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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (15.5MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
He should have left out Mr. Romney all together. That’s just poor taste especially at these times because it comes off as an attack of character. I don’t have any problem with debating on whether Mormonism has the true Gospel or not, but we have to be careful what and how we say it..
It sucks that the average person will look at a news article and when one negative thing pops out at them, they start their rant without, like you said, taking what was said in context. I pray that all the people on this blog choose to look into things a bit more before they start throwing words around.
I’m of the beliefe that we should names names and call people out. Paul said avoid these people and named names. If we are correct and LDS are wrong, then they will go to hell forever and never leave, with that in mind I would rather be blunt and honest than to beat around the bush and be afraid I might offend someone with the truth.
I have heard Mitt speak many times, sadly he seems to avoid being honest with what he believes about Mormonism. He simply brushes off questions asked and says go to the website. Rick b
I tend to agree with Rick. We should be forward with who they are.
Now, we should treat them with gentleness and respect, but we should be up front with the truth and not be PC about it. Do we think Peter or Paul would have been?
Michael said
I agree with that but, the problem is no matter who you are, when your told your wrong you tend to feel it is not respectful or gentle. Like in the Bible, Jesus called People broads of Vipers and white washed tombs, Or in the Book of Jude, he says,
Boy If I said that, I would get rebuked by Believers for saying things like that, I know because it has happend many times. Bible also shows the Apostles saying, your false Prophets and false teachers Etc, I have no problem saying these things if they are true. Yet these things are true and we see Jesus and the apostles doing them, but when I do them I am told I am not Loving, Gentle or respectful. So please keep this in mind when Believers speak like this and other believers say, your not Gentle. Michael, I’m also not implying you think I am not gentle or was being mean to others, this was more said as a in genearl type of thought. Rick b
I made a comment about this a few blogs ago and I’ll say it again for this one – This is really a non-issue for me as its a worthless argument. The word ‘Christian” was first used in the Bible by non-believers to label those who believed in and followed Jesus Christ’s teachings. They would not have discriminated between who believed the same way as Paul or Silas or whomever. We do know from the Bible that there were a few differences in beliefs in those days, hence the epistles calling people to repent and change their ways. So from that definition, Mormons are Christians, and most non-Christian groups that I know of do class us as a Christian sect. Since then, people in the Christian community have changed the definition of ‘Christian’. Now on this blog we have some people who would not consider Mormons, Catholics, Anglicans or Lutherans as ‘Christian’. So it does not bother me if you call me Christian or not. I believe in Jesus Christ, and unless you can read my mind you cannot tell me I don’t. My beliefs may be different to you but that does not change the fact I believe in Jesus Christ.
But I go with the Bible, the original church called themselves ‘Saints’, so that is what I am – a saint. Not the changed meaning as the traditional Christian community mean these days, but the original Bible meaning – a true disciple of Christ.
I am not exactly sure why Dr. Jeffress has to lie to his congregation to preach gospel truth. If he is so concerned with the truth, he might not have been misleading his congregation in the first place about what members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints believe. Anyone who is familiar with our faith, on a sincere honest basis, knows that we believe our salvation comes in and through our Savior, Jesus Christ. PERIOD…This preacher is simply misleading His congregation, which adds a bit of irony to his message of whose intentions are more Christian. This preacher was giving a misleading example of Mitt Romney instead of BEING an example of Christian principles. What kind of an example do you think he is to Mitt Romney and his family by questioning their Christian intentions in public without knowing their hearts?? If he is truly concerned with evangelicalism- then he isn’t very consistent by alienating an entire group of religious people by outright lying about what they actually believe. You shouldn’t need to lie about someone’s fundamental beliefs in order to teach truth, seems to contradict. It’s telling though, that many of you do just that, it shows a lack of desire to truly fellowship and understand- this approach is not effective or loving.
I have never in my 27 years of membership ever had ONE instance where a teacher or bishop called out an individual or faith and condemned them to believe something other than what they actually believed. I have little respect for this approach, or those who think this point of view carries any real Christian example …The Christ that I know, loves and serves and teaches through example. Preachers who just gnaw away at individuals and their relationship with God (whether they are Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist) are the guilty parties that lead His sheep astray. The Savior BUILT and LED, he did not destroy. Satan destroys and tears down. I’m not impressed with this man.
I think we’re led back to basic principles i.e. who is Jesus and what did he do; that is, His person and work. Is there a difference, conceptually, in what Mormons believe as to who Jesus is and, does it make a difference regarding eternal life? Are preachers of the Christian Gospel wrong for pointing out the obvious differences? Now if someone lies about what Mormons believe, that’s wrong. But if a preacher gives it straight, then I don’t think it’s wrong to point out the differences. Mormons believe that Jesus is the product of a union between a mother god and father god. Christians do not believe that. Mormons believe that they can achieve godhood, have their own planetary systems and spirit children with their goddess wife. Mormons seem to want to use Ev. language and terms but not really point out the meaning behind them. I think it’s OK for someone to point these things out and people can make up their own minds regarding Mormon salvation.
Falcon,
Again, this characterization of mormons beliefs is completely false…that is all I have to say. You can’t expect to be credible when you are ill-informed. You are characterizing our beliefs based on things you’ve “heard” not anything you have found in church material. I’ve never been taught those things in Sunday school…I don’t know where you heard it, I know it wasn’t at a mormon church. Every one of those things you suggested are merely speculation not doctrine, you must learn the difference between the two if you expect to be taken seriously. This goes to the root of the problem..lack of understanding and honesty. It doesn’t get evangelicals ANYWHERE to continue these rumors of our beliefs. None of those things you said come close to what investigators or members are taught about the restored gospel. So this begs the question, where are you getting your information?
According to Mormon documents Journal of Discourses volume 8 page 115. “The birth of the saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood — was begotten
of his Father, as we were of our fathers.”
Amanda,
Perhaps I might be able to shed some light on Falcon’s idea that the Jesus of historical Christianity is not the same as the Jesus of the LDS faith.
We’ll start with some words from President Hinckley:
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.” (Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, page 7)
Now that Hinckley has made it clear that this “revealed” Jesus is not the same as the one we Christians have been worshiping for ages, let’s take a look at what leaders of your church have said about the origin of Jesus.
President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “Our Father in heaven according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:47).
Does this succession of divine fathers imply the existence of a divine mother for each? All who doubt need only consult the following quotations taken from LDS-owned publications:
“…our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death…he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children…” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Copyright 1976, 1992 by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, page 132)
“…every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ….Our spirits resemble our heavenly parents although they have resurrected bodies” (Gospel Principles, page 9, 1981 edition, p. 11, 1997 edition)
According to these statements, God wasn’t always God, unlike what is clearly stated in Psalms 90:2 (“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”)
Moreover, to believe in what is said above is to believe in a succession of Gods (I.E. Polytheism). This simply cannot be true if one is to take into account the words of Isaiah:
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
I hope this helps to clear up at least some of your confusion, Amanda, as to where Falcon was getting his information from. I know you weren’t taught this stuff in Seminary (or probably Institute for that matter), so it would be unfair to hold your ignorance in this subject against you. This is not my angle. In other words, I’m not here to tell you what you believe — I’m only trying to show you what your church believes based on what’s been said and taught. (End disclaimer 😉 )
There is much more that could be posted here, but I feel that this will suffice for now. If anyone else out there would like to add/elaborate on what I’ve posted, then the more the merrier.
(P.S. I’m sorry this was in 2 posts — I went over the character limit a little bit :/)
If you look at the Book of Mormon, you can see whether LDS doctrine is Christ-centered.
Amanda, In all Christian love and charity I say to you that this is one of the reasons Mormons are accused of being less than forth coming about what they believe. The lack of clarity allows others outside of your group to define who you are and what you believe. It doesn’t matter what the particular doctrine, Mormons are constantly charging that they are misunderstood and being mischaracterised. Mormonism has been discribed as being a maze. Enlighten us. What did Joseph Smith say and teach regarding progressing to godhood? What is the Mormon teaching on Jesus. Was He procreated by a mother and father god? The topic of this post concerned a pastor who articulated what he believed to be true about Mormon doctrine. To be honest, I often wonder if Mormons, as a general rule, know what their own church has taught and teaches.
Well, I am willing to name names so here goes. Amanda, your wrong and being deceptive (even if you don’t mean to be) to state that Falcon’s comments are “completely false”. Some, even most, Mormons do believe the things he mentioned even if those things are not official teaching (which I am not so sure they are not official teaching). If you really want us to beleive that it is not a widespread and deep belief (not just speculation) among Mormons that humans can achieve godhood, then you are the one who should not be taken seriously. If you want to split hairs on what is official and not, or doctrine and not (when this has not even been completely hammered out by your church), then you are not helping your case. Your church officially disavowed polygamy and said it was a dirty rumor. Later, it came out that the practice was going on all along and that the church openly embraced it as a core belief. And I could go on and on.
I don’t know where you are getting your information on Jesus. Jesus came to bring division (Luke 12:51) and to destroy the works of the devil (I John 3:8). He warned of false prophets and false christs (Mark 13:22), and many here believe that fits Jospeh Smith and his Jesus.
Your own scriptures say that there are only two churches: the church of the Lamb and the church of the Devil (I Nephi 10). Your own leaders have said we have a false Christ. Mormonism fired the firt shot by claiming a “restored gospel”. The “other” Jesus thing is not just a loophole. So either Mormonism is Christianity (not just another Christian sect) or it is not. I concur with Dr. Jeffress – “doctrine does make a difference.”.
Becoming a God? Us having a heavenly mother? Having my own planetary system? Adam Being God? Jesus being begotten not through the Holy Spirit, but God himself coming down to earth to lay with Mary? Blood atonement?
Hmm, I never heard of these doctrines before.. sounds weird to me..
Listen, people like to figure things out and put a name to things, its human nature. So if the Mormon congregation doesn’t want people to “speculate” what they believe, then you’re going to have to have the current prophet clear things up so the world can understand. He’s going to need to “set straight” many of the words of the old prophets (much of what Joseph Smith, Brigham, and Joseph F. Smith said)..
It’s ridiculous. It’s like someone calling me something, me saying “No I’m not!” and then giving a few descriptives but not clearly defining what I am. I would imagine people would still be trying to figure it out. And this I take offense to?… thats silly.
I was just thinking about what I said about the current prophet “setting things straight”..
Imagine that, next general conference, instead of delivering the same “Be happy, be nice, and be obedient” speech that Hinckley throws out there, what if he started to delve deep into the theology of the morning church.. I think that might keep me awake!
Lies. Is it just me or is everything that is against Mormonism is dismissed as a lie?
The topic of this post was a pastor who was taken out of context in such a way that his message was not understood. I am more then willing to be straightened out regarding my comments on Mormon beliefs. This includes Jesus being a product of a mother-father god union out there in the spirit world and the idea of eternal progression to godhood. That is, that a hope/goal of Mormons is to become a god in a lineage of the current ruling god of this universe. I get the feeling that Mormons want to emphasize that “we accept Jesus us our personal Savior just like you do” and leave it at that. It’s sweet, nice emphasizes living a godly, wholesome life but stays a way from these messy teachings. That way Mormons appear to be just like every other mainstream Christian group. I’m more than willing to be “contextualized” regarding Mormon beliefs but I’m not willing to push aside what I see as things that are beyond heresy.
I posted something about this on a different site..
This is a question for everyone and since it has to do with what people view is the “true Christian gospel” I think its on topic..
What if a man came to earth who claimed he was Jesus, and even had some people say, “Hey, this here is Jesus,” and resumed preaching the Gospel and the doctrines that lie within, but you notice that the doctrines he is teaching don’t match up with the doctrine you currently hold, in fact, what if, some of them completely contradict what you believe (like if you were/are Mormon and he were to say that there is only one God, and that the trinity is correct). Would you think that is the real Jesus, or a “false prophet” that the Bible warns about.
Perhaps your first thoughts are, wait, he is completely contradicting the teachings of the (whatever book of Scripture you use), this isn’t the real Jesus.
I don’t know, its just a little scenario to think about.
Ralph Said
Well Ralph, this is not correct and here is why I bring it up. We read in the BoM, Supposedly the Most correct Book ever Written. And According to A of F 8, it is above the Bible as being MORE ACCURATE than the Bible. Any way we read in
Alma 46: 13, 15-16
13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land.
Alma 48: 10
10 And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.
Ok, First off, notice in these verses they use the Word Christian This is a problem, if the Book of Acts is to be true, Why? In my copy of the BoM dated 1920 Down the bottom of the page, it dates these happenings to be Both BC 72 AND 73 If they were called Christians After the death and resurrection of Christ, how Could this occurrence of the Word Christian, take place before Christ was around?
I was wrong about the Fall in the BoM you were wrong about this, no one is perfect. Plus, with this contrdiction, which book is correct? The Bible or the BoM? Then this shows a different beliefe between us, you trust the BoM, we trust the Bible. Rick b
I think it was tacky and naive of the pastor to use Romney as an example. He should have known it was going to blow up in his face. However, I certainly agree with him on Mormonism not being Christianity. The historical, orthodox Christian community has never considered Mormonism to be Christian and never will. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. The LDS’s doctrine is just too unbiblical to be a part of the fold (nature of God being the prime example). In fact, the LDS church’s very existence is a direct challenge to Christianity, and was formed because of supposed complete apostasy.
Anyway, it’s frusterating to read some of the LDS comments on here. Supposedly when Mormonism is criticized, we’re ill-informed and just going on rumors and heresay. Or we’re anti-Mormon, or we hate Mormons. But if we cite LDS church scripture or prophets as hard evidence highlighting the extreme differences between the two camps, it doesn’t make any difference because past statements by prophets/presidents is disregarded. Whatever. Just had to vent.
Two small things I’d like to point out here as well. 1) Politics and religion should not be mixed when it comes to things like this. This minister is publicly preaching to his congregation who to vote for – I believe this is not on. As for Mitt Romney not answering questions about his religion during his campaign – this is the right thing to do as it’s about political standing, not religious beliefs.
2) Today’s blog is a little amusing to me in comparison to the blog about “The Latter-day Mystery of John the Beloved “. The very reason the last blog was written implies that we need to take seriously and as being truth what is written in the news, regardless of other evidence. Others in the responses also give the same ideology. So the Dallas Morning News states – “Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”
Some in the large crowd began to applaud as Dr. Jeffress continued with his remarks.
This is echoed in the Deseret News – ‘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.’
But in the above blog the writer states – 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. BTW, the implication was first in The Dallas News not Deseret News (see above).
So who is correct? If we are meant to believe what is in the news (as implied by another blog), then The Dallas Times is correct. But this is a common trait in arguing, used by both sides (ie LDS and non-LDS). One can use whatever means they want to win the argument, but the other side cannot. Just an observation.
Actually, Dr. Jeffress was not telling his congregation who to vote for. This is one way in which the sermon was misconstrued.
“The Latter-day Mystery of John the Beloved” takes a look at some inconsistent LDS comments regarding the Apostle John that I found interesting. As I said in the blog, I was surprised at the Church News article and was trying to make sense of it. I did not imply that we need to take whatever is written in the news as “truth.”
Church News is published for and by the LDS Church. Therefore, one would hope it would generally report accurately on LDS issues. It’s not a stretch at all to take things written in Church News at face value (but I would never suggest we ignore “other evidence”). The Dallas Morning News is in a different category. As a secular newspaper, it covers many areas of interest and is expert in none. Yet if it was reporting on things within the newspaper (such as the identity of the editor or a plan to switch from a morning to an evening news source) it would be reasonable to trust what it says.
Ralph asks: “Who is correct?” That’s often the question, isn’t it? Regarding Dr. Jeffress’ sermon, we have an advantage. We can listen to the sermon ourselves and know the truth.
Megan,
I found your argument to be ridiculous. I have never based my relationship and standing with my Savior on what the “orthodox Christian community” thinks. I like to take my personal worthiness to the Lord. I believe it is God who makes those judgments, because oftentimes, men and even “communities” can be wrong- but God never is. So has God ordained the “orthodox Christian community” as His mouthpiece and validation committee?. I’m confident in the idea of personal revelation (I thought this concept was the very foundation that evangelicals stood on?? Reformers ring a bell? falling away from ORTHODOX Christianity at the time…???). I do find it interesting that you use the word orthodox as if that validates this group of people. What about orthodox Jews at the time of Christ? They were clearly wrong in their opinions, and set in their ways, prideful etc. So respectfully, I don’t need YOUR validation through a title you aren’t authorized to authenticate– I know in my heart AND mind that my testimony of Christ is as valid and true as His very existence. So rebut if you like, it will continue to be irrelevant to my relationship with God.
I like you Megan, you seem like a very thoughtful person…and I respect your belief in authentic Christianity- I would hope you would consider how hypocritical this is to say that the “orthodox Christian community” carries the authority, but there is no authority on earth to speak for God, only His word and our personal relationship with Him (i.e. the general argument against the restoration of the gospel in terms of prophets and priesthood). Can’t have it both ways.
ALEX D,
I am certainly not ignorant to the idea/concept of the origin of God. My point was simple…it is not important that we believe these things—it is not at the core of our belief system…if it were important, they would ask this at temple recommend interviews, and I believe it is DANGEROUS for Mormons to preach these ideas and perceived doctrines to those who have not journeyed on the path long enough to understand this teaching. It is unwise to argue and discuss matters of this nature when they are not at the core of our beliefs. It is no wonder why many evangelicals get confused because they are trying to understand concepts that come AFTER a testimony of the most important and basic things.
I was attempting to refocus the conversation and base it on what we actually teach and believe at the core in order to receive temple ordinances. Remember, line upon line, precept upon precept. I doubt many of us would believe all that encompasses God if HE were to just show us all of it, none of us would understand or comprehend…or have faith in such things…so as members we do a disservice to those who are interested in learning about the gospel by confusing them with doctrines that are not paramount to the restored gospel.
I had hoped many LDS on here would recognize the importance of core principles especially after what was couseled It might be more than speculation.
To those who think I am attempting to ignore or lie about what mormons HAVE said, DO say, what might be said on any given sunday in sunday school–i’m not…i was making a point about fundamental gospel principles…it is easy for evangelicals to refute these aforementioned principles about the origin of God–but they avoid discussing our core principles about saving ordinances and our TRUE belief about our Savior and His role in our eternal progression. To discuss godhood is going beyond the mark–it’s a smokescreen in order to mislead
hey, last post was submitted before i finished correcting the second to the last paragraph…it is not at all what i wastying to say….
after what counsel was given to us during conference about keeping things simple–discussing doctrine that is actually pertinent to temple covenants
sorry, i hope they post this correction, i’m past my daily limit i think
Yup I think our friend Amanda is right. Mormons do need to keep certain things secret from those they are introducing to the restored gospel. Suck them in with some love bombing techniques. Make them feel important and a part of a caring and supportive group. It will make it much harder for them to leave when they hear things about mother god and father god, their creation Jesus, and the progression to godhood. This isn’t really dishonest. It can be justified. The Children of God use to do something called flirty fishing and would outright lie to people because it was justified by the end result. Am I being harsh? I don’t think so. Our Mormon friends wonder why they get a reputation for being evasive and dishonest. We’ve had it explained to us here. Right on, “it’s a smokescreen meant to deceive”. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Hey Sharon, sorry if you took the last part of my last post seriously, it was more tongue in cheek – a little Aussie humour.
Falcon, and to others out there that believe we do not teach investigators about our belief of Heavenly Parents, Jesus being their child and a brother to us (as well as Lucifer), and the Plan of Salvation through which we can become gods as our Heavenly Parents – read the first 2 chapters of the Gospel Principles Manual. It discusses these very things right there. This manual is what both investigators and new members are taught from at church. The new members are also given a copy for themselves to take home and read at their leasure. We are NOT hiding these things from anyone. In fact, on my mission, when asked about these I always answered them truthfully. And I was asked a lot because an ex-LDS was working for the Lutheran Church publishing material for them about our church which was distributed to its members. Its easier to teach from a basic level up than from the top down. It would be like teaching about sinh, cosh and tanh before teaching multiplication tables.
Falcon, the smokescreen comment was actually intended at the direction of this pastor who choses to confuse his congregation about what we actually believe for purposes only he knows and is responsible for.
Make no mistake Falcon, I have no reason to mislead anyone, and I don’t feel the need to apologize for my beliefs. I think you make a very grave mistake by assuming the worst WHENEVER it comes to Mormons and their belief in the restored gospel. You are mistaken about my intentions but I realize that your pastors probably foster this kind of resentment and negativity regarding our faith. I don’t understand why you spend so much energy being so negative about the beliefs of others…I’d think your time could be spent doing more productive things–I could be wrong, this could be all a part of your evangelicalism– passing judgment on me and other LDS in order to bring them closer to Christ? I think it would be more becoming of you and your message of Christianity to leave the stone casting to the professionals. If you were to seek out the positive in everything instead of judge harshly people you don’t even know, you might actually make some Mormon friends and find yourself being more effective in their lives…who knows, we might even surprise you.
Thank you, Amanda, I like you too and I do try to be thoughtful. I try to be nice, too–it’s hard on here sometimes when the emotions and passions get going. I think I was just letting my frusterations show in the last post.
I used the term “orthodox” to differentiate between LDS and regular Christianity. If I were on a strictly Christian blog, I would not use that word because it would be understood that we believe the same things. But of course LDS believe they are Christian, (you already know my position on that) so it’s important to differentiate. Anyway, like it or not, the Christian community worldwide does not consider the LDS Church to be a part of the fold. It never has and it never will. To be blunt, the LDS church is viewed as being a separate religion/or cult because of its heresy (mainly the nature of God). While we can’t know everything about the nature of God, we can know and believe what he has chosen to reveal to us in the Bible. The problem I have with Mormonism is that it does not affirm what the Bible says about God’s nature. In fact, LDS doctrine espouses something completely different.
I guess the real question is, what constitutes Christianity? Both sides claim to have the exclusive truth. Logically speaking, we can’t both be correct.
Amanda,
I admit I’m aggressive when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t do group hugs when it comes to Christian apologetics. I do pass judgment. Read the Epistle of Jude. It’s the same old story with Mormons, point something out regarding doctrine, teaching and practice and it’s said to be negative. I said Mormons believe they will become gods, that Jesus is the product of a mother/father god union. I stated a fact. That’s stone throwing? Would it make you feel better if I put smile and hug icons on my postings?
Megan, we can’t both be correct on doctrinal differences, of course…but we can both be Christian.
If you look at it based on the individual who seeks out Christ, biblically, scripturally, and through prayer…all of us are on our own path to understanding Him. My husband was baptist his whole life- and was Christian when I met him, and continues to learn more about his Savior through His restored gospel. I am grateful every day for his evangelical upbringing. I know my Savior more today than I did last year.
I believe evangelicals have many truths in what they teach and how they lead their congregations– the LDS belief that He has restored his gospel does not in any way invalidate your basic belief of Him.
So do our understandings of him differ? Certainly. Do I believe you are a Christian? Certainly. I think your conclusion that we aren’t Christian because we interpret scripture differently and claim to have modern revelation from God, means we aren’t Christian–is illogical at best.
I don’t bother myself with anything other than Gods opinion of my relationship with Him. End of story. I don’t believe this argument about “orthodox Christianity” is a compelling reason to denounce the very faith that has brought me closer to Him and reassures my faith in Christ. Argue if you must, but you do not have the authority to tell me how genuine my testimony of Christ is…and your opinion will carry little weight on judgment day.
I don’t believe your adequately addressed my point about hypocrisy in terms of authority.
FALCON,
You use the concept of judging righteously to give you a pass anytime you feel like judging someone. I don’t believe you can use this scripture at YOUR convenience. I question your understanding of that scripture. And yes, you would be more effective to put hug icons in your postings rather than being smug when you really do not understand what we believe all that well.
“Megan, we can’t both be correct on doctrinal differences, of course…but we can both be Christian.”
No we can’t. Not when you say Christ is not one in the same with God, not when God wasn’t even the first god. Not when you say we can become gods. Not when you say Joseph Smith helps decide who can go to heaven. Not when you rely on secret (I know you don’t call them secret, but can you tell us what they are?) temple rituals. Not when you add to the already sufficient word of Christ.
Sure, you can call yourself Christian, just as I myself can call myself a literal robot, this doesn’t make it so.
OK Amanda,
Tell me where I’m wrong about Mormon beliefs. Enumerate it; 1,2,3,4. You’ve yet to give me anything of substance on the matter. It seems you’d rather judge my attitude and approach than provide any meaningful information. And please, in regards to your comments to Meagan, we can’t both be right. The Mormon approach has always been that orthodox christian beliefs are an abomination. Remember, after the apostles we fell into apostasy, Council of Nicea, etc. Unless you want to contradict Joseph Smith.
Amanda, you shouldn’t go on my opinion on what your relationship with God should be like. You shouldn’t depend on the LDS Church, or your feelings, or anything else. You should depend on what the Bible says first, and then only after that go on your own experience or feelings. The thing is, you believe things that are contradictory to the Bible. Your view of God and Jesus is contradictory to the Bible. Why are you comfortable with that? God demands that we take him seriously (as is evidenced by your exemplary lifestyle, I’m sure). Then why don’t you take him seriously by believing what he says about himself in the Bible?
If you seriously study the Bible, you will find that many of your beliefs will not hold up. Study the Bible carefully, with a good Bible commentary that highlights the original Greek and Hebrew. Don’t use your other scriptures in conjunction with the Bible. Just study the Bible on its own. I dare you.
I don’t know if I answered your questions you had in your last post….I’m sorry. I’m really tired. Be sure and let me know if I haven’t!
Megan,
You seem to have great insight into how deeply I study my scriptures. I really can’t take you seriously when you presume to know what I comprehend and what I do not. A little humility never hurt anyone you know 🙂 Maybe you lack greatly in your understanding as well.
Which leads me to the subject you have yet to address (I understand the tired thing, I’m pregnant with my third). What gives you, and other evangelicals and ministers the right to judge how valid my belief and interpretation of the bible is UNLESS you claim authority. I have personal authority over my testimony–you can’t tell LDS that there is no authority to speak in God’s name yet place yourself in that very role. You do not have insight into the depth of which I understand the bible – and I would never claim to judge your understanding of such things, I’m confident that God is the only one capable of making conclusions in that regard.
I do find it interesting that you all believe that I cannot consider myself a Christian because of what YOU say….NONE of us own that copyright- only Christ. It is HIS gospel and only HIS job to determine who the penitent and humble are-and who are His true followers. I know in my heart the answer to this question- I don’t need evangelicals to grant me the permission they do not have permission to grant.
Falcon,
The church’s position on what you want to call “orthodox Christianity” is nothing like how you characterize it. The apostles died and with it the priesthood (they didn’t apostatize). It is the doctrine that apostatized because the priesthood was no longer here to guide. I do not believe the council of Nicea is an abomination in terms of intent. I believe it was the best they could do at the time with the knowledge they had. But contrary to evangelical Sunday school and sermon, we do not focus on dismantling the beliefs of others, (which doesn’t accomplish what you think) we study the gospel as it has been revealed in these latter days.
Amanda,
I think you’re making a mistake regarding the priesthood and it’s importance in the New Testement church. In fact, I can’t find anything in the New Testement Epistles that talks about preserving the priesthood. I could be wrong, but it’s never jumped out at me as central, for example, to what the apostle Paul wrote about.
I’m not evaluating Mormons’ dedication to what they believe, but I am evaluating what they believe. We are told in the Bible to contend earnestly for the faith. Paul’s letters to Timothy are very direct in that regard. So, for example, when we contend that the Jesus you believe in doesn’t exist, it’s not stone throwing, it’s a fact. We see the nature of Jesus as fundamental to the Gospel and salvation. It’s not just a matter of a different discription of the same Jesus. There is one Jesus, He is not a creation of a mother/father god union, and He is not Lucifer’s brother. It’s very difficult for me to even write this because I see it as blasphemy. So that’s why we are so passionate about maintaining the integrity of who Jesus is and have little tolerence for what we see as a direct attack on the nature and person of Jesus.
Amanda, you’re right, there’s no way I can get inside your head and know every detail of what you believe. But by going on your past comments and your stand on various doctrinal/faith issues it’s possible to get a good picture. (Just as you are able to do with me). You are correct, I do not have the right to judge you. But I do have the right to point you with all of my being to what the Bible says. As Falcon said,the Bible exhorts us to contend for the faith, and also to go into all the world and preach the good news. (Ironic that we both believe we have the gospel, isn’t it?) Anyway, I don’t think implying I’m judgmental is a legitimate response. It lets you off the hook from answering to yourself why you don’t believe what the Bible says.
I knew when you used the word “authority” in the previous post you were referring to the priesthood. I know the LDS church makes a big deal about that. Unfortunately, I can’t address that issue in this thread because it’s too off-topic. But when it’s more relevant in a future thread I have a lot of verse references to share. (I say this only to keep myself on topic, since I’m a real tangent person). On a lighter note,congratulations on your pregnancy! Today is my daughter’s two-year birthday.
Falcon, as regarding the priesthood thing there is A LOT to be found in Hebrews. I spent a few months going through that book this year studying that subject. I kept on hearing from LDS that I didn’t have the priesthood and so I didn’t have any authority. Hebrews explains how Jesus fulfilled the Aaronic priesthood and made it obsolete and holds the Melchizedek priesthood alone, which is transferrable to no man. I have found that it is imperative that we know the Bible’s view on the priesthood when speaking with LDS, as they don’t take us seriously because they believe we don’t really have it. You may already know this stuff. But I better stop, as I fear I’m digressing too much.
Megan,
I was going to say something about Hebrews because the writer (whoever he was) was writing to the Jews, but I let it go. I don’t see the topic of priesthood covered as extensively in other NT writings. Anyway, I just wanted to let yu no I’m knot dum.
Well, evangelicals do not all agree with the premise that LDS aren’t Christian. I can only attribute this discrepancy to what you may have been taught in your respective congregations.
I do know that motivations can ALSO shine a light on what people really believe. One major point of FACT, Falcon, is that ministers, preachers, bishops in just about EVERY “orthodox christian” religion get paid to share His gospel. This to me is a major indication for motivation. The restored gospel is carried 100% by the faith of its’ members and their willingness to serve each other. God’s tithes and offerings would be put to better use than to pay pastor Bob’s mortgage (just a thought). I could go to my father-in-laws congregation, sing, say “amen” to the preachers goings on, and NEVER feel compelled to ACT based ON this preachers message. Because all I am required to do is just be there and call myself “saved”? If that’s all I did, the kind of person I would be today would be much less than what the gospel has taught me I need to be BECAUSE of my faith in Him. Wouldn’t it be Heavenly Father’s objective to teach us how to grow and learn in correct principles??? How can we do that through lip service? We do that by keeping his commandments, walking in His footsteps, feeding his sheep and serving each other, bearing one another’s burdens. By the way, accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior IS an action and requirement in and of itself, so evangelical theology is not consistent on that point.
One common thread with many evangelical posters on this site is this assumption that LDS posters have NEVER considered what the bible says, or prayed about it. This to me is denial of the spiritual growth we have experienced already.
Megan, I do believe what the bible says. I also believe that it is not our place to put a number or limit the amount of scripture God choses to reveal to His children. Your characterization of me in that regard could not be more ignorantly conceived.
Falcon,
I certainly do not think you are dumb, even if you weren’t aware of the Hebrews example. It certainly wouldn’t mean that what you were trying to say wasn’t as valid or that your knowledge of your faith isn’t as strong. It’s okay to be learning and growing at every stage…I certainly learn new things every day. This sounds patronizing but I don’t mean it to be, don’t worry about what we think of your knowledge and understanding, I’m sure it is impressive.
Oh, and I needed to apologize, when you were referring to a heavenly mother, I was reading quickly and assuming you were referring to that myth of God literally impregnating Mary—So do I believe we have a Heavenly mother? Yes. Are we taught that in church? Yes. Does this mean I’m not Christian? Certainly not. Is it necessary to have a testimony of this to receive temple ordinances? No.
In terms of becoming gods? Well this is a subject that is well off the mark. It is irrelevant to my testimony, whether it is true or not. My focus is on my Savior and that is what we are taught. Many inside the church disagree on this point- but can both be temple recommend holders. My frustration with evangelicals is the constant pointing this out as if it were a core belief of the restored gospel- and it is not. Do I personally object to the idea? Honestly, when life gets hard, I draw my strength from Christ and my relationship with him, not on some idea of what I MIGHT be after this life. I take it a day at a time- I do not, however, reject it because I simply do not know either way. And this concept is not reiterated in Sunday school like it is reiterated time and time again by evangelicals. The matter of this idea seems more important to you than it is to me. We are taught, and I believe that the cornerstone of our religion is the Savior and His sacrifice, not godhood. We are taught that we are saved by grace only and grace is something Christ GIVES us after all that we can do.
Amanda,
The reason Ev. Christians keep bringing up the Mormon doctrine of progression to godhood is because it’s a big deal. It goes right to the nature of God. I can’t understand how it can be down-played as a small, insignificant thing. It’s major that’s why we come against it so strongly, just as we would the Jehovah Witness concept of god. Let me ask you, would you be willing to drop it from the core doctrine of Mormon belief? Could you personaly live without it? I’ve got a couple of Catechisms here that date back to my elementary school days in Catholic school another era long, long ago. Very interesting reading as an adult and no longer Catholic. But the Catechism starts with the study of the nature of God. One of the true/false questions is, “There is more than one Supreme Being.” True or False. The answer is False. It means literally, there is only one God. Nobody else gets to be one. Satan told Eve the big lie in the garden…and you will become like God…..he keeps telling the lie.
Falcon, You missed the clarifier, Satan told Eve that she would become like God – knowing good and evil. Well after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit they did learn good from evil, whereas before they partook of the fruit they did not know this distinction because they were in a state of innocence. So did Satan lie there?
If Christianity is to be defined as believing in the God and Jesus of the Bible, then those who believe in the Trinity cannot be classed as Christian, because there are no passages that define explicitly or implicitly a Trinity. You can possibly get a Duality of the Father and the Son, but no where is the Spirit able to be accorded to the “conglomerate” (for want of a better word). I have said this before in past blogs. There are at least 4 different descriptions of God and Jesus that I know of, and yes it is very impotant to our salvation to believe in the correct one. So it is on us to find for ourselves which one we choose to believe in, and find our own evidences for it.
This may sound a little sacreligious to say, but there is not sufficient evidence to prove by reasoning, logic, history or otherwise that the God of the Bible is the one and only God, compared to other religious beliefs. It is all about faith and what we choose to believe in. So any evidences one has are personal evidences.
But Amanda, you don’t believe everything that the Bible says. The LDS faith believes that God was once a man like us. The Bible says that God has always been God, and was never created. He always was. Refer to the references David cited on Oct. 25th on this thread. Why do you believe something the Bible says is not true? And this is just one issue!
Anyway, this may be a dead horse issue for this thread. I guess I’ll move onto the newest article.
Falcon, I no yur knot dum!
Amanda, curiousity question here:
Has it occurred to you that we all pretty much tell you the same thing? I know the authority thing, and I have heard this from other LDS, but is it not telling when the message is pretty much the same from a multitude of sources? In other words, it is not as if we are offering a multitude of different views.
Just curious your thoughts on that.
Best of luck with the third. They will outnumber you soon. I have two, and used to be gung ho about four… Funny how that opinion can shift…
Amanda, you say we have no authority to tell you your wrong, where do you get your authority to tell us we cannot tell you anything, when the Bible tells us to Teach or rebuke when needed? What about Paul, I do not see him saying, I was given or I have or we need authority to say like Paul did in Gal 1:8-9 as he did.
You say were Judging you, yet you judge us, Your Church Judges us, how come it is ok for you to do that, but you say we cannot? Rick b
Ralph,
I believe we pretty much exhausted the concept of the Trinity once before. Cults typically come at orthodox Christianity from three points; the nature of God, the person and work of Jesus, and the authority of the Bible (going with extra Biblical sources of revelation). That’s why orthodox Christians don’t consider Mormonism Christian and often refer to it as a cult. Now whether Mormonism is a cult, others can judge that. But your post shows that we certainly don’t share the same faith.
Ralph, as far as the Trinity goes, Go to Youtube and type in (Chuck Missler) He covers the Trinity in a 3 part section, He does the best job on it that I have ever heard, He takes you through the Old and New testament and cites all his sources. But if you choose not to here what he says, then I guess thats up to you. He also has a website that can be found at http://www.khouse.org Rick b
Check out a http://bornagainmormon.com/hotm/2007.htm. Check out “Is mormonism christian”
Moderator’s Note: When posting a link for readers at Mormon Coffee, please include a summary (in your own words) of the information presented there. Thanks.
I thought this quote from the ‘Born-Again Mormon” page was a little over the top
No one can make this assumption unless they can read someone else’s thought and heart. I know I have found Jesus myself and I have found the true church. This I know from my own experiences and investigations. You can say you disagree with my beliefs but you cannot tell me I am wrong, just as much as I cannot tell you you are wrong, I can only say I disagree with your beliefs and argue why.
Interesting web site though. I think that if they haven’t already removed their names off the church roles, if found they would be excommunicated because one of the mission statements says Born-Again Mormon Ministries and/or anything related to it, is not associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its leadership, or its authority. We emphatically state that we are AN ENEMY to any non-biblical doctrine, philosophy, or idea of Man found in the LDS Church today. Many of their ‘Belief statements’ are in opposition to the LDS church.