Mormon Coffee

What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?

June 3, 2009

By Bill McKeever

Comments (112)

112 Comments so far

Wayne on June 3rd, 2009

I’ve linked to your video, and hat tipped your post on Jeremiah Films site
Linda on June 3rd, 2009

Thank you for explaining this aspect of the differences between LDS and Christianity. The LDS missionaries have returned to my door recently so this will be a perfect topic to discuss with them. Thank you for all you do.
Rick B on June 3rd, 2009

This is to funny, It’s funny only because I have posed this question here on this blog to LDS many times and even called my self mormon. Just shows great minds think alike. Rick b
Mikey_Petey on June 3rd, 2009

I don’t know of any Mormons who claim to be Evangelical Christians. Mormons also don’t claim to be Baptists, Lutherans, etc. And none of the denominations of Christianity claim to be any other denomination. The fact is that the term “Christian” refers to a broad religious classification into which many individual religions fall.

Anyway, I prefer the term Non-Traditional Christian to be applied to Mormonism as explained by Orson Scott Card in the following article:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/lets-call-mormons-nontradition.html
Arthur Sido on June 3rd, 2009

Mikey_Petey, can you really lump the various Christian denominations along with mormonism under the umbrella of “Christian”? I seems that the mutually exclusive teachings of Christianity and mormonism would make that sweeping generalization a grave error.
Mikey_Petey on June 3rd, 2009

“… can you really lump the various Christian denominations along with mormonism under the umbrella of “Christian”?”

I think so, personally. In my opinion all religions that consider the New Testament to be scripture and worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour would fall into the general category of “Christian”.

I think it might be usefull to have sub-categories (such as Evangelical Christian, Non-Traditional Christian, etc.) under that main umbrella.
Ralph on June 4th, 2009

There are a number of religions out there that do not believe in the Trinity but do accept the NT and Jesus as their Saviour and Redeemer. For instance there are those that believe in Modalism. I know that most here do not accept them as being labelled Christian as well, but the community outside Christianity do label them, as well as LDS, as Christians. So Yes, they can all be lumped uder the banner of Christian, but they all need to identify their differences when talking about religion.

What defines ‘Christian’ is a very big question. The word was first used in the bible by non-believers to categorise those who taught, followed and accepted Christ as their Saviour, Redeemer and the Son of God. These non-believers did not distinguish between those who believed in a Trinity or those who believed in a Godhead. When it came to throwing the Christians into the ring with the wild beasts it was anyone who professed a belief in Jesus. We see this in the early church – many types of belief systems about God and Jesus. That is one of the reasons why the Nicean council took place. All who fell under the banner of Christian, including Arians, were represented.

But as Mikey_Petey said, there are many denominations in the Christian community and most want to identify with just one of these – eg Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Pentacostal, etc. In my experience, most Catholics want to be just Catholic, not referred to as Anglican or Lutheran. The same with Anglicans and Lutherans, etc. They are all still Christian, but they do not accept the doctrines of the other denominations except the Trinity and Jesus Christ as Saviour. In fact, it has only been recently that the Anglican church where I live allow Catholics to partake of communion in meetings, however the reciprocal is not the same – ie the Catholics will not allow others outside of the Catholic faith to partake of communion. At least that is what my Anglican and catholic friends have told me.
falcon on June 4th, 2009

As I’ve mentioned when this topic has come up before, there is no authoritative body that can determine who can call themselves “Christian” and who cannot. I suppose I could find some rationale for calling myself Jewish or Muslim if I worked at it hard enough. However I would think that an acknowledgment of who God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are might have a bearing on who is a Christian. Christians denominations can decide who they will recognize as (being) other Christian denominations. There aren’t many that I know of who would recognize Mormonism as part of the Christian family. Mormoinism is way outside a basic criteria of what a basic Christian belief system is. One good reference book to look at is “Kingdom of the Cults” by Walter Martin. He breaks down the basic doctrines of Chrisitanity and compares various aberrant and cultic groups to that criteria. Here’s a list from Walter Martin’s book “Essential Christianity” a book a highly recommend:
1. The Bible is the Word of God (period).
2. The Trinity; one God, three persons.
3. The deity of Christ-He is God.
4. The virgin birth of Jesus.
5. Jesus died for us-the blood atonement.
6. Jesus resurrection.
7. Saved by grace a part from works.
8. Jesus second coming.
9. The final judgement seat of God.

If our Mormon friends want to sign on to this, I’d be more than happy to give consideration as to if they are Christians. Since Mormonism can’t be found in the Bible, it’s a pretty tough sell for Mormons wanting to be called Christians.
falcon on June 4th, 2009

I think Walter Martin, on p. 226 of “Kingdom of the Cults”, makes an excellent summary and conclusion at the end of the chapter on Mormonism when he writes:

“From these facts it is evident for all to see that Mormonism strives with geat effort to masquerade as the Christian church complete with an exclusive message, infallible prophets, higher revelations for a new dispensation which the Mormons would have us believe began with Joseph Smith, Jr.
But it is the verdict of both history and Biblical theology that Joseph Smith’s religion is a polytheistic nightmare of garbled doctrines draped with the garment of Christian terminology. This fact, if nothing else, brands it as a non-Christian cult system.
Those who would consider Mormonism would be greatly profited by a thoughtful consideration of the facts and evidence previously discussed, lest they be misled into the spiritual maze that is Mormonism.”
Mormons fight, like the devil (I might add), to get their religion mistaken for Christianity. That’s the whole point of the blue smoke and mirrors presentation the young Mormon missionary boys make to unsuspecting prospects. If Mormons gave side-by-side presentations of the basic doctrines of Christianity and the Mormon teachings on each, the recruitment process would be over in one quick session. The whole idea of the “we’re Christians too” is to pull the wool over people’s eyes and falsely lead them into the cult. Even life long Mormons don’t know the whole story behind Mormonism.
A few years back my sister-in-law ran into a friend she hadn’t seen for a while. The friend told her that she was going through the “lessons” with a couple of Mormon missionaries. I gave my sister-in-law Jim Spencer’s book “Beyond Mormonism” and told her to have her friend read it. Well, the friend didn’t get half way through it and cancelled the Mormon “lessons”. Getting the full story is not what Mormons are interested in giving the unsuspecting public.
falcon on June 4th, 2009

On page 169 of “Kingdom of the Cults” Walter Martin says:
“The average active Mormon is usually marked by many sound moral traits. He is generally amiable, almost always hospitable, and extremely devoted to his family and to the teachings of his church. Sad to say, however, the great majority of Mormons are in almost total ignorance of the shady historical and theological sources of their religion. They are openly shocked at times when the unglamorous and definitely un-Christian background of the Mormon Chruch is revealed to them. This litle known facet of Mormonism is ‘a side of the coin’ which innumerable Mormon historians have for years either hidden from their people or glossed over in an attempt to suppress certain verifiable and damaging historical evidences.”
Walter Martin really says it all and makes a definitive case, in his chapter on Mormonism, as to why Mormonism isn’t a Christian religion. Mormons fall all over themselves to be labeled Christians because that label allows them to present themselves as something they are clearly not.
I don’t know of any Christians who would want to be called Mormons. If Christians did call themselves Mormons, it would be an excellent tactic because Mormons would go to great lengths to explain why traditional Christians can’t be consider Mormons. In-so-doing, Mormonism would reveal itself for what it really is, an aberrent cult trying to pawn itself off as a Christian religion.
falcon on June 4th, 2009

This is a true story.

I know a woman who was stuck teaching in a poor inner city school that was rife with gang violence. She feared for her safety but needed the teaching job. She knew she could get a better placement via affirmative action if she claimed african american heritage. So she went into the personel office and changed her race to “black”. The woman processing the paper work looked at her and said, “You’re one of the smart ones aren’t you?” Now the lady didn’t mean, “You’re one of the smart african-americans.” Figure it out yourself.
Now claiming to be african-american didn’t make the woman african-american. When someone makes a claim to be native-american (american indian) for the purpose of being on the tribal membership rolls, they have to prove it. The woman seeking a transfer to another school, didn’t have to prove she was african-american, she just had to claim it!
Mormons can claim their religion is Christianity. They don’t meet any of the basic criteria, but they can claim Christianity as a label. Who’s going to check as to if they worship the same God as Biblical Christianity? I would think that’s kind of a big issue.
The sad truth is, that having rejected the God of the Bible for a man who progressed to become a god, and a Jesus that is not God but like Jehovah Witnesses believe He’s “a god”,(their Jesus cannot save them) Mormons will themselves be rejected at the final judgement. Their god, their jesus cannot save them.
Ralph on June 4th, 2009

Falcon,

Your statement “…having rejected the God of the Bible…” is a little hollow in reference to ‘the God of the Bible’. As stated in past posts the concept of the Trinity can be supported by the Bible, but the doctrine is not written in there. Thus the Trinity cannot be said to be the only God of the Bible – that is just your interpretation. Others have interpreted it and came up with Modalism, and others again with a Godhead. As far as the JWs go, their God and thoughts on Jesus are nothing like the LDS so you cannot compare them the way you have, but they have another God ideology from their interpretation of the Bible. All of these can be supported by the Bible depending on how one wishes to interpret it. Thus I can say from my perspective it is you that has rejected the God of the Bible.

The way many are trying to keep those with differing beliefs out of the ‘Christian’ banner than the Trinity, are trying to have a monopoly on the name of Jesus Christ and a belief in Him. This is one thing Satan want – a confusion over who believes in Jesus Christ as this keeps people from finding/knowing the truth. If you are right and we are wrong then ultimately you are the only TRUE Christians. BUT if we are right and you are wrong, then we are the only TRUE Christians and for you to remove our right to that name puts you in league with Satan.

I believe in Jesus as my Saviour and Redeemer, thus I am a Christian because I have taken His name on me. I am not a Traditional/Trinitarian Christian but I am Christian. Maybe you can find another tag that defines you better over our beliefs that we will not/cannot use – like Trinitarians. And we must be more diligent in teaching our Godhead properly so there is no confusion.
gundeck on June 4th, 2009

Ralph,

I was wondering what Churches teach Modalism?
Aaron Shafovaloff on June 4th, 2009

Are there any Mormons here willing to defend Gordon B. Hinckley’s saying that “fundamentalist Mormon” is a contradiction in terms, and that FLDS and the like are not Mormons?

True to the working assumption of Bill’s argument, Mormons seem quite willing to give themselves a free pass when it comes to any doctrinal boundaries around legitimate Christianity. They want to enlarge it so that they can be in it. Yet when fundamentalist Mormons attempt to practice and teach what Mormons leaders did in the pre-Wilford Woodruff era, you get the Mormon Church saying that FLDS are not Mormons, etc.
Aaron Shafovaloff on June 4th, 2009

I don’t know of any Mormons who claim to be Evangelical Christians. Mormons also don’t claim to be Baptists, Lutherans, etc. And none of the denominations of Christianity claim to be any other denomination.

This is besides the point. No one is accusing Mormonism of claiming to supplant a particular denomination of Christianity, but rather evangelicals are claiming that Mormonism is so theologically aberrant (fostering even the belief that God could have been a sinner) that it shouldn’t even be called “Christian”.

Recall Paul in Galatians 1, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one…”

What we are essentially saying is that we are astonished that Mormons have deserted their ancestor’s heritage in Christ and instead have turned to a different Christianity, not that there really is another Christianity. It is a false Christianity.

I would be content to call Mormonism “counterfeit Christianity” or “false Christianity”, but it wouldn’t be loving or honorable to God’s truth to simply call it “Christian” or “non-traditional Christian”, because that would obscure the nature of the thing. We need negative terms for negative things.
falcon on June 4th, 2009

Well, as ususal our friend Ralph has provided us with an excellent example of what we are discussing here. Ralph tells us that:
“I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Redeemer therefore I am a Christian because I have taken His name on me.”
This is typical cultic obfuscation and word games. Now our friend Ralph knows perfectly well when he says what he says, folks with an orthodox Christian frame of reference are going to think that what he means is what we mean. That is, except for those of us who actually know what the definitions are in RalphWorld as opposed to Christianity. Mitt Romney pulled the same Mormon two-step during the last primary campaign when he talked about receiving Jesus as “his Lord and Savior.”
So is Ralph purposely being deceitful when he uses evangelical Christian terms without giving real defintion to what he means? I don’t know but we know that Ralph, by his own past admission, will kill or steal for the prophet so what’s the big deal about lying?
So the Mormon jesus is not the Christian Jesus. Mormon salvation is not Christian salvation, but by using commonly understood evangelical Christian terms, cults can fool people into thinking that “hay, we’re just like you folks”.
So it’s to the Mormon advantage to try and look like mainstream Baptists while hiding the true belief system of the cult.
Ralph just be honest. Show some integrity. Tell people the real story up front about Mormonism and quit coopting Christian terminology. As a result of trying to sound “Christian” Mormons are attempting to seduce people into thinking their religion is something that it isn’t, namely Christian.
My study of the other braches of Mormonism has demonstrated to me that this deceitfullness is primarily a Utah Mormon technique.
Aaron Shafovaloff on June 4th, 2009

I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Redeemer therefore I am a Christian because I have taken His name on me

If one of my Hispanic neighbor-friends said that same thing, but was referring to a Mexican friend named Jesus who helped him cross the border, can he theferore legitimately call himself a fellow Christian who has taken on the name of Christ?

It is a serious question.

And if another neighbor of mine said he believed in the first-century person of Jesus Christ who died on a cross and resurrected, but thought of him as an alien from Pluto who came to save us from a deadly biological virus that would wipe out the human race, should we refer to him as a fellow Christian?

Do the meaning of words even matter anymore?
st.crispin on June 4th, 2009

Aaron,

It is apparent that evangelicals are attempting to highjack Christianity and put the Bible into a theological straight-jacket.

Evangelical theology circumscribes the definition of “Christianity” so tightly that most of apostolic Christendom falls outside of their adulterated and aberrant definition.

One could say:
“The cults of Martin Luther and John Calvin and all their satanic spawn reject traditional, orthodox, historical, apostolic Christianity and have substituted the true Christianity of the Bible with their own warped Anti-Christ theology that was hatched in hell.”

Sounds kind of silly, but that is precisely the same flawed argument and faulty logic that you are using against the LDS Church.

Frankly, I will let the dictionary be the arbiter of the English language.

Webster’s definition:
Christian
1. a. one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Free Online Dictionary:
Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

I could access other dictionaries but I think I have made my point which is the term “Christian” simply means “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

I know that evangelicals just love to adulterate the English language to serve their own nefarious ends.

Aaron,

You pose the question:
“Do the meaning of words even matter anymore?”

Please, let the dictionaries be the arbiters of the English language.
Mikey_Petey on June 4th, 2009

I personally don’t have any problem with the term Fundamentalist Mormon as it applies to the existing FLDS groups. As a sub-sub-category within the sub-category of Mormonism I think it makes sense. Some other Mormons may disagree with me, but that’s how I see it.

It seems that my religious classification system isn’t much liked by the Evangelical Christians here, but it seems to be the most reasonable way to categorize religions for me.

I am wondering if Christian churches that perform homosexual marriages would also fall into Aaron’s “Counterfeit Christianity” or “False Christianity” sub-categories. If you feel that “Non-Traditional Christianity” isn’t appropriate then maybe “Restored Christianity” works better for you?

I kid.
falcon on June 4th, 2009

I believe it was James in his epistle that said something on the order of “you believe God is One, good, so do the demons and they shudder” and somewhere in the Gospels Jesus encounters this demonic guy and the demons say (paraphase) “what do you have to do with us oh Son of God, have you come to torture us before the appointed time?” So the demons recognized Jesus as being who He is/was and are the demons saved. A big…I DON’T THINK SO!
Andy Watson was telling me about this guy out in the Phillipines who I believe calls himself Jesus….. as having come again. The dude has a big following. I don’t think any of those folks who are following him are saved. And I don’t think we could work-up a case in any of these examples where any of these people (and demons) would have a ligitimate claim on the Christian label.
I always insist, in any endeavor, that folks give me definitions, criteria and standards by which to judge the real from the counterfeit. Since orthodox Christianity has been around for a couple of thousand years, I think we have a pretty good claim on determining what the criteria is for a Christian religion.
Mormonism came on the scene around 1830, a long time after orthodox Christianity had defined what constituted the faith. Mormons don’t get to decide if they’re in the club.
Aaron Shafovaloff on June 4th, 2009

I think I have made my point which is the term “Christian” simply means “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

If Jesus has taught us anything, it is that professing a belief in someone does that automatically make one an adherent.

Stuart, would you say that Muslims can rightfully call themselves Christians?
Mikey_Petey on June 4th, 2009

“would you say that Muslims can rightfully call themselves Christians?”

I know the question isn’t directed at me, but I would like to take a shot.

I am not a religious scholar or anything (I took a World Religions class in my first year of University in Canada) but isn’t it true that adherents of Islam consider Jesus to have been a prophet on par with Moses and Noah? Not sure if that is true so correct me if I am wrong.

I think that to be considered Christian you need to believe that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, not just respect and follow his teachings. Mormons fall into this category.
st.crispin on June 4th, 2009

Aaron,

Your question is moot. While Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet of Allah, and they also revere the Virgin Mary, and Jesus’ Apostles and the prophets of the Old Testament; they would never consider themselves to be a part of that aberrant polytheistic religion known as “Christianity” and therefore would never call themselves Christians.

You ask the question: “Do the meaning of words even matter anymore?”

I think one can effectively and correctly use the definition of the term “Christian” as provided by The Free Online Dictionary:
Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

This would include the many different interpretations and traditions of the term “Christian” as espoused by various Christian faiths.

My objection is that Evangelical churches, which constitute only a small segment of Christendom, falsely seem to believe that they possess and own the sole copyright and trademark to the terms “Christian” and “Christianity”. These Evangelical churches, out of a profound sense of insecurity within themselves and with their theological intolerance of other faiths, persecute, revile and demonize competing definitions and traditions.

Why is it so hard for Evangelicals to accept that other churches interpret the scriptures differently than they? It is apparent the religious fundamentalism breeds an unhealthy intolerance for the religious views of others.

As I said, let the dictionaries be the arbiters of the English language.
Ward on June 4th, 2009

St. Crispin said “let the dictionaries be the arbiters of the English language.” I have to respond to this, even with my limited abilities and proclivity to laziness. In one fell swoop, you have moved us from discussion of theological understanding about very important and historic issues, to the level of online dictionaries. This is misguided, and it dilutes the discussion to one of parry and thrust. Since Antioch, I believe Christians have been labeled as such, and over these long years, the label has stood for specific things. And it still does. And it is widely understood by more than just Evangelicals as to its major components. You make it sound like we are the latecomers and usurpists. You dismiss Evangelicals as only a small percentage of Christendom. By whose numbers are you quoting? Go get a copy of the Encyclopedia of World Christianity and spend some time in it before you continue with these sweeping generalizations.

However, I give you credit for these wild jumps. It makes these posts all the more interesting, even if facts are absent. I’m sorry, but sometimes I just have to laugh at your assertions. I don’t mean that in a mean way. I am trying to say that if you and I were looking at each other, we could identify and cancel out the bluster, put the milk to the side, and get to the meat. s’later…
Aaron Shafovaloff on June 4th, 2009

I think that to be considered Christian you need to believe that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, not just respect and follow his teachings. Mormons fall into this category.

Jesus is Lord of what, of me but not the world? Of me and the world but not necessarily all worlds? And he is savior from what? A biological virus? The border patrol? “Savior” and “Lord” still need definitions here. Saying that Jesus is Lord and Savior doesn’t make him so in all senses.

Stuart, many Muslims would affirm a belief in the existence of Jesus as well as profess adherence to what they think are his teachings. That fits much of the dictionary definition you have listed. Does that make them Christian?

Before God, people are not morally allowed to gut out the meaning of language, replace it with whatever, and then somehow legitimately retain a label because they keep the terms. If I start believing that Jehovah is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that doesn’t mean I am an Israelite, and if I start believing that the Christian God could have been a rampant, filthy, sexual sinner in the past, that doesn’t mean I am a Christian. But if you follow the logic of some Mormons, loyal worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can indeed be Christians if this Spaghetti Monster’s name is Jesus and was incarnate 2000 years ago.

For example, would you affirm John Dehlin’s redefinition of terms of the temple recommend interview to help non-believers pass the temple recommend interview (cf. staylds.com)?
Ralph on June 4th, 2009

Aaron,

In answer to your questions about believing in ‘a Jesus’, can I turn the tables and ask you the same questions?

I have shown documentation from reliable sources, some Christian, that state that the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible, but an interpretation of what is in it. So although the Trinitarin theology has around 1600 years history as the major Christian doctrine does not make it the correct one.

As far as Pres. Hinckley’s statement goes I’ld have to look at the full quote to gain context of it. As it stands, the way you have written it I do have on opinion of what it means but without the full quote I could be wrong.

Gundeck,

I don’t know which churches teach Modalism, I just know that it is one doctrine that is based on an interpretation of the Bible that is in opposition to the Trinity. I do know that it used to be called Sabalism (or however its spelt).

The main point is that Trinitarians do not have a monopoly on believing in Christ as the Saviour and Redeemer, and as such cannot restrict the definition of Christian to include only themselves and excluding other religions that truely (but incorrectly) hold to the teachings of the NT and believe in Jesus Christ as their Savoiur and Redeemer.

Falcon,

If the LDS church is ultimately correct and you are wrong, then it is you that has the false definitions and 2000 years of tradition will not change that fact.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 5th, 2009

Responding to Mike_Petey’s comment “isn’t it true that adherents of Islam consider Jesus to have been a prophet on par with Moses and Noah”

Muslims have quite a high regard for the prophet Jesus, and it perplexes them that the “Christian” west appears to pay him such little honor. Unfortunately, this regard does not extend to listening to what Jesus actually said and did. Muslims would flat-out deny that Jesus taught that he was (the One and Only) God incarnate, and they are really discombobulated by the idea that it was the will of God that one of His “top” prophets would be cruxified. The deity of Christ, and the ultimate goal of his earthly mission (to die on a cross) are believed to be ideas that were introduced by an apostate Church. The answer, according to Islam, is that a 14 year old boy (Muhammad, circa 600 years after Christ) gets a theophany and then writes a book with a new revelation that clarifies or restores the true Gospel (I can get the quotes from the Q’uran if anyone is interested)

Just consider these big themes for a moment;
* The superseding of the Bible with a new “revelation”
* The (alledged) reintroduction of “true” works-based religion (do good and you might just get God’s favourable attention)
* The relegation of Jesus Christ from the God whom we worship to a prophet who’s teachings are helpful

…does it sound familiar yet?

I suggest that any or all of these are a radical departure from the historical definition of Christianity.

My conclusion is that Mormonism is the Islam of North America. IMO Joseph Smith Jnr is closer to Muhammad than he is to Jesus.
Andy Watson on June 5th, 2009

As Martin said, the Muslims reject the Christian concept of the deity of Christ. This they have in common with the Jews. The Jews do believe that Jesus was crucified – the Muslims deny this. They both share the same view on the resurrection of Jesus Christ in that it did not happen. So, both of these religions can say they believe in Jesus, but one has to “peel the onion” and get to the specifics on what one believes about Jesus.

As Martin alluded to regarding Mohammed, the beginning of Islam have familiar story lines when one is thinking about Mormonism. The angel Gabriel supposedly appears to Mohammed in 600 A.D. Gabriel tells Mohammed he is to “restore the true church.” This also included additional scriptures to follow.

Another example is the Persion boy named Mani. He was meditating in his backyard in the second century when an angel appeared to him and told him “to restore the true church”. A religion was born and it was called Manicheaism. It lasted almost 500 years. They sent missionaries out two-by-two, modified the Bible, their gospel was legalistic and taught that exaltation came about through secret ceremonies.

Sound familiar? It should if one is paying attention. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith probably did see something in the woods in New York, but it wasn’t God the Father and Jesus, but rather an “angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14).

There is only one true Jesus. If not, then Christ wouldn’t have said what He did in Matthew 24:24. Here is a short list of the “jesus” in other religions:

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Michael the Archangel “a god”
Mormons: spirit brother of Lucifer; “a god”
Bahai faith: one of 9 divine manifestations
Unitarians: an extrordianarily good man
Spiritism: an advanced spirit medium
Christian Science: “a divine ideal or principle”

Thus, the Apostle Paul’s warning in 2 Cor 11:4 of “another Jesus”. Christianity has 2,000 years of historical evidence of the true Jesus on its side as stated in the Bible.
Andy Watson on June 5th, 2009

Gundeck,

You asked: “What churches teach modalism?”

The largest and well-known would be the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). They are sometimes referred to as “Oneness Pentecostals”. They deny the Trinity and teach that Jesus Christ is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There is only one person (Jesus) and He is all three. This group is not to be confused with mainline Pentecostal groups such as the Assemblies of God which are biblically sound in their teachings and doctrines. They just believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active today. One of the most popular UPC teachers is TV evangelist T.D. Jakes. The last I heard he was still a believer in “oneness” theology.
Andy Watson on June 5th, 2009

I’ve been home now from the Philippines for about a month now. When I think of people applying the label of “Christian” to themselves I can’t help but think of all the abstract religious movements going on over there and all claiming to be Christian. One group that I have been keeping tabs on over there through the years is a movement founded by a man named Apollo C. Quiboloy. He used to be in the United Pentecostal Church. Through a series of events he said that the Father appeared to him in the mountains (sound familiar?) and taught him. According to Quiboloy, after that training the “father” told him that he (Quiboloy) is now the “appointed son of god – jesus christ”.

His movement starts out with 15 people and has now grown into a world-wide following. He even has congregations here in the United States. He has a compound in Davao City where his church is located. The church is called “Jesus Christ: The Name Above Every Name”. Underneath that label it says this: “Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy: appointed Son of God”.

He teaches that salvation is through him and he claims that John 14:6 applies to himself. He stated that the rapture started on April 13, 2005 and that the Father’s kingdom “New Jerusalem” is here today in Davao City, Philippines. His worshippers carry a Bible, pray in his name and call themselves “Christian”, sing and cry while singing Christian songs with their hands lifted up and talk about Jesus. The problem is that their “jesus” is not the Jesus of the Bible. He’s a Filipino man/nutcase named Quiboloy.

Are these people Christians? I think the answer is obvious – no! What makes a person a Christian is what they believe and who that belief is centered on. Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament is the guideline for testing what is of Christ and what is not. When people don’t use God’s Word (the Bible) to test (1 Thes 5:21), they will be easily duped such as the followers of Quiboloy and people like him: Joseph Smith – false prophets.
falcon on June 5th, 2009

Thanks Andy. As always well documented with solid reasoning.
In order to be a Christian, a person needs to worship the Christian God. Mormons do not worship the Christian God. Mormons worship a man who became a god. Mormons acknowledge the presence of many gods making them polytheists. Orson Pratt said if you worship one of the Mormon gods, you worship all of them. Christians are monotheists. Since Mormons worship a different god, and a whole bunch of them by proxy, they are not Christians. We’ve been over this countless times. Evidence doesn’t mean much in Mormonism nor does a systematic approach to understanding the Bible. We keep getting lame conspiracy theories from our Mormon friends as to how a great apostasy took place and all of the Mormon stuff got left out of the Bible and the historical record. What a convenient theory to explain away the fact that Mormonism is the product of the imagination of a guy who claimed to be able to see buried treasure in the ground by the use of his magic rock.
I ‘ve come to understand the cultic mind set in my interaction with Mormons on this blog. Jim Spencer, a former Mormon elder writes:
“For several years after I left Mormonism, I experienced a frustrating sensation that there were places in my mind I could not go. In trying to talk to people about it, I described what seemed to be a steel band wrapped tightly around my mind. Only after considerable ministry and prayer did I experience complete deliverance from the hold of the Mormon cult. As a final act of rejecting Mormonism, I took all Mormon literature out of my home and burned several dozen books in the desert. Only then did I feel completely free. Studies indicate that the average rehabilitation time for former cult members is sixteen months. Long term effects include recurring nightmares and becoming ‘unable to think’.
Is it any wonder that our Mormon contributors here have trouble getting it.
falcon on June 5th, 2009

I think what Bill has done in his presentation is flipped the question and asked “Can Christians be considered Mormons?” The answer is quite clear “no”. Why not? Simply because we don’t beleive what Mormons believe. I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the BoM is an actual account of a lost tribe of Israel finding their way to the Americas, that the LDS Church is the one true Church, and that the Mormon jesus is the Jesus of the Bible. I reject Mormonism on all of it’s main points so it’s obvious I couldn’t call myself a Mormon. The late Gordon B. Hinkley seemed to think that because the LDS church had the name “Jesus Christ” in it, that qualified (the church) for status as a Christian religion. It all comes down to the criteria by which we judge a religion as being within the boundries of the Christian faith.
Mormonism rejects the Bible as God’s final scriptual declaration to man.
Mormonism rejects the God Christians worship.
Mormonism rejects the Savior Christians are depending on for their salvation.
Mormonism rejects the means of salvation defined by Christianity.
Mormonism rejects grace as known by Christianity.
Mormonism rejects the final judgement of God as seen by Christianity.
In light of this, saying that Mormonism is Christian because they use the name Jesus Christ in the title of their church as declared by G.B. Hinkley, is pretty ludicrous.
Mormons want to be considered Christian for the purpose of public relations and recruitment. If it served their purposes to not call themselves nonChristians, they’d do it in a heart beat.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 5th, 2009

Someone “I come to you in the name of Barak Obama”

Martin “That’s interesting, what does Mr Obama want me to do”?

Someone “Mr Obama wants you to vote for John McCain”

Martin “Hold up, I thought you said you came in the name of Mr Obama”

Someone “I do. I am a follower of Mr Obama”

Martin “But Mr Obama would never tell me to vote for Mr McCain. In fact, all the documented evidence and public statements from Mr Obama’s office tell me the exact opposite. Whatever I might otherwise think of Mr Obama , its obvious you don’t represent him. You can’t speak on his behalf”

Someone “You’re not listening to me. I told you that I come in the name of Mr Obama, and I command you, in Mr Obama’s name, to vote for Mr MCain”

Martin “How can you say that”?

Someone “I received a fax directly from Mr Obama”

Martin “I think Mr Obama might have something to say about you misrepresenting him like this. Now that he’s president, you’d better apologize and make your peace with him”

etc etc

(with apologies for the anachronisms and total absence of geo-political correctness)
gundeck on June 5th, 2009

Andy,

You are right, I didn’t think of the oneness Pentecostals. Generaly when I think of modalism I think of dispensational modalism or sequential modalism but the oneness Pentecostals do have there own brand or take on an old heresy.
st.crispin on June 5th, 2009

Aaron,

You ask: “many Muslims would affirm a belief in the existence of Jesus as well as profess adherence to what they think are his teachings. That fits much of the dictionary definition you have listed. Does that make them Christian?”

I respond by stating that the dictionary definition I cited specifies that a Christian is one: “Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.” A muslim obviously does not follow “the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus” and thus is not a Christian and nor would he consider himself to be a Christian and indeed would be highly offended if someone called him a Christian.

You state: “Before God, people are not morally allowed to gut out the meaning of language, replace it with whatever, and then somehow legitimately retain a label because they keep the terms.”

I wholeheartedly agree. That is why Jesus Christ Himself said in reference to the creeds of men: “all their creeds were an abomination in His sight” and that the religions of men “draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

I put my faith and trust in the living words of Jesus Christ, the creator and saviour of the world. I reject the vain philosophies of the men such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Nicene Council.

In view of the words of Jesus Christ can we rightly consider evangelicals and their warped theology to be Christian? I think not.
falcon on June 5th, 2009

Mormons have been trying to wedge their way into mainstream American society since the end of the 19th century during their drive for statehood and the Smoot Hawley hearings. The U.S. Senate held hearings to determine if Smoot Hawley should be seated as a U.S. Senator from Utah. Mormonism was the main topic of discussion, specifically the practice of polygamy. The Mormons made a decision to dump polygamy and there-by gain acceptence as a state. That one act (supposedly) repudiated the teaching of Joseph Smith and subsequent “prophets” of the Mormon church up to that point. We know that the SLC branch of Mormonism has been sealing modern day deceased excommunicated polygamist along with, I believe, their multiple wives.
So a peaceful cooexistance was achieved between the Mormons and polite society at the end of the 19th century. Mormons not only dumped plural marrage but they went from being collectivistic in their economic approach to being unabashed capitalists. In order to gain acceptance Mormons have also had to learn how to “hide” their religious beliefs within the context and language of mainstream Christianity. But now that prospects (and others) can easily access information about Mormonism, it’s becoming more difficult for Mormons to hide what they believe. America isn’t much of a mission field for Mormons any more. They need to seek converts outside of the states. This places a strain on the coffers of the American based Mormon church because the folks in the poor countries can’t kick-in much money to keep the program going. As we know, feeding the Mormon money machine is very important to the boys who sit in the big tall buildings in Salt Lake City.
Appearences mean everything to Mormons. The “Christianity” label is all part of the ruse.
st.crispin on June 5th, 2009

Martin,

It is apparent that you are as ignorant of Islam as you are of Mormonism.

You state: “according to Islam, is that a 14 year old boy (Muhammad, circa 600 years after Christ) gets a theophany and then writes a book with a new revelation that clarifies or restores the true Gospel”

This is completely false.

Muhammad was 40 (not 14) when he is allegedly visited by the Angel Gabriel (this was not a theophany). Muhammed did not write the Qu’ran immediately after this visitation but rather according to Islamic tradition the Qu’ran was dictated to Muhammad over a 20 year period. The Qu’ran does not claim to clarify or restore the “true Gospel”.

You falsely claim that: “Mormonism is the Islam of North America.”

This is such an absurd statement and reveals your complete ignorance of either religion.

You try to connect the LDS Church with Islam by stating:

* The superseding of the Bible with a new “revelation”

This is false. The Book of Mormon does not claim to supersede the Bible but rather is Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

* The (alledged) reintroduction of “true” works-based religion (do good and you might just get God’s favourable attention)

This is false. The LDS Church (being true Christianity) is a religion based on: Faith in Jesus Christ; Repentance; Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost; and enduring to the end by keeping holy covenants and ordinances.

* The relegation of Jesus Christ from the God whom we worship to a prophet who’s teachings are helpful

This is false. Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God the Father and is the head of the LDS Church.

It never ceases to amaze me at just how ignorant Mormon “critics” are of even basic LDS doctrine, history, and practices.
Aaron Shafovaloff on June 5th, 2009

David was having some trouble posting, so I’m posting his comment for him:

—
“they would never consider themselves to be a part of that aberrant polytheistic religion known as “Christianity” and therefore would never call themselves Christians.”

From time to time Muslims have used that argument – that they are the true Christians because they follow the teachings of the true Christ. Conversely, I could argue that I am a Muslim because I believe in submission to the one true God. I could also argue that I am Jewish as many Jews are converts to Judaism, my Savior is Jewish, and Christianity is the true Judaism.

It should be noted that in other world religions there is a fair amount of “policing” that goes on. An Sunni Muslim would probably not call a member of of the nation of Islam a “Muslim”. More than likely he/she would classify the Nation of Islam as not Islam. If it makes Mormons feel better, we also call other groups “not Christian”.

What I find highly interesting is that Mormons have changed their tune on this one. Let the historical record show that their was a time when Mormons trumpeted that we were apostates and that they were not just a Christian sect but true restored Christianity. Either Mormonism is Christianity or it is a fraud; if it is the church of the Lamb then I, and every other non-Mormon “Christian” belong to the church of the Devil.

Seriously, whatever happened to Mormons calling themselves Mormons? Why don’t they follow their church’s advice (given to members of the media) and refer to themselves as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Martin, Muhammad was not 14 when he supposedly received his (supposed) revelation. I believe the biographies on Muhammad say he was about 40.Although, the similarities between Islam and Mormonism have been noticed before by others. At one point Joseph Smith even identified himself with Muhammad.
David Whitsell on June 5th, 2009

“This is such an absurd statement and reveals your complete ignorance of either religion.”

I find that often, though not always, those who cry “ignorance” are the most ignorant of all.

I quote Joseph Smith Jr at a speech he gave in Far West Missouri,

“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”

The quote and a discussion about it can be found here:

http://www.mrm.org/second-muhammad

Actually, here it is Joseph who uses a double plural- the AlCoran – when it shoud simply be – The Coran, or Al Coran. He did this type of thing with Hebrew when in the 1830 Book of Mormon he renders “seraphims” (2 Nephi 16: 2-6) it should be “seraphs” or “seraphim”

“This is false. The Book of Mormon does not claim to supersede the Bible but rather is Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

No one ever said that that the Book of Mormon or the Koran claims to supercede the Bible (actually even the Koran claims to confirm it) but that is indeed how Martin and many others see it and to say that is not an innaccurracy.

“This is false. The LDS Church (being true Christianity) is a religion based on: Faith in Jesus Christ; Repentance; Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost; and enduring to the end by keeping holy covenants and ordinances.”

No one ever stated that Mormons do not require faith in a Christ for exaltation/heaven. The claim, which is an accurate one, that down through the years LDS leaders have taught that works are a necessary part of the equation. But I do like how you called your church “true Christianity”.
falcon on June 5th, 2009

The problem for our Mormon friends is that there is not even a hint of Mormonism in the NT or in the historical record. So this idea that they are “true Chrisitanity” is not only falacious but a tale of monumental proportion. Most Mormons learn these little slogans down at the wards and repeat them just like the four points of their canned testimony. Evidence doesn’t mean anything in Mormonism. What matters is that Mormons accept and repeat what they’ve been told. So if the leadership says there was a great apostasy and Joseph Smith restored the orignial Gospel they just do a big “gulp” and repeat it. We know what passes for Mormon scholarship works in their own limited world, but in the real world it’s Mormon junk history and junk science. The sad thing about Mormonism is that when folks figure out they’ve been lied to, too often they end-up becoming atheists. Mormonism can’t hold anyone who has any intellectual curiosity and some resistance to brain washing. No, Mormonism is not Christianity.
Our hope in writing here is for the questioners who are beginning to figure out the whole sordid tale of Mormonism.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 5th, 2009

St Crispin wrote “The Qu’ran does not claim to clarify or restore the “true Gospel”.”

Here’s a selection from http://www.submission.org/suras...

The Quran: God’s Message
to the Jews and Christians

[5:15] O people of the scripture, our messenger has come to you to proclaim for you many things you have concealed in the scripture, and to pardon many other transgressions you have committed. A beacon has come to you from GOD, and a profound scripture…

Gross Blasphemy

[5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary…

Only God Can Author the Quran

[10:37] This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than GOD. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.

Some time ago, I blogged my reading of the Q’uran here http://web.mac.com/martin_jacobs1/iWeb/The_Martin_Homepage/Quran_Blog/Quran_Blog.html but I only got about half way through it. I’ve got no secrets on the matter. If you’re going to engage me on this subject, you’re going to have to do so with chapter and verse.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 6th, 2009

David Whitsell,

I came to my conclusion that Momonism is the Islam of North America after reading remarkably similar statements from the LDS movement and the Q’uran regarding Christianity and its prophet, Jesus Christ. A short list would include the following;

* Soon after the apostles left the scene, the Christians started to go wrong by worshipping Jesus
* The Christian scriptures have been corrupted and misrepresented
* A new prophet is needed to “restore” true religion
* New inspired scripture
* Absolute loyalty to the prophet
* Justification by works
* Theism

Of course, there are many similarities between Joseph Smith Jnr and Mohammad, including their habits of collecting wives. For instance, both would claim to recognize Jesus as a prophet, but neither comprehended Him (John 1:5).

I was not aware that Joseph Smith Jnr actually aspired to being like Muhammad. Why would he do that?
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 6th, 2009

Ralph wrote “I have shown documentation from reliable sources, some Christian, that state that the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible, but an interpretation of what is in it.”

We’ve been over this and I don’t understand what you hope to gain from it. Its as if you have read the New Bible Dictionary, but didn’t get past the first sentence, which reads “The term ‘Trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible”. Please read the rest of the article. It might be hard for you because it gives no support to (your version of) LDS doctrine.

I am sincerely worried by the apparent habit of LDS to read a text and infer from it something quite contrary to what the text is saying. Ralph, the NBD is NOT your friend. Don’t go there if you want to make your point. You said earlier that you’re involved in some kind of research. I hope your supervisor has the ‘nads to tell you that this habit is not a good thing, especially in your line of work.

I can’t imagine how psychologically damaging it must be to be constantly changing what people say and write into what you want them to say and write, even if it means reversing the meaning of what was communicated

If this habit is the result of LDS indoctrination, then leave the movement now. Don’t do it later today, or tomorrow. Walk out now, like Lot walking out of Sodom, before the damage becomes permanent.

Also “So although the Trinitarian theology has around 1600 years history as the major Christian doctrine does not make it the correct one.”

…but it was what the authors of the NT had in view at the birth of Christianity. In this context, the issue of whether it is true is irrelevent; if you claim to be Christian, then you cannot stand against what the founders of Christianity taught.

Incidentally, your suggestion that it has only been around for 1600 years is misleading if, indeed, it is what the Biblical authors had in view. This may be moot, but what is plain is that they certainly did NOT have the Mormon concept of God in view
Ralph on June 6th, 2009

Martin,

Let’s revisit the quote you gave from the NBD.

“The term ‘trinity’ is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd Century, but received wide currency and formal elucidation only in the 4th and 5th Centuries. Three affirmations are central to the historic doctrine of the Trinity: 1 there is but one God; 2 the Father, the Son and the Spirit is each fully and eternally God; 3 the Father, the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person. Nowhere does the Bible teach this combination of assertions. It may, nevertheless, be claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a profoundly appropriate interpretation of the biblical witness to God in the light of the ministry, death and resurrection-exaltation of Jesus – the ‘Christ event’”

Note what I have bolded. It states 3 central parts of the DOCTRINE of the Trinity, then states that these are found NOWHERE in the Bible, but are and INTERPRETATION from the Bible. Thus it is stating that the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible but is an interpretation of it. The Harper’s Bible dictionary says the same thing. That is 2 separate TRINITARIAN sources saying that the doctrine is not in the Bible but and interpretation of it.

I do not care if these Bible dictionaries do not support the LDS view – you have to worry that they are from a Trinitarian source of scholars because they say it does not hold your doctrine.

The Bible does support the LDS God if it is interpreted through LDS eyes. Thus which is the ‘profoundly appropriate interpretation’ of the Bible?
Ralph on June 6th, 2009

Martin,

You asked me why I am bringing up this argument – To be a ‘true Christian’ one must believe in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible right? Well if your doctrine is not in the Bible but and interpretation of it, then there is a chance that your doctrine is incorrect. If this is true then you are not true Christains. Now if you want to hold a monopoly on the term ‘Christian’ but are not the true Christians then you are following Satan’s plan to confuse everyone.

Now one of your comments “…but it was what the authors of the NT had in view at the birth of Christianity. In this context, the issue of whether it is true is irrelevent; if you claim to be Christian, then you cannot stand against what the founders of Christianity taught.” seems to me to say that you are fine with following Satan in holding a monopoly on the term ‘Christian’ even if you are a false church.

As far as “>”…but it was what the authors of the NT had in view at the birth of Christianity.” In my eyes that was not the view of the authors of the NT, but the view of the usurpers of power after the true apostles were removed from among the people.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 6th, 2009

Ralph said “In my eyes that was not the view of the authors of the NT, but the view of the usurpers of power after the true apostles were removed from among the people.”

…but the authors of the NT believed in One God, and they worshipped Jesus, just like the Trinitarians of today. LDS don’t believe this. It seems that LDS have lined themselves up with the “usurpers of power”.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 6th, 2009

Ralph wrote ” you have to worry that they are from a Trinitarian source of scholars because they say it does not hold your doctrine.”

Before I get a brain hemmorage over this, can someone other than Ralph please give me a reality check?

Am I talking in some unknown language that nobody can understand?

Is there a fundamental problem with the New Bible Dictionary’s entry on the Trinity? Even if the NBD is lacking in some of the particulars, there are plenty of other reputable references and resources that can fill in the gaps, whilst agreeing on the generics.

Why should I worry about it, when I think the NBD does a pretty good job of explaining the doctrine in terms of its history and Biblical basis?

Why should I worry that the formulation of words found in the creeds is not explicitly written into the Bible, when there is a Tsunami of evidence in favor of these words being a succinct summary of what the founding fathers of Christianity believed about God? What’s wrong with a “profoundly appropriate interpretation”? The only thing perceivably wrong with it is that its not LDS, but if this were the case, who then is putting a theological straightjacket on the interpretation of scripture?

Can someone please explain why Ralph should think I’m barking up the wrong tree, because I have no clue about what he is objecting to?
falcon on June 6th, 2009

Our friend Ralph has the Mormon standard of scholarship down pat. That is, read something and then fill-it-up with your own meaning. Ralph and the rest of his Mormon “scholars” are so good at this that they can reverse course on a dime and in an instant if there is a “new” revelation. Mormons can make anything fit. This is what happens when a person buys-into Joseph Smith’s pathology. To repeat myself, Mormon scholarship is just another form of the “dog ate my homework” excuse offered up by the tardy school boy.
Ralph and his buddies can entertain themselves endlessly with their tales of apostasy and explanations for ancient civilizations that never existed and DNA evidence that really doesn’t prove what it proves, a prophet who was a sexual preditor but it was all OK and ancient manuscripts that the prophet “translated” that proved to not say what he said it said and on-and-on. This is a cultic mind-set and nothing will stand in the way of the true believer and his beliefs.
Ralph on June 7th, 2009

Falcon,

You still have not shown me how my list of 6 references about the doctrine of the Trinity not being in the Bible are from unreputable sources. You are just attacking me.

As far as the DNA situation goes, those who believe in the Bible and wish to use the ‘evidence’ against the BoM are not being honest, as the very same evidence also destroys the Bible. And yes I have read the references that are used to say that the evidence supports the Bible, and those references do not support the Bible when read in their entirety, not a snippet or sentence as used by the detractors of the BoM.

Martin,

What is wrong with a “profoundly appropriate interpretation”? Profoundly appropriate to whom? Definately not to me, nor many people I know, including some not of the LDS faith. No one is putting a straight jacket on the interpretation of scripture, but one group is trying to put a straight jacket on who can claim to worship Jesus Christ by calling themselves Christian – then this puts a stright jacket on the interpretation of scripture.

As I said, if the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible but and interpretation of it, then which interpretation of God from the Bible is the correct one? If you are wrong then you cannot claim to be Christian but you want to hold that monopoly on the name anyway. If you are correct, then yes you can claim the name. But can you undisputably prove that you are correct? No, neither can any of the others (including LDS). So who is right and who is wrong? If the wrong one gets to be called Christian and no one else can then Satan has won.
Ralph on June 7th, 2009

Let’s look at what Jesus taught about al of this -

In Matt 13:24-30 Jesus said “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Note, this is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, which from my understanding is the church of God. So in the church are both wheat (true Christians) and tares (false Christians) but Jesus said that the master (ie God) said Let both grow together until the harvest. From this He is saying that He will work it out in the day of Judgment but for us to leave it alone.

God and Jesus know their sheep and will ultimately weed them from the rest of the world, be they (ie the rest of the world) professed believers or not.
falcon on June 7th, 2009

Ralph,
The Christians on this site have both in public and private communications with you gone through the doctrine of the trinity, for example, point-by-point and in excrutiating detail, spending an inordinate amount of time, effort and concern demonstrating to you what the doctrine is all about and how the early Church reasoned it out. We’ve gone through the historical record and the written Scriptures. You my friend, at times, seem to making some progress and then “bang” you’re right back to the same old Mormon talking points. This is pretty typical. The lines of the illusion begin to dissipate and the picture begins to become clear and then (those lines) reappear and the true picture cannot be seen inside the illusion.
This is a cultic mind-set that cannot be overcome with solid information, evidence and a high level of scholarship; and the process has demonstrated much to the Christians here, regarding the quaqmire of false belief and thought process Mormons are entangled in. My guess is that most of the Christians who present clear, logical, reasoned arguments are fast coming to the same conclusion regarding what type of Mormon to interact with and which to leave to themselves. To say the efforts not worth the trouble is a little strong since every soul is worth saving, but we’ll just have to give this over to prayer in the hope that God will send His Holy Spirit and grace to you and somehow your mind my be set free.
Rick B on June 7th, 2009

Ralph,
Just because the word
“Trinity” is not found in the Bible does not mean it does not exist.

You claim you showed Sources from “Christin” Books that claim they cannot find the Trinity in the Bible. I would say, these guys must not know the Bible either.

I gave you a few examples that you seemed not like a whole lot.

Gravity, I know it is real, I can see it’s effects, but outside of seeing it’s effects, I cannot see gravity, I cannot taste gravity nor can I feel it. I can feel it’s effects, but I cannot feel it like if I were to pick up a cat and feel it.

Their are many poisonous gases that were always being warned about and told to by alarms for are house, Why? Because they can and do kill us, many reported cases of people dying from Carbon Monoxide. Falcon I’m sure has heard stories since it seems to happen more often in very cold weather states from Ice fisherman to elderly people trying to reduce heating bills by having faulty gas heaters.

Ralph, we know these gases exist, yet they are colorless, orderless, tasteless. Same for the Trinity. Then just because someone claims to be Christian and writes a book does not make it true.

Below is an example of a guy that claim to be Christian, but later seems to have denied it and I posted about it, but I dont think anyone saw it.
Rick B on June 7th, 2009

Cont,

Martin From Bisbane,
Follow Acts 17:11 and search this out your self, But you told Ralph to read the Book the “Shack”

The Shack author openly stated he DENIES BIBLICAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT.

I saw Falcon quoted from Norman geisler, Norman does talk about the shack and how it is false.

Pastor Gino Geraci from Calvary south Denver put together info on the book and I quote him saying,

The Shack in not a precious Gem, but a broken piece of glass that should be labeled, HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.

Mary Danielsen of http://www.thethings2come.org
Minstry said,

And Remember, every rat trap has real cheese in it.

and lastly a group called “lighthouse trails research put out info on this book.

You guys might want to do as Acts 17:11 says and search the scriptures, I choose to read only the Bible, I rather hear from God himself, than what Man thinks God said, or A man that heard from an angel of Light but is really and angel of darkness, Thats how JS started Mormonism, and look, be it the shack or the BoM, they are both false and will only lead people astray. Rick b
Ward on June 7th, 2009

Rick B.: I have read both of your posts on the Shack. However, the link you list only goes to the church website/blog in general. I may be missing something, but I could not find a reference to the Shack. Do you have a more specific link? Thanks so much.

FWIW: When I started lurking around here, what attracted me first of all was the way in which Sharon, Aaron and Bill gave their perspective on things. Almost without fail, they were and have been careful, respectful, and engaging. At times, some of you other Christian frequent posters, have been confrontative and sometimes perhaps a little sarcastic, from my perspective. I struggle sometimes with the put downs.

However, as I have become more familiar with the many posts on different topics, I have come to see the difficulties under which you are contending, and, I am somewhat sad to say, I am seeing where your frustration and disappointment is coming from. (And getting that way myself)…

Certainly a blog format with numerous postings from many people can be a little disjointed and repetitive, but this format still probably represents real life interaction frustrations. I put myself at the novice level of these kinds of dialogues, but even so, it is becoming easier to see the circularity of the responses you guys get. Those of us who come from Historic Creedal Christianity have well formulated methods of analysis which help us to test ideas. I do not see that developed by our Mormon friends. And the fall back to name calling and labeling as ignorant, etc., makes me wonder if it is worth the effort. It is, of course. It is our calling. I am humbled and honored to walk along this road with the likes of you three I mentioned above, and you others who I will not list by name. Take heart. Your work is not in vain. Your scripture analysis has helped me greatly, and I pray it is giving others pause and thought as well. S’later.
Rick B on June 7th, 2009

Ward,
Please send me an address where I can mail you stuff, My Email is rickshelli@hotmail.com

I can send you copies of everyone I mentioned speaking on the shack and all their sources. I pulled their sites from the written materiel I have.

I have had this written materiel for months, but never meet anyone who read the Shack. So since it has been a while, these on line sites might have moved it to the back as new stuff is posted. It would be really easy to put it all in the mail for you. Rick b
Ralph on June 8th, 2009

Gee, there are a lot of people on this site that are touchy when I make the comment that the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible.

Falcon,

Yes, may people have shown me how the doctrine of the Trinity came about, but as per the quote above and a quote you gave a few weeks ago, it is an INTERPRETATION of the Bible, not in the Bible itself. Big difference. I have understood more about the Trinity from the explanations given and how it was formulated, but that does not mean that I agree with it. Maybe you have part of the cultic mind-set if you cannot understand that you believe in an interpretation of the Bible, not actual doctrine found in it.

RickB,

I never said that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Read my comments again – I said the DOCTRINE is not found in the Bible. Yes it can be supported from the Bible – I am not refuting that. The Christian books say the same thing – the Trinity is an interpretation of the Bible, so they do not say it is not in there, they are just saying that the doctrine is not in there.

So again – which of the interpretations is the correct one and can call themselves Christian? The JW; LDS; Trinitarians; Modalists? Any other? Jesus said let it be as He will sort it out on the Day of Judgement.
falcon on June 8th, 2009

I think we again see the interesting take our Mormon friends have on what Biblical “interpretation” is. The Church, from the beginning, recognized the nature of God for what it is as presented in the Scriptures. This little “interpretation” ploy is used endlessly by heretics in an attempt to sweep away any of the basic doctrines of the orthodox Christian faith. That’s what the Church fathers went through with the early heretics because they were playing the “interpretation” card. The gnostics for example were claiming “secret” information/revelation in much the same manner as Mormons and other heretical groups do today. That’s why the (Church) could appeal to the “tradition” of the Church which was the teaching or handing down of the Gospel from the apostles to their disciples. That’s why Jude would write “…..contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” “Once for all” means completed, done, finished, no more revelation of a “new restored gospel”.
Christians believe that in Christ the Word of God who is eternally one with the Father was at work. They believe that the Spirit who is one with Father and Son filled the earliest Christian community at Pentecost. Christians should also never forget that the Spirit is the Spirit of truth who dwells in the Christian community, leading it into truth (John 14:17,26). The story of the fourth century is one of the most important examples of this leading. The emergence of classical Trinitarian theology was a slow and complex process, the culmination of Christian reflection and argument that had begun at Pentecost…….the faith of Nicea is the true faith of Christians…it was drawn out of the community’s reading of Scripture not only by human effort but by the inspiration of the Spirit shaping and guiding, leeading a real human coummunity into the truth.
(Lewis Ayres, author of Nicea and its Legacy; co-editor The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature)
Ralph on June 8th, 2009

“The emergence of classical Trinitarian theology was a slow and complex process, the culmination of Christian reflection and argument that had begun at Pentecost” (Lewis Ayres, author of Nicea and its Legacy; co-editor The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature)

Once again Falcon, thanks for the quote. It was a “slow and complex process”, and the “culmination of Christain reflection and argument”. Yes the quote says it began at Pentacost and CLAIMS the involvement of the Spirit, but still…

We LDS claim the influence of the Spirit in our church and its inception. Who is right and who is wrong? You can appeal to ‘history’ and ‘tradition’ all you like – I have asked God for the truth and He has affirmed it to me through the Spirit.
falcon on June 8th, 2009

Speaking of the cultic mindset and aberrant thought processing that we see in Mormons, Jim Spencer former Mormon elder and author of many books including “Beyond Mormonism” writes:
“Certain interesting phenomena ocur in the ’snapped’ person. For one thing, investigators find that a person’s intellectual maturity seems to freeze at the point he entered the cult. Former cult members leave the cult at about the same psychological age they entered. I had always been an excited learner, feeling I was growing in maturity, experience, and emotional stature. During my ten years as a Mormon, however, I had the nagging feeling I was going nowhere. Now, after nearly ten years of post-Mormon experience, I am once again experiencing the exciting feeling of personal growth. People leaving cults also tend to experience a period of ‘withdrawal’ in which they fight confusion. For several years after I left Mormonism, I experienced a frustrting sensation that there were places in my mind I could not go. In trying to talk to people about it, I described what seemed to be a steel band wrapped tightly around my mind. Only after considerable ministry and prayer did I experience complete deliverance from the hold of the Mormon cult. As a final act of rejecting Mormonism, I took all Mormon literature out of my home and burned several dozen books in the desert. Only then did I feel completely free.”
Given what Jim has described it’s no wonder Mormons have difficulty comprehending what “Christianity” is and why that label cannot be applied to Mormonism. Having rejected the core beliefs of Christianity but still wanting to wear the label is more than a little strange but understandable. The Mormon church, as an institution, has a vested interest in coopting the label for both public relations and recruitment purposes. The average Mormon wants the label so that their nonMormon friends and associates will think that they (Mormoms) are just like them (nonMormons) in religious belief.
falcon on June 8th, 2009

Well this is wonderful Ralph because I have asked God and He has confirmed His Word in me so I know I have the truth. Touche, right! We can play that Mormon game all day long if you want.
Ralph you have, in your most recent posts, used two of the three tactics that Mormons use to try and find some kind of support for their false religion. In a previous post you talked about it all being a “matter of interpretation”. Well given that little phrase any fully documented and well reasoned argument can be dismissed. That’s why Mormons can claim belief in such off the wall concepts as Joseph Smith’s bogus “translation” of the BoA; a work he did that has been proven to be just more of this guy’s fantasy life. Now you hall out a version of “I bear you my testimony”. I know your back’s up against the wall Ralph but please have at least a modest amount of respect for the rest of us here and refrain from such dubious and weak tactics.
The reason you struggle Ralph is because you’re not born again of the Spirit of God (John 3:10,11). Laboring under the false spirit of Mormonism, your perspective is clouded and your reasoning is entangled in a web that won’t allow clarity of thought. The apostle Paul talked about the natural man and his inability to appraise spiritual things. In fact Paul said it’s “impossible” for such a man to do so.
To complete the thought; a Christian is someone who is born again by the Spirit of God. This is the God that is revealed in the Bible. Mormons are spiritual “born” of the spirit of Mormonism. Being born of and led by that spirit, Mormons will not be able to understand God’s spiritual truths. Mormons are given a spiritual affirmation from the spirit of the god of Mormonism. Having accepted that “truth”, Mormons have given themselves over to a spirit of deceit that will do all in its power to block the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s why a Mormon’s testimony is worthless in terms of the truth of the Gospel and eternal life.
Ward on June 8th, 2009

Falcon: I completely understand your comments back to Ralph, above. This circular broken record is so old. However, how does it get any of us further in this dialogical adventure when we use words like”worthless,” “playing the game,” (again). You have obviously been at this way longer than I have, and you have a wealth of understanding of the scriptures, from my perspective. You are right. Are there other words? Misguided, misperceptive, misinterpreting, misinformed, –I don’t know. A soft answer turns away wrath.

In saying all of that, I am not necessarily saying we should completely ignore the often expressed harshness and arrogance, and other stuff that comes from the other viewpoints. There is no ready or easy answer for any of this.

I come from a therapeutic framework where there is a lot of disagreement and anger. I also come from a missiological framework where there is a lot of opportunity for dialogue. I wonder what would happen if we looked at using frameworks from that (in saying that, now someone is going to say, “Like what?” and I am going to say, “uh…”)

Sometimes I wonder and think that if half or more of the zingers at the beginning of a post or at the end of a post were left off, there would be a different level of civility present. Anyway, thanks for listening to my wonderings…I am learning so much from you.
falcon on June 8th, 2009

Ward,
Thanks a lot for your review and critique. Anyone who’s been around here for any length of time, understands my style of writing and a few even enjoy it. In fact it’s been trademarked as mine. I write the way I do for a reason. Having worked around and having tormented many (mental) health care professionals in my time, I understand your frame of reference completly. I especially enjoy seeing the mouths’ of these folks drop open and watching the people in white coats run for the defiblerator paddles as the offended party hits the floor. I’m retired but still do a lot of consulting and college teaching. I have to explain to every class the first day about my style of communication; the use of hyperbole, sarcasm and irreverent humor. It’s especially fun in the politically correct world of a university campus. Actually my students seem to be quite entertained and judging from my (student) reviews, I’m effective in getting my points across.
Hay, I’m relativly mild compared to Rick “the Hammer” B. At least I try to be funny. Rick B. just pummels people.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback. At least I know someone is paying attention.
Ward on June 8th, 2009

I would love to meet you in the real world, sometime. I have the gifts of sarcasm and cynicism myself. You sound like a lot of fun. I taught a Spiritual Formation class in Thailand for Wheaton a few years ago (mostly for bragging rights – oh, I am Wheaton faculty! which is pretty spiritually unformation). I did it in my usual non traditional way. My favorite evaluation was from a woman who said I was not what she expected. She was looking for an old retired Sem prof who would teach about contemplation. I, on the other hand asked students to get creative, and gave extra credit for effective use of show tunes. oh well, we are really off the blog topic now.
Ralph on June 8th, 2009

Falcon,

”Well this is wonderful Ralph because I have asked God and He has confirmed His Word in me so I know I have the truth. Touche, right!” Again you have illustrated my point exactly.

Let me go through this again, I will try and make it understandable.

The question posed was ‘Can Evangelical Christians call themselves Mormons?’ The reason given is that LDS like to call themselves Christian.

Alright, let’s define what a ‘True Christian’ (as opposed to ‘Evangelical Christian’) is first. It is someone who believes in the only true Jesus Christ. Where do we find information about Jesus Christ – in the Bible. Now, who is the Jesus Christ of the Bible? Let’s answer this WITHOUT the interpretation of the scriptures, just take the things that are non-controversial and plain and easy to understand.

He was born about 2000 years ago to a young lady (or for Falcon’s sake a young girl) named Mary.

He is the Son of God

The Christ/Messiah

He atoned for our sins

was crucified and resurrected 3 days later

He will be our final judge for our eternal destination

There may be a few more things, but outside of these the majority is an interpretation of scripture. The reason I say this is because of the evidence (ie 6 Bible dictionaries) I have presented and now 2 quotes from Falcon saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is not written in the Bible but is an interpretation of it. Likewise, the LDS Godhead doctrine is an interpretation of the Bible. Now there are as I keep pointing out a number of different interpretations from the Bible about God and Jesus – which one is the true interpretation? Can you prove that yours (ie the Trinity) is the true interpretation besides claiming history and tradition?

So if we accept the premises above then who is ‘Christian’? Quite a number of groups can be called Christian according to this, isn’t (NOTE – IS NOT) that right?
Ralph on June 8th, 2009

So what we have are subsets – usually called denominations – in the Christian society. In fact that is how it started – the Anglicans and Lutherans and Greek Orthodox broke away from the Roman Catholics claiming them to be corrupted and lost with heretical teachings.

So let’s look at LDS. We believe in Jesus Christ as written above, but we also believe in Him as being a separate being to Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost but the 3 make up the Godhead and in this sense are one in purpose and mind and ‘spirit’. This can also be supported from the Bible but it is opposed to the Trinitarian view. We also believe in a living prophet, the BoM as further scripture, and further truth and ordinances that are given to us. Does an Evangelical Christian believe in these things as well? The answer there is NO.

So the answer to the main question ‘Can Evangelical Christians call themselves LDS?’ is NO because LDS are a subset (denomination) of Christianity and so are Evangelical Christians BUT Evangelical Christians are not a subset of LDS.

Now if we read what Jesus taught in Matt 13, He said that there will be tares growing amongst the wheat – interpretation being there will be incorrect teachings within His church but for the sake of the true believers He wants the separation of these to occur on the day of the harvest, otherwise some of the true believers will also be thrown away and lost.

Going on this premise, if we wish to confine who can be called Christian to one certain group of people (eg Trinitarians), then it may be at the expense of some or all of the true believers in Jesus – ie the True Christians. If this is the case then you are doing Satan’s job for him. Especially since no one can prove indisputably that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. NOTE I am including the LDS in this last statement even though I believe that is it the correct way, I cannot prove it without the help of the Spirit. But as Falcon shows above this is subjective
Rick B on June 8th, 2009

Falcon said,

Hay, I’m relativly mild compared to Rick “the Hammer” B. At least I try to be funny. Rick B. just pummels people.

Thanks for the kind words, I dont go out of my way to offend it just comes natural. I try and be very honest and up front, if people get offended and end up in hell, then I guess they will have added torment from remembering me telling them the truth and how they rejected it. Rick b
gundeck on June 9th, 2009

Ralph,

There are some problems with your look at denominations. First the Greek Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox didn’t break away from Rome, they never accepted to primacy of the Roman see.

Second and I can only speak for the Reformed Protestants we beleive that there is only one catholic or universal Church and that despite denominational (Eph 1:10,22–23; 5:23,27,32; Col 1:18) differences every Christan is part of that same catholic or universal Church unless they have “degenerated” to the point of being cut off (Rev. 18:2, Rom. 11:18–22). I am unaware of any group that has been accepted in to the catholic Church that believes in a plurality of gods.
Ralph on June 9th, 2009

Gundeck,

I am aware that the RC and GO churches grew apart from the beginning – I was just simplifying things. The fact is they did not recognise each other’s authority and declared the other in error.

As far as your comment about Reformed Protestants, there are still denominational boundaries as you have mentioned, it’s just that you want to see past them and include a larger portion. But this does not hold true for other denominations in the Trinitarian Christian Community. The RC want to be identified as Catholics, not Protestants. And the reason for the split in the past was because each saw the other as apostate. Now-a-days they have grown together more and accept each other. But that still does not negate my argument about who can and can’t be called ‘Christian’ because we do not know who the ‘True Christians’ are. And for us to specify just one group out of a number of them is doing Satan’s job for him and performing the harvest before Jesus has told us to.
gundeck on June 9th, 2009

Ralph,

It doesn’t matter it the Roman Catholics want to be called Catholic. There is only 1 catholic church and Christ is at its head, the members of that church are only those given to Christ by the Father, no matter their denomination, brought into union with Christ buy the power of the Holy Spirit. Membership in Christ’s Church is in itself a Trinitarian activity.

You claim is “that because we do not know who the ‘True Christians’ are” we should accept each other? Does your Church practice Church discipline? Does your Church excommunicate members? Is that getting along?

Paul instructs us to place someone who preaches another Gospel as accursed (2 Cor 11:3, 4; Gal 1:6-9). The very essence and nature of God is one of the fundamentals we are not talking about a debate between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism we are talking about the nature of God. Frankly too many of your views are heterodox to be even close to Christ’s Church.

On the surface the list you gave “(1)He was born about 2000 years ago to a young lady (or for Falcon’s sake a young girl) named Mary (2)He is the Son of God (3)The Christ/Messiah (4)He atoned for our sins (5)was crucified and resurrected 3 days later (6) He will be our final judge for our eternal destination” shows a remarkable amount of concurrence in our religious views. Once you go beneath the surface I guarantee we do not agree on a single of these issues in fact I don’t think we could get past the incarnation and the 2 natures of Christ.
falcon on June 9th, 2009

Ralph,
Where do I go with you? Around and around and around and we never really seem to be making any progress with your understanding of any of this. Maybe you just like all of the attention you’re getting here so it’s not in your interest to demonstrate any understanding.
The Jesus that Mormons talk about is not the Jesus of the Bible and this is not a matter of interpretation. This whole “interpretation” tactic is just a smoke screen because you’re not getting the point and you’ve run out of arguments.
The Mormon jesus is the off spring in the spirit world of a father god and a mother goddess. This isn’t in the Bible or the BoM for that matter. There’s no interpretation here. According to the Mormon prophet Bringham Young Jesus was physically conceived by a sexual union (sexual intercourse)of the Mormon father god and a virgin named Mary. Again, no where to be found except in the perverted mind of a demented Mormon prophet. Now you will say that what BY says doesn’t count and I can play the Ralph game and say “Oh yeah, well that’s your interpretation.”
Ralph I’m just not getting through to you and I along with other Christians here have spent countless hours going through point-by-point the process that the Church went through in developing the explanation of the theology of the Trinity. Your thinking is shaped by Mormonism to the point where it’s impossible for you to comprehend the points being made by any of the Christians who have patiently explained these things to you. I give you the quotes I do from the Church fathers in a hope that it will help you understand, but it becomes more and more obvious to me that you are spiritually incapable of making the connections. And yet you follow a guy who claimed he could see treasure buried in the ground by the use of his magic rock and that makes total sense to you.
I would suggest that you read the NT thinking of God in the manner in which we have presented Him and ask Him to reveal Himself to you.
GRCluff on June 9th, 2009

I think evangelicals SHOULD call themselves Mormon — then we could be done with the name calling and stone throwing to focus on the REAL differences such as:

1. Did JS really accept heavenly visitors?
2. Is God really a 3 in one trinity, or 3 distinct beings that are one in purpose rather than one in substance.

You get my point- we need to get beyond the labels we put on each other to focus on truth or falsehood of the claims being made, as the case may be.
falcon on June 9th, 2009

Well Cluffster,
Where’ve you been buddy? Same old persecution complex I see. Come on, you’ve got to move-on. You’re spending way too much time on the Mormon gerbal wheel. You’ve got to get out more. But I suppose they keep you guys so busy down at the Morg that there’s no chance that the little people might escape and actually expand their intellectual and emotional boundries. World’s a scarry place. Better stick close to the comfort zone of the ward. I didn’t want to disappoint you, so now you can feel persecuted all day today. Come-on, lighten up buddy, you know I love ya!
So did Joseph Smith entertain “heavenly” visitors. No he didn’t! When you’ve got a guy who was into the occult magic arts to the degree that your boy Joe was, any spiritual encounters he had didn’t come from heaven. His use of second sight vision and magic rocks for scrying, insured that any encounters with spirits he had, came from the dark side. In fact, inviting in “spirits” from the demon world under the guise of “spiritual experiences” is a time honored tradition in Mormonism (see “Temple Manifestations” by Joseph Heinerman).
I listened to a presentation by Mormon author Grant Palmer (his book, “An Insiders View of Mormon Origins”) talk about how Joe’s versions of his “first vision” became expanded and improved coinsiding with his need to bolster his street cred with the faithful when things would begin to unravel. Joe’s story would just get more and more fantatic with the retelling. The guy did have a fantastic imagination.
As to the nature of God, Andy Watson did a thorough and excellent presentation regarding this fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church so I won’t go into it again. Needless to say however, a more accurate description of the Mormon god would be a use to be man who progressed to become a god. In fact, I guess if I thought I had a chance to become a god, it’d be a pretty tough thing to give up.
theswedesmusic on June 10th, 2009

Are Mormons Christians? Actually, the question is whether Christians are Mormon. There are MANY doctrines presented by Joseph Smith that have now become adopted by every wing of modern Christianity. These are singular teachings that Smith was ridiculed for and were not taught by others. Now they are common among Evangelicals because they are solidly Biblical and they make better sense. They have become obvious. For a list see:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/madsen_christians_mormon.htm
theswedesmusic on June 10th, 2009

On a seperate note, would you call yourself Catholic? Do you subscribe to everything that Catholicism has taught over the years? No, you don’t. But you have no problem calling them “Christian.”

This video is nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide your personal bitterness against LDS faith, culture and identity. The very name of this blog is pure derision and mockery. People want beauty, not Hellish attempts to defame.
Ward on June 10th, 2009

RE:Are Mormons Christians? Actually, the question is whether Christians are Mormon. There are MANY doctrines presented by Joseph Smith that have now become adopted by every wing of modern Christianity. These are singular teachings that Smith was ridiculed for and were not taught by others. Now they are common among Evangelicals because they are solidly Biblical and they make better sense. They have become obvious. For a list see:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/madsen_christians_mo

What an interesting article. Except that the facts are “common among evangelicals because they are solidly biblical and they make better sense?” Come on… you are not even close in representing that Evangelical Christianity would come close to acceptance on these points. The paper, the best I can figure out, since it is undated, was written in about 1975. I don’t think that should be your best argument. A lot has happened in the last 34 years.
theswedesmusic on June 10th, 2009

Actually, I think the argument there is rather conclusive. After all, there are those in the Protestant mainstream now teaching them. The sources speak for themselves. Are you saying the author made them up? The proof is in the pudding.

Whether the paper was written in 1975 or not does not diminish the doctrinal points that have seeped into mainstream Christianity over the years. Perhaps the trajectory indicates there are even more today.
Don on June 11th, 2009

Are Mormons Christians. My understanding is that the Trinity is stated and taught in the Bible. Ref: John 10:30 I and [my] Father are one (Unity of Nature, being one. Not just purpose and will but in Identity). Also, 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. Additionally, remember John 1:10-12 John 1:10-12, 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,[even] to them that believe on his name:

What does this mean? That they would not believe in him. No, it is much deeper than not believing in him. They WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE HIS IDENTIDY. Deeper than not believing that he was the Messiah. It was in recognizing WHO the MESSIAH was. The Messiah was not JUST the child to be born and the Son to be given. The Messiah was El Gabor, The Mighty God, The Father of the Everlasting, The Prince of Peace, The Lord of our Salvation; The Messiah was God himself in human flesh. This was the message of the Prophets. Isaiah 45:23 By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Who is Jesus? Jehovah God to the Glory of God the Father. Referring to Jesus, Romans 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? This is your affirmation of Christ’s Deity. How can ANYONE claim to Christian that does not receive Christ, what he was and who he is?
Ward on June 11th, 2009

Actually you hit it right on the head with mainstream. The sources in that article are all mainline denominations, and not evangelical authors. Oh, wait a minute. I said all, I should say the vast majority. And there has been decades of study over some of the documents like the dead sea scrolls, for instance. Standard academic research dictates that one uses the most current research. There are numerous more recent articles about the Gospel of Philip, and Thomas, which may or may not prove the point. Indeed, it is quite popular amongst those of a more liberal orientation to trot out things like the Gospel of Philip and give them more credence than they actually have. All in the name of research. The Jesus Seminar is another one. Your article has lots of references and some very nice personal communications, but it does not reflect the mainstream Evangelical viewpoint. It goes back to what I have said before. Where is the preponderance of evidence? Show us references from across the broad spectrum of Christendom, and then we may have an argument. As Aaron says, Grace and Peace.
Don on June 11th, 2009

Ralph, I have never discussed any theology or understanding of God’s Holy Word with you. Please discuss your interpretation of this passage, since you claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible; , 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.
Rick B on June 11th, 2009

Hello theswedesmusic
I’m guessing your a Mormon.
Mormons are not Christian, no matter how much you guys claim this is true. I will post the info later because I have no room now, But I put together info showing LDS Prophets not LDS lay people like Ralph or you, but the Prophets who cannot agree on LDS doctrine.

Now I know Some LDS member will say, But I can find Christian pastors who dont agree, And I would agree with that, but the Problem is, Pastors are not claiming Like LDS prophets to hear from God and give the people the Word Straight from God. And any “Christian” Pastor claim He has a word from God, but that word does not line up with the Bible is a liar just as the Bible tells us. More later. Rick b
Don on June 11th, 2009

Ward, actually through scripture we are taught that God’s Word qould endure forever. Actually I do see your opinion “Standard academic research dictates that one uses the most current research”. However, we should include ALL current research. You mention the Dead Sea Scrolls, great! Please inform as to when the Gospels you mention were written ( I believe you will discover late third century). Additionally, I am satisfied you are educated to the history of the Nicene Creed, if so there are many reasons for the council meeting. I agree that we should utilize and test the most current research but not simply accept unchallenged theories as fact or even acceptable. With over 5,500 scraps and full texts of 1st and early 2nd century manuscripts from the Greek script regarding the new testament, I feel that is at the very least a solid baseline. Thank you for your input, I always enjoy learning truth.
GRCluff on June 11th, 2009

falcon:

Don’t mistake contradiction and conviction as an overreaction to persecution.

I would like to contradict the idea that Mormons would dislike evangelicals using our “label”. Feel free, use it all you like. It is just a name.

My conviction is that the lines we draw in the sand and the names we call each other have little to do with the real event at hand- the eternal quest for truth. After all, that is one thing we have in common.

If anything, the names we use destract and misdirect. It is a form of deception. By calling Mormons a “cult” you can more easily dismiss our assertions. It is a tool to that end- a red herring to avoid discussion, a form of bigotry.

Please don’t put words in my mouth to promote the same kind of bigotry in reverse.
Don on June 11th, 2009

CRCluff, I directed this question to Ralph earlier. I did not receive a response. Perhaps you will respond. Please discuss your interpretation of this passage, since you claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible; , 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.
Don on June 11th, 2009

GRCluff, I notice above where you are full-forced with your opinion regarding falcon. I have another question for you. Everytime I ask questions regarding LDS teachings and do not receive answers I wonder why? Everytime I produce reason and scripture to discover that an LDS representative has lied to me, I am labeled [filtered profanity or slur]. I am not anti anything except deception and lies and the Father of Lies. I am however Pro-Truth. Would you be kind enough to address my earlier question regarding the Trinity?
Don on June 11th, 2009

I am sorry. my filtered profanity or slur was
a n t i – M o r m o n. I was not being vulgar or sluring anyone.
Andy Watson on June 11th, 2009

Don,

I’m not a Mormon, but I can answer your question since it appears that you are anxious for an answer. First, this phrase that points to the Trinity (“Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God”)is stated many times in the Book of Mormon starting with the “Testimony of Three Witnesses” and going on from there. It’s even stated in D&C 20:28.

The Mormon view is that they are one – one in purpose and unity. That is where it ends. They do not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God BY NATURE & ESSENCE (Galatians 4:8) which is the belief of Christianity. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate gods, but are one in unity and purpose. Mormons cite John 17 incorrectly as a proof text, but their sloppy exegesis is easily dismissed with sound study and examination.

So, if our Mormon friends only say half of what they believe about this statement, then it sounds orthodox to the world and it gives them aspirations of grandeur of one day becoming part of mainstream Christianity. However, as long as Christians have the ability to read and can see what Joseph Smith said in his teachings about the Mormon godhead, then the Mormon’s aspirations of wearing the Christian label are suddenly put out like a candle in a tornado.
Andy Watson on June 11th, 2009

Ward,

Don’t let our Mormon friends get you to worked up. If you’re new to this fairly new religion that was hatched out in the early 1800’s then what you need to know is that the Mormon Church has been on a desperate mission the last few years of begging the world to accept them as Christians along with other mainline Christian denominations. The reasons for this are many and time and space here does not allow a fully expose to cover it. It’s been done many times before.

The LDS Church has done an incredible job of cleaning itself up to the public and keeping quiet about certain teachings that don’t go over well with society today. The teachings are still there, but not discussed openly and not even at Conference either. They use our words, but have redefined them to mean something else. They carry a King James Bible and look like us and live like most faitful and God-centered Christians do. It’s really quite masterful. It’s working powerfully in foreign countries where the LDS Church is growing because people there are ignorant for the most part about the Mormon Church and can’t get the information that we can here. I just came back from Asia and can verify this – again.

Mormons want to be Christian? Great! Let’s start by changing two institutions:

1.The Mormon Tabernacle Choir to “The LDS Christian Tabernacle Choir”
2. The Mormon Times (newspaper) to “The LDS Christian Times”

Mormons hold dear to that title. When the FLDS calls themselves Mormons, the Mormon Church in Salt Lake cries “Foul ball! We are the real Mormons – not you!”

Mormons want to be Christians? Great! At the next Conference have Thomas Monson open up with the words of Spencer Kimball when he said, “We are gods in embryo”. See how that plays out in Newsweek or the New York Times. I don’t see Monson sitting down with Larry King and saying one of those “oldies but goodies” to the world today. The LDS Church has toned down it down because they know they have to.
Andy Watson on June 11th, 2009

Swede,

I see you have Truman Madsen on your mind. Was your link to his article a tribute for his years of service at BYU? You must be reading the same paper I am – the “Mormon Times”. He died on May 28th. They had a full spread on him with many of his words in quotes. He was called a “true poet”. It’s too bad that none of his words are binding or have no LDS Church authority since he never made it to the GA’s.

As I read the article and looked at the pictures in this week’s issue of the Mormon Times I wondered what was it was like for Madsen on May 28th to finally get the answer to his question about Mormons being Christian when he, like the rich man in Luke 16:23 “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments” found out that the answer was “no”. I wonder if the verse would go on to read, “…and seeth Joseph Smith afar off he [Madsen] ran to him and screamed, ‘Why did you deceive me?’”. Maybe Joseph Smith said to Madsen what he had said earlier in his life:

“I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:517).

If Mormons want to be Christian they can start by accepting what Christ said in Matt 12:37. I didn’t sentence/condemn Smith to hell. The heresy that Joseph Smith taught about the God of the Bible condemned himself and anyone who believes this false prophet. If Madsen believed in Smith’s teachings, then they both are in torment sadly enough and I wouldn’t wish hell on anyone – I mean it!

A Mormon said to me, “Andy, just because you wear a badge that doesn’t make you a policeman.” I replied, “Yes, and just because you call yourself a Christian that doesn’t make you one either.”
Ralph on June 11th, 2009

Don,

I am in a different time zone to you – Newcastle Australia, so it may take a while for me to answer at times. Just quickly, the people here are like you, they are not ‘anti’ the people but they are the message. Because of this they have decided to make the ‘anti’ word a no-no. That’s why it was censored, nothing more.

In answer to your question about 1 John 5:7, if you look up on the internet ‘Johannine Comma’ you will find that this verse was added to the Bible a couple of centuries after 1 John was written. This means that it is not actual scripture, so it cannot be used as evidence of the Trinity.

As far as John 10:30 goes, Jesus uses the same language in John 17 – v11 “11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.; v21-23 “21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” Someone mentioned that we interpret John 17 incorrectly – but that’s what it comes down to – INTERPRETATION. They say the same thing in the same words so one viable interpretation is that they mean the same thing as there is no outside reference to something else.
Rick B on June 11th, 2009

Swede,
I know all the LDS who reply will set aside Logic and truth to hold fast to what JS taught. First off, JS died a coward jumping out the window of a jail after shooting a gun and possible killing two people. Yep Sounds like a guy dying for his beliefe.

Now here is was I was speaking of yesterday.
JS claims over in D and C 135:3-4 he has done more except Jesus has, well if this is the case why is it that the apostles like Paul, John, Peter and others have books of the Bible named after them and not Joseph? We read in the book of revelation that the names of the 12 apostles will be written on the gates of heaven but no where are any LDS apostles or prophets mentioned, strange how not even the super prophet JS is not mentioned if he ranks second to Jesus?

Now we read J Smith saying in the book History of the Church vol 4, pg 461. “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it’s precepts, than any other book.”

Then over in the book, Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith on pg 71 we read, ” Take away the book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? we have none.”

Now lets look at what the prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith said. Notice Joseph Smith was the first “prophet” Joseph F Smith was the 10th “prophet/president” of the Church. So as not to confuse with the close names.

We read in the book,

Doctrines of Salvation vol 3, pg 198-199 J.F.S. teaches, ” In my judgment their is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the pearl of great price, which we say are our standards in Doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all.

I am going to tell you why. When I say that, do not for a moment think I do not value the Book of Mormon, the Bible,
Rick B on June 11th, 2009

Cont,
and the Pearl of Great Price, just as much as any man that lives; I think I do. I do not know of anybody who has read them more, and I appreciate them; they are wonderful; they contain doctrine and revelation and commandments that we should heed; but the Bible is a history containing the doctrine and commandments given to the people anciently. that applies also to the Book of Mormon. It is the doctrine and history and commandments of the people who dwelt upon this continent anciently.

But this Doctrine and Covenants contains the word of God to those who dwell here now. It is our book. It belongs to the Latter Day Saints.

So we find here two prophets disagree on just how important the BoM really is?
Now lets add to this what Ezra Taft Benson taught. He taught the 14 fundamentals of following the brethren. This was the SECOND: The Living Prophet is More Vital to Us Than The Standard Works.

So now we have 3 people, all prophets teaching different things. This leads to another question, if D and C is over the book of Mormon, why do the Mormon missionary’s not pass that out? And if the Prophet is over all the 4 standard works, why bother passing them out at all? Why not pass out books of the prophets teachings?

Now lets move on to a sore subject in Mormonism that shows more contradictions. The issue of Plural Wives.

I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I feel that it was a doctrine of man, by man and for man. Not from God and here is why I say this. In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this and I quote extra for context that some seem to feel people leave out. More Later, Rick b
falcon on June 11th, 2009

Cluff,
The reason I use the word “cult” in reference to Mormonism or in particular the Mormon organization is because the behavior that is displayed is that of a cult. For example, the organization puts an inordinate amount of control over a person’s time. If a person’s time can be controlled so is the person. They place an inordinate demand on people’s money. Rewards regarding such thing as temple recommends are tied directly to the amount of money the organization dictates that a person contribute. The money aspect is the mother’s milk of Mormonism. Another characteristic is fear/intimidation. Read some of the accounts of folks and how they were treated while they were in the process of leaving the orgaization. A person’s continued ability to make a living can be tied to their continuation in the organization. Recruitment practices include the use of “love bombing” of the prospect and then withdrawl of approval from the person as a means of controlling them. Lack of repect and consideration of personal boundries and intrusion in a person’s life is another characteristic. Reporting on members who are not conforming to the norm of the group.
I could go on but I’ve listed here just some of the behavioral characteristics which basically point to the Mormon organization as a cult. Jim Spencer, who I’ve quoted here often, talks about the one emotional characteristic that he sees in Mormons who are trying to move out of the organization is “fear, black stcky fear”. That’s straight-up intimidation.
I wouldn’t belong to an organization that attempted to control me the way the Mormon organization attempts to control its members. In reading accounts from exMos the recurrent theme is the sense of freedom they feel to now control their own lives. That is the ability to control their time, their associations, their money and how they think. They talk about becoming an individual again and not having to put on a front for the benefit of appearences
Ward on June 11th, 2009

Swede: ANother thought on the Madsen article: This writing style- it looks familiar. It is so “Nibley-esque!” It reminded me of some psychoanalytic research I had to read way back long ago. It sounds convincing, but then you realize it is just a bunch of opinions in books quoting others’ opinions. There is no underlying research, or biblical references in our case, which supports the theme, which is hard to find too. My fav quotes from the article is the asides that people may have made in jest or who knows that are now presented as bonafide and reputable evidences.

Have a great day.
Rick B on June 11th, 2009

Cont,
I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I feel that it was a doctrine of man, by man and for man. Not from God and here is why I say this. In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this and I quote extra for context that some seem to feel people leave out.

“Some quietly listen to those who speak against the lords servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that god has revealed. Such persons have a half dozen devils with them all the time. YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY “MORMONISM,” AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES. Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. Also we read in vol 3 pg 266, where B Young said and I quote, “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned. WOW B Young promises we will be damned if we stop this practice. I guess there will be many damned LDS, as the stopped doing this.

Let us add to this

D and C 132 1-3 2. Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. So here we find it is “supposedly” of God. 3. Therefore ,prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THIS LAW REVEALED UNTO THEM MUST OBEY THE SAME. 4. for behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, then are ye damned;for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. I would like to point out some things here. First off in D and C 1:14 it says we must obey the lord, the apostles, and the prophets or we will be cut off.

Their, You read it and heard it, so this applies to you, not only to a select few as Mormons claim, otherwise God lied.
Also Since when is new and everlasting only 50 or so years.
falcon on June 11th, 2009

Rick,
I don’t mean to argue with you, but that stuff doesn’t count anymore, does it? Brigham Young said a lot of stuff that’s buried somewhere out in Monument Valley now. What about Adam-God, and Blood Atonement. You can see how BY wasn’t going to have any end to the practice of plural wives. Andy Watson and I were talking about this the other day and I think old Brigham had something like 57 wives.
I don’t mean to get too out of line here or too graphic but how did the guy physically do it? I can feel the old me from 40 years ago rushing back and I’ve had to take hold of my creative sense of humor here. It’s amazing how the old man is still lurking back there some place although it takes quite abit for him to surface after all of these years.
I guess God just keeps washing me in the Word; “For those who are in Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with it’s lusts and desires”. I don’t mean to get off track here, but I’ve spent a lot of time meditating over the years on that verse of Scripture wondering exactly how it applies. Because it also says “Anyone who is in Christ is a new creature. The old has passed away, all things are new”.
Here’s what I think. In the heavenlies before God through Jesus Christ I am a new creature. God has declared me righteous not on the basis of my works but on the basis of what God did for me through Christ Jesus on the Cross. So my task is to try and live out the reality of what God has already declared a finished work in me.
The Bible says that a just man falls seven times a day. Think of what that calculates to a “just man” in a normal life time. That’s a lot of sin even for a just man. That’s why we need the gift of salvation. We could never hope to earn it and certainly not deserve it. All of a sudden I feel burning in the bosom good. Isn’t God great? I’m going to go have church now all by myself!
Ralph on June 12th, 2009

RickB and Falcon,

The only people who were allowed more than one wife were the ones that God told through the prophet – no one else. Now as discussed in the past about single people who did not have a chance to get married in this life not missing out on the blessings of the CK, this also applies to those who did not get the chance to have more than one wife – as the following quote from the JoD states –

”It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. – JoD 11:268-269”
Ralph on June 12th, 2009

Cont’d

Note the bold – if one accepts the policy in their hearts/faith. It states that those who do not accept it in their faith/hearts but oppose it will not gain the CK. That is what the other quotes you gave are saying. No where do your quotes say that if we stop practising polygamy we are damned, they are saying if we oppose it we are damned.

I have looked through the past blogs about polygamy to find a quote that I think Lautensack or Berean wrote from the JoD, but I can’t so you will have to look it up for me RickB since I don’t have a copy (in the mean time I will keep looking for it as well but it may have to wait until I get home tonight as I can’t do too much here at work). In the JoD, BY said that we will practise polygamy until God tells us to stop. So even BY says that there may be a time where we will stop practising polygamy, but that does not mean that we stop believing in it. It is those who do not accept the principle of it that are opposing it and will be damned, not those who believe in it and if they had the chance would follow it.
Ralph on June 12th, 2009

RickB,

As I said I would, I found the BY quote that states polygamy is only for a time and not forever – ”If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.” JoD 11:266 So BY taught that if God wanted us to stop practising polygamy, He will tell us and we will stop – which is what happened.

Like I said in my previous posts, the quotes you gave are telling us that we should accept whole heartedly the teaching of polygamy and that is all that is necessary until we are told by the prophet of God that we are to take another wife. If we are not told to take another wife but we accept polygamy as being from God then it will be counted as if we were polygamists (ie ‘polygamist in faith’ as per qoute above) and we can still acheive the CK.

Your quotes say nothing about stopping the practise if/when God tells us to – it is talking about those who outright reject the teaching – ie those who ‘oppose’ it.
falcon on June 12th, 2009

Yea Ralph all very interesting. Let see an angel with a big sword tells Joseph Smith to start taking more wives or he’ll kill him. He wouldn’t make that up just so he could satisfy his own sexual fantasies, would he? Oh no, not the prophet. I wonder if the angel also told him to bed married women and adolecent girls or if he came up with that all on his own. Some angel, huh.
And let’s see this has got to be done if you want to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. But oh, oh…..redo….the prophet in 1890 get’s a message that no, no, no swtich-o change-o. Seems strange, one day you have to do it to get the brass ring and the next day it’s all called off. At least the FLDS has some integrity.
Ralph I know we can’t penetrate your TBM hide here, but do you know how pathetic all of this is? Of course not. This is all normal understandable stuff in the wonderful world of Mormonism. The Morg is lucky to have guys like you around who do what they’re told.
Ralph on June 12th, 2009

Well Falcon,

I guess from your logic we need to bring back circumcision into Christianity.

Genesis 17:9-14 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

God describes it as an “everlasting covenant” that shall be in the flesh of the believers forever, and that anyone who is not circumcised shall be cut off from His people. Just remember here that God’s people for that time (ie the Israelites) were to come through Abraham’s lineage.

If you want to take it as meaning just the people that are direct descendants of Abraham, how do you know you are not one? We know where the Jews are, but we are told in the Bible that 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel (who are direct descendants of Abraham) were scattered through and lost to the world. God can institute something and then change it or remove it for a time if He wants. It’s not up to me to tell Him what He san and can’t do.

But hey, doesn’t this go with your belief that God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants? Or are you going to place a border on Him and make Him adhere to certain rules?
GRCluff on June 12th, 2009

Don:
You asked me about the 3 in one thing? It is clearly taught in the Bible:

John 17

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…

Does this mean that you and I should join hands now and become one in substance, or one in purpose? (Like God the Father is one in purpose with his son Jesus)

You won’t find anything as clear as this in the Book of Mormon. We need to use the Bible- but it is pretty clear to me. Christ was and is talking about complete unity, not about merging identities and convincing Christians to believe in a false God. The God of the Mormons is the TRUE God of the Bible.
GRCluff on June 12th, 2009

falcon:

One man’s “inordinate demand” is anothers free exercise of faith- it depends on your perspective.

If you give of yourselve freely and your faith is rewarded with gifts from God and power from on High it is no sacrifice at all. That is the power of salvation and the path to happiness.

Those who give begrudgingly are those that take on the exercise WITHOUT the faith. The faith must come first. The reward is missing in that case- because the faith was missing in the first place. It doesn’t suprise me that such would leave the church for a less demanding path. I am not convinced that it is a better path.
Michael P on June 12th, 2009

GRCluff, it is not about a demanding path. Actually, following Christ as we Christians believe we should is a very difficult path to go down. Its not about following rules, though. Its simply about living righteously, and following Christ’s example.

I think you’d agree with me up to this point. But what is different is that I know, 100%, that even though I fail to live up to that standard, I will spend eternity with Christ in heaven.

You cannot say that.

Why is this? It is the difference in believing in a works based system, even one that puts faith first because works necessarilly follow, and one that believes in the full power of mercy and grace based on faith. See, if works are a part of the game, then you will never be sure you have done enough to warrant the prize. But if mercy and grace rules, then there is no question because all it takes faith.

Now, returning to my first sentence: don’t confuse the surety based on faith alone with an easy route. Taking that faith, and allowing Christ to live is in many ways a painful process. I say painful because there is so much you have to change and a higher standard to live by because Christ demands it.

But here’s the wonderful thing: when Christ enters your heart, you will want to work to reach that standard. You’ll never achieve it, but that does not matter because Christ has a real and personal relationship with you, and he has adopted you as his child, where you will remain for eternity.

What wonderful news!
Rick B on June 12th, 2009

So where is swede? Another mormon who tosses out a punch then runs away?

Anyway I ran my limit yesterday so here I am to continue.

Cont,
I\’m sorry but everlasting only lasting about 50 years, and God said this is for all but Mormons claim it was only for some, is confusion.

Who gave this new and everlasting covenant? The lord did. The lord said for all who have this law revealed unto them MUST obey it. Well if you read D and C or just read what I wrote, you fall under all who have it reveled unto them. Now you must obey it. Not only are Mormons not following D and C 1:14 but the concept of on going revelation now shows it\’s flaws. Ezra Taft Benson taught the prophet does not need to say thus saith the lord to give us scripture. But the lord was clear he gave us that scripture. But the counsel backed it up as I stated above.

Then Ezra Taft Benson also taught the prophet cannot lead the church astray. so which prophet is leading us astray? The prophets of old followed and taught it, but now deny it.

Hebrews 6:16 say it is impossible for God to lie, Titus 1:2 Enos 6, Ether 3:12 and D and C 62:6 all teach God cannot lie.

So did God lie? He states it is a new and everlasting covenant. Again since when is everlasting only 50 plus years. Also if God did not lie who did? Mormons teach that the plural wife teaching was for a select few men, God said it was for all that it was reveled unto. Again if you heard it, it was reveled unto you, why are you not obeying it?

Now lets look to the book of Mormon. In Jacob 1:15-19 and 2:21-25 it teaches David and Solomon did evil by having many wives. Then in Mosiah 11:2 it teaches many wives is a sin. Now here is a contradiction because in D and C 132:37-39 it says it was not a sin for David Solomon and others to have many wives. Now I thought God could not lie? But Gods word is both in the B.O.M and D and C. So either man wrote it and messed up or God lied.
More Later, Rick b
Rick B on June 12th, 2009

If the BOM is the fullness of the Gospel why then does it not support D and C 132 About the topic of Plural wives forever.

Then Again if the BOM is the fullness why do we read in Mosiah 11:2 and Ether 10:5 plural wives is a sin, this goes against D and C 132. Add to that Jacob 3:5, the Lamanites are called filthy yet at the same time they are more righteous in their actions because they don’t practice plural wives.

D and C 19:26 and 42:12 states both the Bible and BOM contain truth and are the word of God, yet they deny the teaching of plural wives as a good God ordained teaching.

Moroni 8:18 teach’s God is unchangble yet he changed his stance, saying plural wives is an abomation by allowing it to happen in D and C 132?. Now I know LDS will reply by saying Plural wives was practiced in the Bible. It was a sin even in the Bible, If God were to punish us with death every time we sinned there would only be plants and animals left on this planet. Now if you want to give your Bible scripture on plural wives please give a scripture(s) from the Bible as clear as D and C 132 Where God says here you go a gift of many wives or Hey you I commanded you to take wives and the more the better. It is not in there. Yes the people sinned and disobeyed the Lord by taking them but God never said this is what I want/commanded you to do.

Let me ask again. Who in Mormonism can we trust?

Now, Mormons claim they are christens also, Lets look at what the Prophets of old said about Christians and I quote:

“B Young: “With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world” (Journal of Discourses 8:199). I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr. Taylor) “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth” (J.O.D 6:176).

Yet more later, rick b
falcon on June 12th, 2009

Ralph,
How in the world did you ever make the jump to circumcision. You’re a pretty funny guy Ralph but I love your posts because it exposes that absoulte mangling Mormons do with Biblical interpretation. I guess we must have dazzled you with our posts and you decided to strike out on your own. But the falcon has taken Ralph on as a project to try and teach him how to read and interpret the Bible.
Do you really want me to go into covenant theology? It’s really one of my favorite topics and one I’ve studied quite intently. Just to help you out real quickly, go to the Book of Galatians that’s what it’s all about, in fact Paul talks about following “another Gospel” which is what Mormons do. But just to make it quick, there are a series of covenants in the Bible. We could start with the Abrahamic covenant. God promises Abraham three things: land, seed and a blessing. These three promises are than amplified and explained in the Palestinian covenant, the Davidic covenant and the New Heart covenant found in Jerimiah.
But just to summarize this because the falcon actually has to come out of retirement today and go do some training/consulting, Christ is the completion of the Law. It’s a new covenant that got had promised. God didn’t switch courses or change his mind. It was a completion of God’s promises.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 12th, 2009

TheSwedeMusic wrote “On a seperate note, would you call yourself Catholic? Do you subscribe to everything that Catholicism has taught over the years? No, you don’t. But you have no problem calling them “Christian.””

Do I call myself a catholic? Personally, yes, but with a small “c”. I’d venture to say that most Creedal Christians would also say the same thing. This might surprise you, but it says in our creed “I believe in one holy, apostolic, catholic church”, and those of us who are more habitually liturgical say it most weeks at Church (incidentally, the people I know who say it, say it because they believe it, not because its the kind of lip service needed to stay “in” with the club).

In the context of the creeds and Protestant (and Catholic) liturgy, the word “catholic” means that you don’t have to pre-qualify to enter the Church, and I am most concerned to keep it that way.

Do I subscribe to (Roman) Catholic teaching? Again, I can agree with more than I ever thought I would. When I read Cardinal Ratzenburger’s address, I thought “this guy really knows what he’s talking about”, especially the idea that you can’t build the Kingdom of God by using Ungodly means. Pity the Moslem world took this message all wrong and got prickly because a Byzantine Prince argued with a Moslem over this very issue in the 14th Century (if my memory serves me correctly).

I’d guess the major difference between me and Roman Catholic would be on the issue of ecclesiology.

No, I’m not embarrassed that Roman Catholics can be called Christians, though I’d wish they’d put more emphasis on grace and less on works.
Martin_from_Brisbane on June 12th, 2009

GRCluff wrote ” The God of the Mormons is the TRUE God of the Bible.”

…which of the gods of the Mormons is the true God of the Bible?

…and which Mormonism are you referring to? The Trinitarian-like Mormonism of the preparatory Gospel, or the full-fledged paganism of the full Gospel?

You’re a lucky man to have so many options to choose from. Poor me, I’m stuck with just one “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” (John 1:1 etc etc etc)
Rick B on June 12th, 2009

then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the Christian creeds are an abomtion in his sight.

If this is the case how can you say you are Christians. Along this lines I would like to ask also, if you are Christians then why do you try and convert Christians to the Mormon faith if we all are Christians?

OK, Now I will just post problems in general otherwise known as contradictions. But the problem with these is, either The Prophet Joseph Smith claims God told him or God himself said this stuff, Again, who in Mormonism can we trust?.

Over in D and C 7 it teaches John the apostle was to live and preach till the lord returns. Read 3 NEPHI 28:6-7 It teaches the apostle John, Who walked with Jesus, Was told he will never die. Then over in ETHER 12:17 3 more disciples were also told they would never see death. Then read D and C 7:1-8 Ok now if this stuff is true there could never have been a total apostasy of the church, Because there were people who were living that had the gospel truth.

1 NEPHI 1:8 It says ” I THOUGHT I SAW GOD” You either did see God or you did not, You cannot say I thought I saw God. Not only that but the Bible teaches no man can see God and live, Also over in D and C 84:19-22 Says if you do not have the priesthood you cannot see God and live. Here is another problem, When this guy said I thought I saw God, There is no mention of him having the priesthood. Also when Joseph Smith first had his vision and said he saw God, Then later said God came and baptized him he did not have the priesthood. So if Joseph Smith could see and talk with God then receive the priesthood, That means D and C 84 is wrong other wise the only other option is Joseph Smith lied. Either way someone lied.

Now here is the subject of Negros and them not being able to receive the same rights as white people according to the Prophet B Young and Bruce Mc. But even this has since changed and has been tried to be buried.
Rick B on June 12th, 2009

Swede This is why I say what I do.
Read pg 188 of Doct of Salvation vol 1.

I quote Joseph F Smith. “CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. MORMONISM, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. Their is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed: his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false”.

Read also

D and C 71:5-11 98:14,23-26 it says meet your enemy in public. If I am your enemy which I don’t feel I am but if I am it says meet me in public to talk about this stuff. Jesus said love your enemy. D and C 66:7 68:1,9 go into the church’s public or private to discuss this stuff. D and C 6:9-11 say convince us of our error if we have any. why do I get accused of being hateful for doing what the scriptures teach. now let me add this, would you agree it is good to listen to the Mormon prophets? if so, then I am.

I quote Orsan Pratt still pg 15. “we ask from you the same generosity–protect us in the exercise of our religious rights–CONVINCE US of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of god, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds”.

I am just trying to look at Mormonism in a logical way and point out what I believe are problems. I find it interesting that Mormons of old were willing to tell others they were wrong or be open to talks. but it does not appear to be that way today. I hope this really makes you examine your faith. If you would like to talk privately off line you are more than welcome. Rick B
theOtter on June 15th, 2009

The speaker makes five claims:

1) LdS “doctrine classifies us [whoever “us” is] as enemies of Christ.” Arguable, but the speaker’s own doctrine obviously classifies LdS as “enemies of Christ” in the same way that ours is argued to classify him as such.

2) “[The Church of Jesus Christ] is lead [sic] by mean who [sic] do not biblically [sic] qualify as true prophets and apostles of Christ.” Um… huh? When did this happen?

3) “[The Church’s] view of the godhead [sic] is not shared by any Christian tradition.” True, depending on what one means by “Christian tradition.” I’d argue that it’s shared by all members of Christ’s Church—including the Biblical prophets and Christ Himself! If “Christian tradition” differs from Christ’s teachings, then the speaker is absolutely correct.

4a) “[The Church’s] scriptures speak of fictional characters….” Which fictional characters would those be? Billions of people believe that Adam, Moses, and even Jesus Christ are “fictional characters.” If the speaker would care to prove his charges, perhaps we could continue this discussion.

4b) “[The Church’s] scriptures… [include] teachings (and revelations) that often contradict what God has already revealed in His Word.” Funny…. Some of the greatest doctrinal minds of the last 180 years have tried to point out these contradictions, yet none has ever managed to find one. Has the speaker found something that they all missed? If so, he might point it out, that we all might be likewise enlightened.

5) “[The Church’s] soteriology continues to undermine the biblical [sic] understanding of mercy and grace.” So what problem does he have with the soteriology? LdS teach that grace is a free gift, given by Christ to those that accept Him as Lord and Savior. If the speaker’s “Biblical understanding” differs from this, I would be happy to discuss it with him.

What’s really sad is that people just blindly believe stuff—both pro- and anti-LdS—instead of learning the truth for themselves.

My 2¢.
Aaron Shafovaloff on June 15th, 2009

theOtter, we do think that, religiously speaking, Mormons who preach a false gospel are enemies of Christ (to use the NT language). Our complaint against Mormonism isn’t that they classify us as enemies of Christ in some sense. It’s rather that they want to have their cake and eat it too, etc., to consider us “fellow Christians”, classify us as enemies and apostates, and yet get upset when evangelicals say Mormonism isn’t theologically a truly Christian religion.

Some of the greatest doctrinal minds of the last 180 years have tried to point out these contradictions, yet none has ever managed to find one.

See Thomas G. Alexander’s paper here.

LdS teach that grace is a free gift, given by Christ to those that accept Him as Lord and Savior. If the speaker’s “Biblical understanding” differs from this, I would be happy to discuss it with him.

See this and this.

Take care,

Aaron

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?

112 Comments so far

Leave a reply

Subscribe

Join the Discussion

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Links

Stay Updated

Categories

Archives