Mormon Coffee

From Ligonier Ministries:

“On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed ninety-five theses to the castle church door in Wittenberg, Germany, which addressed the abuses of the sale of indulgences and provided the catalyst for the Protestant Reformation.

“Martin Luther is one of the more important figures in Western history, as his thought has impacted family life, politics, church-state relations, individual liberties, and a host of other societal issues. His powerful expositions of the Gospel remain one of his most important legacies. In an era when the Gospel had been eclipsed by a system of human merit, Martin Luther and the other reformers were able to remind the people of God that we are declared righteous in the sight of the Lord through faith alone in the person and work of Christ Jesus.

“The widespread acceptance of watered-down doctrine and uncritical ecumenism in our day demonstrates how we cannot take biblical teaching for granted. Luther was willing to die if necessary for the biblical Gospel, but many today simply ignore the doctrine of justification through faith alone by grace alone because of Christ alone. This year, let us remember the work of our forefathers on Reformation day and strive, as they did, to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).”

When it comes to standing firm for the Gospel, may God’s people echo the words attributed to Martin Luther:

“I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

Levels of Happiness in Heaven (MP3) - A seven-minute reading of Jonathan Edwards by John Piper

Eric and I had an interesting conversation on Sunday, October 7th, over Skype with a Mormon named Jason who lives in Utah. He runs a web site dedicated to Joseph Smith and is a committed Mormon. We talked among other things about the nature of God, eternal progression, and marriage. Our discussion on marriage brought out something I thought was worth sharing. We spoke to Jason about the views of Paul and Jesus on marriage, specifically on it being better, if possible, to remain single than to get married (cf. 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19:9-12). Eric asked Jason what he thought of Paul’s teaching and how he thought these passages might fit into the Mormon worldview (which not only values marriage but also centralizes it to the point of being mandatory for all who can enter into it). Jason was apparently unprepared for this question, especially over Paul’s admonition to remain single for the sake of single-minded devotion to God. It’s quite OK that Jason hadn’t considered 1 Corinthians 7. We weren’t simply trying to score “aha, gotchya!” points. We were trying to talk reasonably about the implications of scripture, hoping that the Holy Spirit would make an impact through it.

Jason’s response is worth sharing. After some thought he literally said, “Well, down with Paul, and up with Joseph!” Jason went on to say that he would take the “modern-day revelations” of the restoration “any day” over the letters of a “guy dead for two thousand years.” Jason then went on to suggest that 1 Corinthians could in fact be pseudepigrapha, which is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, “spurious writings, especially writings falsely attributed to biblical characters or times.” In other words, he suggested that 1 Corinthians might be falsely attributed to Paul and really written by an impostor. What surprised me wasn’t the substance of the response but the forthright, raw, and blunt manner with which he expressed it.

Technically speaking, evangelical Christians agree that the Bible as we have it today is God’s word “as far as it is translated correctly,” but the problem is that this phrase is loaded in Mormonism with extra meaning. Lay Mormons identify the phrase as associated with the idea that crucial books originally destined for New Testament canon were taken out and are now missing, that the original content of the New Testament was significantly and even fatally corrupted almost from the beginning, that the text wasn’t reliably-preserved over the past two milleniums, and that today’s translations are overly dependent on prior translations, even resulting in the classic end-mess of a “telephone game.” Appealing to the supposed unreliability of the Bible often functions as a defense mechanism for Mormons.

It’s not uncommon for me to hear Mormons contrast “modern day revelation” with the writings of “dead men” in the Bible. As Eztra Taft Benson taught, “The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.” (>>) This frequently affirms for me something I have long claimed as prevalent in Mormonism. Mormons seem to have a very low view of the inspiration of scripture. That it was written by men who are now “dead” is used in a way that betrays a lack of belief in the dual-authorship of scripture. I believe that the Bible was and is inspired by God, communicating the voice and mind and authority of God himself, what God is saying and telling. Mormons tends to write off the Bible at convenient places, appealing to its human authorship as though that settled the matter. If a portion of scripture wasn’t ultimately authored by God himself, then it doesn’t have the binding authority and seriousness that it might otherwise have. For Jason, the best recourse for dealing with 1 Corinthians which seemed to contradict “modern-day revelation” was to question the integrity of 1 Corinthians.

Any evangelical who frequently witnesses to Mormons (both friends and strangers) will affirm that this kind of thought process is common among Mormons. It’s less than desirable that I would simply have to make this general claim from collective experiences of evangelicals who interact with Mormons. I would rather point to clear examples of the thinking in church-published curriculum. But apologists usually polish it up and Mormon leadership would never speak this kind of thinking with bluntness. But it’s deeply embedded throughout Mormonism, and I can testify to that on account of numerous interactions. Beyond the passing verbal tributes of LDS leaders to how much they “love” the Bible and find it “precious” and “the word of God,” Mormonism cultivates a very low view of it. It is essentially treated as dispensable whenever it is perceived to contradict what “modern-day revelation” has provided. Officially, Mormonism says that the Bible doesn’t contradict Mormon doctrine. Unofficially, the notion is cultivated that even if Mormonism does contradict what the Bible teaches, that’s quite OK since we can’t trust the Bible anyway like we can trust the products of the Mormon restoration.

Receiving Paul’s letters as the word of God (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13),

Aaron

Comments (39)

Some Mormons give the impression that the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper was legal. This kind of language is misleading. While there is some lingering ambiguity over the legality of the destruction of the copies of the Expositor, even Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks (who wrote Carthage Conspiracy) admits that the destruction of the Expositor’s printing press was in fact illegal.

“In view of the law discussed above, particularly the statement in Blackstone, the combination of these three considerations seems to have been sufficient to give the Nauvoo City Council considerable basis in the law of their day for their action in characterizing the published issues of the Nauvoo Expositor as a nuisance an in summarily abating them by destruction.

“The characterization of the printing press as a nuisance, and its subsequent destruction, is another matter. The common law authorities on nuisance abatement generally, and especially those on summary abatement, were emphatic in declaring that abatement must be limited by the necessities of the case, and that no wanton or unnecessary destruction of property could be permitted. A party guilty of excess was liable in damages for trespass to the party injured…. there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass.” (Utah Law Review, Summer 1965, pages 890-891)

So next time a Mormon gives the impression that everything was legal, make sure you pass along these words.

Comments (14)

A tempest in an herbal teapot is brewing over a sermon preached by Dr. Robert Jeffress last month. On September 30th Dr. Jeffress told his congregation at First Baptist Church of Dallas,

“Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”

The Dallas Morning News published a story about the sermon on October 18th. The next day LDS-owned Deseret News picked up on it and ran their own story.

The Deseret News article said Mr. Romney’s LDS membership has

“come under fire again — this time by a prominent Dallas minister who told his congregation Romney is not a Christian.

“The newspaper story published Thursday [in the Dallas Morning News] said some members of the pastor’s large audience began to applaud as he continued his discussion of Romney’s faith as part of a talk titled ‘The Power of a Positive Purpose.’

“‘What really distresses me is some of my ministerial friends and even leaders in our convention are saying, “Oh, well, he talks about Jesus, we talk about Jesus. What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal if anybody names another way to be saved except through Jesus Christ,’ the pastor said.”

As most readers of Mormon Coffee know, considering context is always important. Unfortunately, neither of the two newspaper articles placed Dr. Jeffress’ statements in context. Subsequently, though it should come as no surprise, his remarks are being widely misconstrued.

Dr. Jeffress was preaching on Philippians chapter 1 where Paul wrote about the different motives people had for “preaching Christ.” Some motives were good, some were bad. But for Paul,

“What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.” (Philippians 1:18)

Dr. Jeffress thought it important that his congregation understand what Paul meant by that, so he spent a few minutes explaining. He showed how important Paul considered the truth when it came to the Gospel message (Galatians 1:8). Therefore, Paul was not suggesting that the theology of what people said didn’t matter as long as they spoke the name of Christ (as a cursory reading might suggest). By way of illustration Dr. Jeffress made the remarks about Mitt Romney. Since he cannot know Mr. Romney’s heart, the pastor should have limited his comments to Mormonism, but his point was that Gospel truth is a non-negotiable essential.

Dr. Jeffress said,

“There are not many ways to God, there is only one way to God, and it’s through His Son, Jesus Christ.”

At this point in the sermon the congregation erupted in applause. The implication in Deseret News was that people applauded Dr. Jeffress’ continuing discussion of Mr. Romney’s faith. But that’s not so. The congregation actually applauded the Gospel message and the pastor’s call to stand firm for the truth.

Dr. Jeffress went on to explain that Christians often differ on some “finer points of theology,”

“but we must be united in the belief that faith in Christ alone is what saves.”

So, in Philippians, Paul is not saying he rejoices when people preach a false gospel, but that he rejoices when the true Gospel is preached, even if the motive of the preacher is impure.

Dr. Jeffress’ discussion of Mitt Romney and Mormonism lasted for one minute and sixteen seconds. He did not disparage Mitt Romney as a person nor as a politician; his remarks were wholly based on theological concerns. Many people who read the newspaper articles are up in arms over Dr. Jeffress’ comments. If only they would put it in context by listening to the entire sermon. Then we would really have something interesting talk about.

Comments (51)

The DVD he references is Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith. All the background sound is from a Provo, UT parade!