was violated by the scholarship boards’ decision?

Comments (19)

A couple of weeks ago the Vatican released a document which reaffirmed its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. In the mass of media coverage following the release of this document, one Canadian newspaper column caught my attention.

Paul Albers is a freelance columnist in Ottawa who also happens to be LDS. Using the controversy surrounding the Vatican’s reaffirmation as a springboard, Mr. Albers wrote an opinion piece for the Canada Free Press in which he takes issue with evangelicals who delineate doctrinal differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, and who make an effort to proselytize Mormons. He wrote:

“An industry has developed among Evangelicals that is focused on attacking other denominations, branding them as ‘cults of Christianity’ just for disagreeing with some of the conclusions they have reached about Christian doctrines. Individuals and businesses in this industry make their living selling books, movies and presenting speeches on the perceived evils and errors of their targets. Their hit list includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists and The Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-Day Saints (also known as the Mormons).

“As a practicing Mormon, I find it amusing to see their consternation at the Pope’s words when it is impossible for us to hold a single General Conference, temple dedication or religious pageant without Evangelicals showing up insulting and desecrating what we hold sacred in protest of the mere existence of our faith. In 1998 the Southern Baptist Convention decided to hold their national convention in Salt Lake City specifically to target Mormons for conversion. Mormons generally shrug these stunts off, supporting the right of all religions to conduct missionary work, but I can’t help but wonder how Evangelicals would react if Catholics began showing up at their events with anti-Protestant placards and pamphlets.”

I can’t speak for all evangelicals, but I recall a discernment conference I attended a few years back. Some folks from a group identified within the conference as heretical stood outside the building handing out opposition pamphlets to conference attendees. The evangelical response was to dialog with these folks, invite them in for lunch, and allow them to attend — and address — the conference session that covered their specific faith group.

At any rate, Mr. Albers offered this advice to Catholics and Protestants alike:

“Those who want to proselytize others to their faith would do better to concentrate on making the case for their position rather than going on the offensive against what others believe. They will likely be more successful that way as well…

“Freedom of religion is undermined by churches that spend their resources trying to tear down other religions, spread misinformation about them, or foster contention between faiths.”

I thought Mr. Albers’ advice surprising in light of teachings from the LDS Church’s last General Conference. Consider these:

Offensive against what others believe: “The knowledge of God and His physical separateness from His Son and the Holy Ghost was lost after the death of Christ and His Apostles. Confusion and false doctrines about the Godhead were fashioned out of the Nicene Creed and Constantinople councils…I know that heaven-sent revelations have replaced the gross errors of man-made doctrines concerning the Godhead.” (Gary J. Coleman, “Mom, Are We Christians?” Ensign 5/2007, 92, 93)

Misinformation: “When the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he became aware of the divisiveness among the clergy concerning the nature of Deity. In an attempt to overcome this he gathered the eminent divines of the day to Nicaea in the year 325… When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made. It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and it’s basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Things of Which I Know,” Ensign 5/2007, 83)

Fostering discord between faiths: Speaking of the organization of the LDS Church, “Thus the Church of Jesus Christ was again in existence on the earth to bless mankind with the doctrines and teaching of the Savior… the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth…you can compare the glorious message with what you may hear from others, and you can determine which is from God and which is from man.” (L. Tom Perry, “The Message of the Restoration,” Ensign 5/2007, 88)

As readers of Mormon Coffee know, I don’t have a problem with the LDS Church pointing out differences between the doctrines of Mormonism and the doctrines of other faiths. Freedom of religion is not “undermined” when the LDS Church asserts that its doctrines and organization are true, which results in an implied proclamation that faiths in disagreement with Mormonism are not true. The problem I have is with the double standard I see so often coming from Latter-day Saints.

In his column, Mr. Albers was the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. I would like him to keep this in mind:

During their time in the mission field, most Christian missionaries around the world seldom find it necessary to discuss Mormonism (or the other religions on Mr. Albers’ list). The Christian missionary message begins with, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The Gospel message moves on to discuss the remedy for man’s eternal peril, Jesus Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Contrast that with the Mormon missionary message which begins with the Restoration: full spiritual truth and authority were not to be found on the earth — all religions and all Christian churches were wrong — but in 1830 truth and authority were finally restored and now can be found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Every Mormon missionary kicks off his or her “gospel presentation” with a direct offensive against every non-LDS church. But it’s evangelicals who are chastised and accused of undermining freedom of religion.

Comments (30)

“This documentary examines the roots of Joseph Smith’s legacy, and its modern-day fruit. We follow the compelling testimonies of nine former fundamentalists, who shed light on this practice and lifestyle which has been shrouded in secrecy since the earliest days of Mormonism; but more importantly, they share the true freedom they have found in the Jesus Christ of the Bible.” Alternate links: Google Video (recommended), YouTube, Brightcove, blip.tv, Quicktime (268 MB). More information on this video is available at Living Hope Ministries. Related article is available here.

Comments (8)

The following are the words of Joseph S. Peery, published in Improvement Era (Vol. XVII. September 1914 No. 11):

We will receive the salvation we earn and no more.

Now one would think that the good Christian editors of Improvement Era would have issued a retraction of Peery’s words. One would have hoped that the readership would have voiced loud opposition and that the LDS church leadership would have immediately recognized Peery’s statement as completely opposed to Mormon doctrine.

But it was not so. They let the calamity continue for over fifteen years.

Same author, published in Improvement Era (Vol. XXII. November 1918 No. 1):

The Heaven We Get Will be the Heaven We Earn

Many people seem to be satisfied with baptism, thinking thereby they will get to heaven. It is true that baptism is the door to the Kingdom of God, but there are various degrees in that kingdom. Paul compares the degrees to the sun, moon and stars.

Heaven will be strictly a merit system. We get what we earn. That is all we are entitled to. Should we send up no good works, by what right can we expect a good place? If we make the Celestial degree, it will depend upon our works. It will not be attained through indifference. Things worth while are won by effort.

The Lord is a good pay-master. It is a great privilege to be in his service, and those who decline this opportunity will certainly have intense regrets. They may lay up for themselves treasures on earth, but these treasures all perish with death. President Young said, “I am for life everlasting.” He attained his aim.

Will I get a mansion or a dug-out? That depends on what I earn.

Same author, published in Improvement Era (Vol. XXII. January 1919 No. 3):

Through the wonderful atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, all mankind will rise from the grave sometime-the body and spirit will be reunited constituting the soul of man. However, all will not rise at the same time nor go to the same place. It will be a merit system that Paul compares to the sun, moon and stars.

Same author, published in Improvement Era (Vol. XXV. December 1921 No. 2):

Through the atonement of the Savior all will be resurrected from the grave, but our exaltation depends on merit. We get what we earn, and that is all we are entitled to receive.

Same author, published in Improvement Era (Vol. XXIX. April 1926 No. 6):

The heaven we get will be the heaven we earn, but, to earn a good place, we must have the help of the Lord continually. In all our works, we must remember of ourselves we are nothing. We must pray for God’s guidance and assistance, in all that we do, for his Spirit to lead us, and to the Lord we must give the praise and glory forever.

Same author, published in Improvement Era (Vol. XXXII. October 1929 No. 12):

Every day is a judgment day and the heaven we reach will be the heaven we earn. Through the atonement of the Savior, all will be saved from the grave, but our exaltation will depend entirely upon merit.

The most severe optimist would hope that Joseph S. Peery was simply an exception, but unfortunately, many more in Mormonism, even those esteemed amongst “the Brethren”, have promoted this same kind of merit-system doctrine.

In Understandable Religion, John Widtsoe, apostle and popular church educator, taught that getting what we earn was “a universal principle, valid from economics to religion, on earth or in heaven”:

We must pay the price for whatever we obtain. If we do something, we receive something; if we do nothing, we receive nothing. That is a universal principle, valid from economics to religion, on earth or in heaven. The price may not always be great, but it must be paid. Only as the price has been paid can we claim to own our possessions. Only as the price is paid, and to that degree, can we expect the joy which is the objective of existence. Paul says that Jesus bought us “with a price.”

To pay the price means self-effort. But, by that price we gain increasing strength. There is no gain of inward power, if we live wholly on the bounty of others. They who do so become enfeebled, and ultimately valueless to themselves and to society. They are drones in the hive, who have no claim on the honey gathered by others. That could well be written on the souls of men.

They who set out deliberately to avoid the payment of the price, are agents of the evil one. His plan has always been to move men as pawns towards unearned satisfactions; to loot and steal from the hard-earned store of others. That plan spells retrogression, and eventual dissipation of all possessions, and the cessation of life in our universe. There can be nothing worse.

The principle of paying the price is, of course, merely a phase of the universal law of cause and effect, a law which is in full operation in the material and the spiritual domain. Every occurrence has a cause behind it. If the lightnings play in the heavens, or a hoop rolls down the hill, or a brick be lifted to the top of the wall-it is the effect of some cause. Take causes away from nature and life, and there would be no effects. A stagnant universe would be reduced to flat inactivity and ultimate death…

In reality, this doctrine means that we earn and must earn what we get. Salvation must be earned. The plan of salvation is of value to us only as we conform, actively, to its requirements. It has been so throughout the eternities of existence. The spirit of man, seeking progress, has toiled and striven to rise towards his high destiny, the likeness of God. The privilege to come on earth was earned by him. Earth-life was not forced upon him, nor did he receive it as a gift. That doctrine lifts man into the position of kingship. He has labored and won. His battle has resulted in victory. He has the right to walk among kings. This is one of the great doctrines, often forgotten, laid down in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of paying the price, or earning what we receive, does not imply hardship. On the contrary, the gospel teaches clearly that we are to have joy here on earth. “Men are, that they might have joy.” True, we are surrounded by forces which we must overcome; but man has been given power to overcome them, and to make them his servants. Increased power and courage come with every new subjection of opposing forces. The very act of conquest gives joy. Men, who set out fearlessly to pay the price, labor in the light of the sun, and find abiding joy in their tasks.

The common teaching of Christian sects has been that man is born to sorrow and suffering; and that he must wait for joy until death has brought him into that other, spiritual, world. This has been an evil doctrine. When a person believes that he must walk through life in sorrow, his eyes are likely to be on the ground. Discontent and fear are in his heart. He is tempted to forget to pay the price. Labor and toil are looked upon more and more with distaste. They become punishments imposed for some previous, forgotten sin. Idleness and sensuous hours, played up brightly by the evil one, rise in desirability. He surrenders to the appetites of the flesh. Or, he falls into a state of hopeful faith, dreaming of some poorly described future, in another world. This doctrine, which destroys the normality of life, has caused untold human misery, of body and mind.

On the other hand, the man who believes that he is born to find joy, but must win it by earning it, walks through life with head up, and a steady, fearless heart. To him labor brings joy; idleness begets sorrow. He feels that to overcome obstacles, to resist evil, will bring happiness on earth, and eternal joy hereafter. They who so believe cast off the cares of life. At the end of the day they take the deep breath of satisfaction. Their sleep is sound, and they awake refreshed.

The difference between the two doctrines is that between truth and untruth, between light and darkness. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in full opposition to any doctrine which does not require man, and provide him with the means, to earn his way daily, to earthly and heavenly joys.

Elder Nelson D. Hogan, in the 1920 October conference:

I believe, my brethren and sisters, that we will get everything we earn. If we are faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord and that which he asks us to do, we will get the blessings for these things; and, on the other hand, if we are neglectful and careless and indifferent, and do not the things that the Lord has required of us, we cannot expect to get something for nothing. I often think of it this way, that if we start to work for a man, we generally know what we are to get out of it. We know just about what the wages will be, and if we are faithful in performing our duty, we will get a full pay. On the other hand, if we are careless, indifferent, lie around part of the time, when we come to get our pay, we will only get a part pay, and that is all we will ask for. I believe it is the same with the gospel. We know what we will get out of it, if we are faithful.

Elder Henry D. Taylor, in the 1971 October conference:

All the effort and struggle and sorrow will be well worth it, for we will earn the greatest of all gifts, the gift of eternal life.

Victor L. Brown in the 1969 October conference:

It is a period of probation during which we earn our place in the eternities. The Lord said of this: “And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation (D&C 29:43.)

Richard O. Cowan in Church in the Twentieth Century (p. 282) wrote:

As we are obedient to the commandments of the Lord, we earn the right to live with him forever in the celestial kingdom.

Published in Improvement Era (Vol. Xliv. August 1941. No. 8.):

Full benefits of the Gospel are secured only by living up to the requirements. The Gospel plan is so arranged that each member receives his reward in proportion to his efforts and his observance of the principles. No member is deprived of his blessings because of the failure of someone else. As individuals we earn our own rewards and blessings.

Bruce McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, p. 408:

What then is the law of justification? It is simply this: ‘All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations (D. & C. 132:7), in which men must abide to be saved and exalted, must be entered into and performed in righteousness so that the Holy Spirit can justify the candidate for salvation in what has been done. (1 Ne. 16:2; Jac. 2:13-14; Alma 41:15; D. & C. 98; 132:1, 62.) An act that is justified by the Spirit is one that is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, or in other words, ratified and approved by the Holy Ghost. This law of justification is the provision the Lord has placed in the gospel to assure that no unrighteous performance will be binding on earth and in heaven, and that no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing.

Joseph F. Smith in Journal of Discourses, v. 20, p. 30:

[E]very man and woman will receive all that they are worthy of, and something thrown in perhaps on the score of the boundless charity of God. But who can justly expect to obtain more than they merit?

I reject all these quotes and I call upon all Mormons to repudiate them as tragic, gospel-denying, damnable heresy. It is not enough for Mormons to say they are emphasizing or focusing on grace more than Mormonism traditionally has. Nor is it enough to say that God graciously assists us in our earning and meriting the eternal life we receive. One must recognize this merit-system doctrine as altogether nothing less than gross heresy. The grace of Christ is just too precious to demand anything less.

Grace and peace in Christ, from whom I receive free spiritual welfare checks instead of earned, merited paychecks (Romans 4:4-8),

Aaron

—

Addendum for clarification: When it comes to individual rewards beyond salvation, eternal life, and forgiveness, I don’t have any problem with the theology that people receive rewards according to their works. I very much believe that people will have different starting points in heaven with different capacities of joy and even dominion. But no one redeemed in the age to come will be stuck. The redeemed will ever-increasingly grow from that starting point of joy. The problem I have with Roman Catholicism and the mainstream sect of Mormonism is that they ascribe a role of individual merit in earning eternal life, forgiveness, and salvation.

The Cincinnati Enquirer online recently published an article about various topics related to Mormonism. A sidebar to the article, titled “What they believe,” included this bullet point:

” There is no trinity. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate entities.”

It struck me as odd that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were described as “entities” rather than as “Gods.” It looked to me like the information in this sidebar was supplied by the LDS Church. In fact, at the bottom of the box the newspaper had helpfully supplied a link to the official LDS web site intended for non-member investigators of the Mormon faith, mormon.org.

Following the link I went to the mormon.org glossary and looked up “Trinity.” The word wasn’t there, but why should it be? So I looked up “Godhead,” which said,

“Our Father in Heaven; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost.”

As I explored the mormon.org web site further, I couldn’t find any explanation that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were recognized within Mormonism as Gods; only Heavenly Father was identified as a God.

So I looked at the lds.org web site under the section titled “Core Beliefs: Why and How are Mormons Different?” Regarding the Godhead it says:

“Trinity

“Among the most important differences with other Christian churches are those concerning the nature of God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Together, these form what is commonly referred to as the Holy Trinity in many churches and as the Godhead by Latter-day Saints…

“The Godhead

“The Trinity of traditional Christianity is referred to as the Godhead by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the same terms are used by Latter-day Saints and other Christians for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), Latter-day Saint understanding of the three members of the Godhead is significantly different from that of traditional Christianity.”

Following this paragraph on lds.org is a short definition of each member of the Godhead; again only the Father is identified as a God.

The Cincinnati Enquirer article, typical of many articles I’ve seen, suggested traditional Christianity rejects Mormonism because Mormons believe Jesus visited America and because Joseph Smith claims he was visited by an angel. I’m sure these concerns appear fairly minor to most people. Many never get a glimpse of the bedrock separator between Mormonism and Christianity: one true God vs. many true Gods.

The LDS Bible Dictionary states:

“God.

“The supreme Governor of the universe and the Father of mankind…

“When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times…is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God….The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, etc.”

We can argue till the cows come home about whether the Christian Trinity or the LDS Godhead is the true representation of God/the Gods as He/They really is/are, but what is really disturbing me about this is the avoidance of the LDS Church in publicly stating — clearly and candidly — what it really believes and teaches about the nature of its Gods.

When the LDS Church describes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as “separate entities” it is not being overtly deceitful, but neither is it being entirely honest according to the Church’s own definition of honesty. In 1994 the official LDS magazine, Ensign, ran a series of articles about the Ten Commandments. The article dealing with the ninth commandment, bearing false witness, said,

“Thus, the ninth commandment is a strong declaration against covenant breaking, oath breaking, and all forms of untruth, including exaggeration, gross understatement, fabrication, or the willful giving of any explanation not supported by the facts. Even sharing the truth can have the effect of lying when we tell only half-truths that do not give a full picture. We can also be guilty of bearing false witness and lying if we say nothing, particularly if we allow another to reach a wrong conclusion while we hold back information that would have led to a more accurate perception. In this case it is as though an actual lie were uttered…

“Lying and misrepresentation in all of their forms are wrong, no matter how they may be rationalized, and those who silently let these evils pass unchallenged are also doing wrong…

“All that we know of our Heavenly Father and his kingdom teaches us that nothing false is acceptable to him—not lying, not withholding the truth, not manipulating facts in our favor. All such actions are unworthy of his children, and unworthy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who was our beacon of truth. We must be true witnesses at all times and in all things and in all places (see Mosiah 18:9) if we would be among those that our Lord and Savior will count as his own when he comes again.” (Robert J. Matthews, “‘Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness’,” Ensign 10/1994, 53)

Since a foundational and essential doctrine of traditional Christianity is the belief in and worship of one true God, the LDS doctrine of belief in three true Gods for this world and worship of at least two of them constitutes a very critical distinction. If this doctrinal divergence was more widely known, I think people would recognize and better understand why Christians resist identifying and accepting Mormonism as a Christian faith.

That increased foundational knowledge of this difference between Mormonism and traditional, orthodox Christianity would be good for the Christian church, a welcome change. But perhaps such widespread knowledge and understanding about the Mormon Godhead wouldn’t be as welcome within the LDS Church.

Comments (42)