A Business Wire press release dated September 10, 2007 announces an interesting new product that its creators hope will become the “must-have stocking stuffer of the year.” Mormons Exposed is producing and selling
“a steamy 2008 calendar featuring twelve handsome returned Mormon missionaries who have dared to pose bare-chested in the first-ever Men on a Mission calendar. Usually seen riding their bicycles and preaching door-to-door, the sexy new calendar celebrates the great looks, beautiful bodies and amazing stories of service of these deeply spiritual men.”
Returned LDS missionary Chad Hardy is the calendar’s producer and co-founder of Mormons Exposed. Having been raised in a sixth generation Mormon family and having lived in Utah for eight years, Mr. Hardy understands Mormonism and Mormons. Therefore, according to the FAQ page on the Mormons Exposed web site,
“The fact that twelve young returned missionaries are posing shirtless will certainly raise eyebrows, but may also help to sort out some common misconceptions about Mormons…
“Since the veil surrounding the Mormon religion can be difficult for outsiders to permeate or to understand, the humor of the calendar is intended to help debunk common misperceptions and dispel some myths about the Mormon religion — encouraging people of every belief system to be more tolerant of one another.”
The Mormons Exposed web site contains a couple of myth-busting options. One is a Men on a Mission fan club page, which asks,
“Do you have a secret missionary crush? Or do you think one of our guys is a total stud? Simply click on the box of your favorite missionary, enter your email address and click ‘vote.’ Once you vote, you’ll start receiving our newsletter and updates on your favorite guy! (Your information will be kept strictly confidential.)”
Another is an audition page which allows men (or women?) to fill out an application for consideration to be included in a future calendar:
“We are looking for fit, great-looking returned missionaries with amazing stories to tell for the 2009 calendar. Only 12 finalists will be chosen. Do you have what it takes?”
I have to admit, the Men on a Mission calendar certainly challenges some of my perceptions regarding Mormon missionaries. I’ll bet it challenges the perceptions of the folks at the Church Administration Building, too. But an aspect of it seems like a worthy endeavor; the calendar will generate money for charities (a portion of the proceeds will be donated), and will put a fresh, lighthearted face on misperceived-as-stodgy Mormonism. These are things LDS Church leadership would certainly support.
Hey — I wonder if all the members of the Quorum of the Twelve are returned missionaries…
—
Update July 14, 2008: On July 13, 2008 Chad Hardy, creator of the calendar, appeared before a Church disciplinary council. After Mr. Hardy explained his vision and purpose for the Men on a Mission calendars, the Church council ”still felt the calendar is inappropriate and not the image that the church wants to have,” Mr. Hardy said. After 45 minutes of deliberation, the LDS Church council decided to excommunicate Mr. Hardy.
Ralph, I would say LDS is the “odd squad.” lol, just pokin’ fun. Mormonism is mainstream now so I guess that term would only have applied during its beginnings in the 1800’s.
Amanda, could you put down a couple references where someone on this blog “hated” on you? It’s like your playing the victim card here. You even said it yourself that we are “mormon-haters”. I haven’t seen any personalized contention for any LDS on this blog. If you want to say that we are “MormonISM-challengers”, that would be a more correct term to explain what goes on in this blog. Never once has anyone degraded you and said your beliefs are stupid. People are simply just challenging your belief. Like it or not, in here, your beliefs are opposed and you will be questioned on them if you’re posting on here. We are throwing different pitches here and its up to you if you want to step up to the plate and swing at them, no one is holding your arm.
Hey Amanda, you claim we hate you and attack your beliefes, That simply is not true. So let me ask you this, would it make you happy if I were to tell you I was listing to the LDS prophets and for once really doing as the commanded?
Well let me make you day if you said yes to that Question, For once I am doing as the LDS prophet has said, a non-LDS person following an LDS prophets advice.
J.F.S. Said and I quote 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”.
I’m doing just as he said, and your mad at me, thats lame, I bet you did not even know your prophet taught that, and if you say, yes I did, then why are you mad at me for doing what he said and not telling everyone what he said. Rick b
I’ll put in a plug for the blog. I’m a committed Mormon – born and raised in the faith.
I think this blog is, for the most part, rather civil. In every conversation I’ve seen him in, both here, and elsewhere in the Mormon blogging community, Aaron has been quite polite.
Amanda, from what I’ve seen of her participation, has been a bit overwhelmed from all sides. As far as I can tell, she’s been one of the few pro-Mormon voices here and that can get burdensome for one person. I know – I’ve been before the firing squad in other online forums, and it can be hard to keep your composure, especially when you don’t have anyone in your corner.
So I totally understand it if she occasionally gets short with people.
Seth said So I totally understand it if she occasionally gets short with people.
Here is the problem, she claims were hateful mean and angry, yet it’s ok for her to get short with us, Makes tons of sense.
Then I have seen a large number of questions posed to the LDS that go ignored like they were never asked, yet the LDS claim they have the truth and the true church. So if you really have the truth, why ignore the hard questions? I could understand if you admited you noticed the question but have no answer, yet many questions get ignored like they were never asked, to me that is a problem. Rick b
Rick, you’ve pointed out Gal 1:8-9 right?
Is that the “question” you are referring to? Because to me it doesn’t look so much like a question as an assertion.
I’ll also repeat that debating that scripture, or the general truthfulness of the LDS faith here, would be a threadjack. It really doesn’t have much to do with the original post.
I’m sure Aaron will provide a later opportunity to discuss this specific issue, given what this blog is about. But I see little need to get into it now.
Yeah Jeff,
I was thinking about it after I asked the question and came up with Odd Squad.
But I also came up with Cod Squad – because someone writing on one of these blogs accused the LDS church of throwing in red herrings.
Then I thought about a comment made by Mark Twain about the Book of Mormon – he called it chloroform in print. There is also the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon, so I came up with the Nod Squad.
Now back to a ‘serious’ note for me. Some of the writers have made comments that the LDS church seem to like to point and say persecution when someone challenges their beliefs. I have seen it myself in my life as I was growing up. I believe that its because in some way the church encourages (unknowingly) this type of mentality by the way it teaches its history and beliefs.
As a teenager I went through seminary (programme for 14-18 yr olds) and for one of those years we are taught an ‘in depth’ history of the church (yes I know we don’t get the full story according to the Mormon critics). It discusses in some detail the horrors that went on with the mobs and the driving of the saints from place to place and the terrible trek from east to west, etc. We are taught that Satan is real and he is against the church and will do all he can to persecute it in order to destroy it. And there are other things like that. Some of these things are taught in less detail while we are younger (ie between 8 and 14). Now teaching those things to young ones can do one of two things – depending how they are taught and our teachers are not properly qualified teachers. I know it scared me thinking about what happened to the saints in the past and so I was careful about telling people about my church as I was growing up so I wouldn’t be ridiculed and persecuted. And I know that most of my peer group from church were the same. Its not until we are 16-18 yrs old that we are encouraged to really get out there and discuss the church. By then we have overcome the ‘childish’ fear of persecution and ridicule, but in the back of the mind if someone does confront our religion it brings out the persecution complex and so the LDS member goes into defensive mode.
Just a thought from my experiences and what I have seen going on with my LDS friends. I have reached the stage where it no longer bothers me to have someone say something confronting about my religion
Ralph, if only my wife was a more like you… except without the (possibly) hairy body, deeper voice, and uh, so on.. lol
But seriously, no matter what angle I try to talk to my wife about her religion, it always comes down to her getting REALLY upset with me. I even try to make it as nice and as third-person as possible and it still comes down to her saying “I DONT WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE!”..
In my own thoughts, I start to think of reasons why she gets upset. One might possibly be that because I have done days of research into Mormonism and she hasn’t, she might feel threatened or afraid that I can reference stuff she has never even heard of about her very own religion. I get pretty flabbergasted when she didn’t even know about JS’s multiple wives. I come to realize though, in my 3 years of attending a ward every Sunday that that is something never even talked about, so I can understand how in the past 21 years of her life she hasn’t heard anything either.
I also start to think that if someone isn’t very secure in what they believe, they tend to stop conversation as to not abandon their faith that they have been told was truth ever since they were a child. I hope it’s not this one because that leads into a person choosing to remain ignorant to save face.
Anywho, just rambling..
Seth said I’ll also repeat that debating that scripture, or the general truthfulness of the LDS faith here, would be a threadjack. It really doesn’t have much to do with the original post.
Seth, that was one of many that was avoided, but you say to answer it would be a thread highjack. Let me fill you in on something, and if you do not believe me you can spend all the time you want searching the threads to prove me wrong. Whenever I ask a question that comes across as a off topic question, it is always in responce to something an LDS member said first.
I do not simply by pass the question and say, here is an off topic question for you all. One thing people need to understand is, topics to some degree will get off topic simply in debate. One person will say something, another will reply, but that reply will be open to many questions that can simply get us going off topic. Rick b
Hi, I’m new to posting here but am familiar with the site.
Personally, I don’t find it helpful to state to a Mormon that “Mormonism isn’t Christianity”. I find it puts them immediately on the defensive. It might be more helpful to talk about the “Great Apostasy”, and that if Joseph Smith was right, none of the rest of us are Christians. Put another way: Either “mainstream Christianity” is true Christianity, or LDS is true Christianity. They are mutually exclusive; ie, both cannot be right.
As to the person discussing Modalism and other such arguments: Jesus Christ knows who is in His church, who is part of His body. No one else does. Scripture is full of warnings against those who claim to follow Him but do not do so in actuality. Sadly, mainstream Christians cannot even agree on what constitutes “essential doctrine”. However, the oneness of God, the divinity of Christ (incidentally, these two together help define the Trinity!), the inspiration of the scriptures, etc. are basically agreed to. Subjectivity only works so far; musicologists may debate whether Mozart’s or Verdi’s requiem is a better piece but you won’t find one that thinks the one I wrote is better than both!
Tom Said Personally, I don’t find it helpful to state to a Mormon that “Mormonism isn’t Christianity”. I find it puts them immediately on the defensive.
But It’s ok for the LDS to say this about Christians? Sounds to me like they are saying LDS are not Christians, Tom what do you think.
Read 1 Nephi 14:10 “behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the lamb of god, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of god belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.”
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).
I quote Heber c. Kimball “christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth” (j.o.d 5:89).
Rick b
You don’t hear LDS leadership talking about it much anymore in reference to specific religions.
Bruce R. McConkie specifically fingered the Catholic Church as the “Whore of Babylon” in “Mormon Doctrine,” but he was told to take it out of his next edition by the other Church leaders.
I don’t think the upcoming crop of Mormons have a widespread identification of other church’s as “the Great and Abominable Church.” I think it’s understood today that it is simply a metaphor for Babylon and it may encompass elements of many modern institutions such as governments, businesses, and yes, churches.
That’s how I read the verse anyway.
To me, the prophets in the past KNEW their religion wasn’t at ALL like traditional Christianity, and they were happy about it. (Read Rick B’s post on the quotes).. But now, the current LDS leadership understands that in order to attract new members, they have to white-washed their words and sound MORE like traditional Christianity. Lol, imagine Hinckley being like the founding prophets and saying something like “All church’s other than the LDS church is full of whoremasters. They are an abomination!”.. Imagine the field day the press would have on that statement. This is the issue I have with Mormonism. They come across as “traditional Christians” to the people that don’t know much about theology, and then when they get their foot inside their door and their prophets mouth inside their minds, they inject doctrine that absolutely is a slap in the face on traditional Christianity.. Pretty much like feeding a pill to a child with applesauce..
MMMM! this apple sauce tastes delicious to me! It makes me FEEL so good I don’t even CARE whats in it.
Tom, could you please reference the “essential” doctrine that mainstream Christianity doesn’t agree on. I’m unaware of any major doctrinal differences.
“They come across as “traditional Christians” to the people that don’t know much about theology, and then when they get their foot inside their door and their prophets mouth inside their minds, they inject doctrine that absolutely is a slap in the face on traditional Christianity.. Pretty much like feeding a pill to a child with applesauce..”
Problem is Jeff, not everyone dislikes the pill.
I’ve heard plenty of Mormon missionaries relate how they presented doctrines like “Christ is our elder brother” or “we can become gods” or “the Bible isn’t perfect” (all stuff that is presented right up front to new investigators, by the way) and we get simple matter of fact agreement with the statement.
“Yeah… that makes sense to me.”
“Well of course God has a body! Duh! What do you mean my pastor doesn’t think God has a body?!”
“A lot of people frankly find the Mormon goal of becoming gods to be inspiring and exciting.”
And a lot of these people are from traditional Christian backgrounds. They aren’t always being tricked. They’re eagerly embracing the whole thing. Believe it or not, we actually still emphasize the “heresies” that make our religion unique in the first few missionary discussions. And a lot of people are pretty cool with that. Not all, by any stretch. But more than you’d think.
Perhaps mainline Christians should be doing a better job minding the store. Because there are a lot of Christians out there who aren’t buying what you are selling.
I’ll repeat, we aren’t shy about proclaiming our unique heresies (as some would term them) and a lot of people like the heresies. Not everyone is a dupe. Some of them just don’t like your message – just as some of them don’t like the Mormon message.
I’m worried that calling Mormonism a big fraud, its faithful as brainwashed, and it’s converts deceived is simply an excuse for avoiding dealing with some real inadequacies in the traditional Christian message.
Mormons do the same kind of dismissive, condescending stuff. And the motivations are the same – to avoid dealing with our inherent problems.
Jeff,
ok, i’ll be the first to admit that the word “hate” was a strong word to use in that sentence…but you can’t dismiss what i said out of poor word choice. (you guys will soon get to know me enough that you will be able to decipher my colorful word choices for what they are–it’s something i inherited from my mothers side) regardless, jeff, there are disrespectful things said on this site all the time thrown at mormons…and we are the most moderated and bleeped…
i was responding to the disbelief on all of YOUR (collective) parts for the response you are getting to your abrasive “mormonism-challengers” approach…that was the basis of my remark…it had nothing to do with whether or not i feel sorry for myself. if i wanted to feel sorry for myself, i have many other reasons to do so—and not because a few evang. christians on a blog try to meagerly dismantle the restored gospel.
Problem is Seth, is that the child rarely knows what is in the pill. And from the standpoint of traditional Christianity, the “pill” of Mormonism is full of stuff thats bad (false).
If you sugar-coat the pill with lines like “Families can be together forever! You can become Gods!”, then of course people will FEEL like that pill is good for them, cuz after all, its got sugar alllll over it.
Now don’t take this wrong. I believe all who choose to receive the gift God gives to us that we are all adopted children of his and that we will ALL be together in Heaven FOR the glory of God. Do I think God would split everyone up? Not even parents do that on earth. “Hey son, you ACTED a lot better than your brother, so you can’t be around her anymore, she isn’t going to hang out in our celestial living room upstairs anymore, we are putting her in the basement.”
Seth, I think the evangelicals on this site have posed many “inadequacies” with Mormonism. We have referenced material and so forth. If you feel there is an inadequacy in traditional Christianity for you, then reference it and ask about it. I for one feel nothing is lacking with what God’s word (the Bible) has given us. He gave a clear message on how to obtain salvation and his love for us. Thats all I need.
Seth wrote:
I want to relate a personal experience, for whatever it’s worth. Before I really knew anything about Mormonism a close relative (who was also a good friend) began investigating the LDS Church. As she met with missionaries, I read about Mormonism as described by Christian authors. I learned about the Mormon doctrine of exaltation (men becoming Gods) and brought that bit of information to my investigating friend. She was shocked and dismayed, and so asked the missionaries about it the next time they met. As she related the resulting conversation to me, the missionaries said, “Oh, no, we don’t believe that. We believe people can become more godlike. Every religion teaches that.” The missionaries switched the doctrine of exaltation for the Christian doctrine of sanctification.
A short time after my friend’s baptism I was browsing through her copy of Gospel Principles. There on page 290 I read, “We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.” (Note: the word ‘Gods’ in this sentence has been removed from subsequent printings of Gospel Principles.)
I showed this to my friend, who said merely, “Hmm. I’ll have the ask the missionaries about that.” But I never heard if she did, or how they explained the deceptive way they answered her direct question before she joined the Church.
At any rate, in my personal experience (which is not limited to this one instance) Mormon missionaries might freely share with investigators about Christ being our elder brother and the imperfections of the Bible, but they do not present right up front that Mormonism teaches (and claims to enable) people to become Gods.
Hmmm…
You might be right Sharon. I do know that missionaries themselves are a bit of a mixed bag. You get all kinds and it’s hard to predict how they are going to go about their business of proselyting.
Certainly, I knew missionaries on my own mission whose personal style I didn’t care for at all.
But I’ll have to double-check the actual text of the standardized missionary discussions.
I hope it’s okay to revive some of the discussion from a few days ago (I’m a new poster and as I read through this thread, some thoughts came to mind).
My first question goes to those (undoubtedly most) of you who think it is important to distinguish those of the LDS faith from Christians: Why is this so important to you?
Secondly, Seth R. stated that groups have a monopoly on their denomination, but not on Christ or the Bible. In response Rick simply stated that he never claimed to have a monopoly on anything, then proceeding to point out differences between his beliefs and the LDS faith.
Rick, I would be interested to see you apologize your assertion that LDS are not Christians with the fact that you do not have a monopoly on Christ. If you have no such monopoly on Him, who gave you the authority to determine who is, or is not, a true believer?
(For the record, I am LDS, served a mission, and am a staunch believer.)
Undeterred. Instead of us explaining why Christians have a problem with LDS calling themselves Christians. Let me help you put on our shoes..
What if the FLDS, RLDS, JW’s, or even Catholics claim that they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Would you have any issue with that? If so, what would be your reasons? Perhaps one of them might be that because they teach a CLEARLY different set of doctrine that absolutely contradicts the teachings of the LDS church as you and they know it?
There’s your reason. But heck, don’t just take your own point of view for it, take Mr. Kimball’s..
Heber c. Kimball “christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth” (j.o.d 5:89).
Now after Heber C. Kimball said that, do you think he would have said. “Yup, I’m a Christian!” To do that would be him calling himself one of the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth.
Or, maybe take Brigham’s point of view for it?
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).
Apples grow on an apple tree and oranges grow on an orange tree. Those seeking an apple, shouldn’t have to be confused about which tree to pick from. It’s like the oranges are saying, well, I’m an apple to! No.. you’re not.
Rick doesn’t have to apologize, he simply stated that what he believes is true, and if it is true, then you’re faith is false. The exact same thing you say about us. Either you guys are right, or we are right, OR we could both be wrong and JW’s are right, heh 🙂
Undeterred said Rick, I would be interested to see you apologize your assertion that LDS are not Christians with the fact that you do not have a monopoly on Christ. If you have no such monopoly on Him, who gave you the authority to determine who is, or is not, a true believer?
How do you reply to Gal 1:8-9. Not One LDS has given a good answer to my question on that, It goes ignored. Who Gave Paul the authority to Say that? If LDS feel Muslam, JW’s Christian Science and Other Groups are not preaching the LDS gospel, then How does Gal 1:8-9 fit into them?
What If I called my self a LDS member, dressed as a missionary but Preached my Gospel, which is vastly Different than Yours, would you as an LDS member call me an LDS member? If not Why. Lastly read my Blog topic about LDS not being Christian, found here,
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/09/are-mormons-christians.html
(Interesting… is it chance that the first two responses are vitriolic?)
Jeff, you have me concerned. Clearly the LDS denomination has a right to determine the status of individuals claiming membership to it, just as any denomination. It is an imperfect analogy to compare the relationship between LDS and RLDS with LDS and Christianity. LDS is to RLDS what LDS is to Lutheranism, not Christianity. This issue goes to my concern over your claim to a monopoly over the label of “Christian.”
As for the helpful quotes, I’ll be very upfront about the fact that I dislike taking my time to respond to out-of-context quotes taken from mormonwiki, or wherever. The brethren were not distancing themselves from the religion of Christianity generally, but from Christianity as practiced by those priests who preached for money and influence and persecuted the Saints.
Also, please refer yourself to a dictionary for the various uses of the word “apology.” I did not call for Rick to say he was sorry, but rather to take two disparate views and bring them together in a way that is logically consistent.
Rick, you have quite the habit of not answering the questions as posed to you! 🙂 Either you claim you have the authority to determine who is a true Christian or you don’t. If you do not claim to have a monopoly on Christ, then you do not have the authority to determine who truly believes in him. There is a distinction (beyond a semantic one) between a religion or religious system and a denomination. You may have a monopoly over your various denominations, but you do not speak for Christ.
As for Galations 1:8-9, I will gladly respond. However, before I do, what is your definition of a “good answer”? I promise that I will respond–I would just like to do so in a way that you feel is fitting. (I won’t hide the ball here… if you’re definition of a “good answer” is one that you agree with, rather than one that is logical, I fear this will be a useless exercise.
Sorry to be a board-hog, but I have to add something else. This primarily goes to Jeff and his posting earlier today in discussion with Seth.
I think I’m beginning to see why it is so important for many of you that members of the LDS faith not be called Christians. And, I give my word that I don’t say this just to be offensive, I believe it comes down to three things: 1) you need a common enemy or you’ll turn on each other again (as you did in early American history); 2) if there were no other faiths to criticize, you would be compelled to focus on faults in your own doctrine (like a paid clergy); and, 3) the business your pastors’ are running depends on retention of its members and the LDS church threatens their bottom line.
This blog is supposedly about outreach… so reach out. Show me what you have to offer! Start with explaining why I should join a church where the religious teachers are compensated with filthy lucre–explain how that does not corrupt the doctrine by finding those ideas that most satisfy my itching ears in order to retain me as a patron of your business.
You want some logic? Here it is. We will use a definition that we should both be able to agree on. I take these from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.
What is a Christian?
1 a : one who professes belief in the TEACHINGS of Jesus Christ
What is a Gospel?
3 : the message or TEACHINGS of a religious teacher
What is Doctrine?
2 a : something that is TAUGHT (i.e. Teachings)
Okay, so a true Christian is one who professes belief in the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Would you agree with me that the LDS church has different doctrine than traditional Christianity?
I’m sure your answer is yes. So, we can split up the two different teachings/doctrine of the LDS church and Trad. Christians.
We will call the LDS teachings “Doctrine A” and we will call the Trad. Christian’s teachings “Doctrine B”
Now, if one is right, the other is wrong, because Doc. A and Doc. B both contradict each other.
So now, this is what it comes down to. Either Jesus Christ taught doctrine A, or he taught doctrine B.
So now if one of us is believing in doctrine NOT taught by Christ, then one of us IS NOT Christian. They simply THINK they are believing in the truth.
That work for logic?
And I don’t know about other evangelicals on here, but I could care less about man-made institutions/organizations. Paid clergy isn’t a fault in the Gospel of Christ because thats not even a teaching of Christ. My faith isn’t supported by a building or an organization, its supported by my love for God who sent his son to die for my sins. My salvation doesn’t depend on rituals performed in a building, only from my humble acceptance of God’s beautiful gift of which I will never deserve.
Jeff, there’s no need to be so defensive. I think your logic is sound. However, I disagree with the assumptions you’ve chosen to make. Namely, I disagree with your assumption that “if one is right, the other is wrong because… [they] contradict each other.” It’s not all or nothing. Applying that assumption elsewhere leads to similarly unsupportable results, e.g. because the doctrine of Presbyterians and Baptists contradict one another on some points, one of them cannot be called Christian.
It is not a simple 0 or 1 in the Christianity column. We have varying levels of understanding and practice in our daily lives of seeking to follow Christ’s example. Would you say a homosexual who proclaims himself a Christian is, in fact, not a Christian if he agrees with you in every way except as to gay marriage? His doctrine differs from yours, doesn’t it?
In fact, a natural consequence of your logical structure is that there is only ONE doctrine whose adherents may be properly called Christians, as any difference from that doctrine causes those adherents to no longer be Christian. Are you suggesting that all Christian denominations but one are wrong?
(I would also like to point out that, under the Merriam-Webster definition, I am a Christian. It does not define “Christian” as “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ as taught by apostate groups of self-proclaimed teachers and scholars.”)
Also, I wholeheartedly agree that even if a given denomination pays its clergy, the true Gospel of Christ remains the same. However, my contention is that if your clergy is paid, then it throws doubt on whether or not they are teaching the true Gospel of Christ.
Undeterred,
I didn’t think I was “defensive”. I understand where your coming from.
I classify the “teachings” of Jesus Christ to be ONLY the important parts of his Gospel, i.e. the identity of God, Jesus, and holy spirit, the “requirements” on the path to Salvation (baptism/rituals).. I really don’t believe God cares so much about man-made squabbles such as women pastors and so forth. He gave one simple commandment for Salvation. I should have shown this in my post, because I know of “minor” differences among the different denominations.
Luke 10:25-28
25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
As far as the gay fellow you speak of..
If he says that the Gospel says homosexuality is okay, then he is not Christian, plain and simple.
If someone teaches or professes a belief in something that’s not taught in the true Gospel, then he/she is not a true Christian.
To be honest, I don’t know if there is any denomination that is completely true, I just believe that my current faith is true. Just as you do. However, you say you “know” from how you felt from praying, but that is a whole ‘nother topic.
As far as paid clergy. We don’t hold the pastors as the mouth piece of God. The Bible is His mouth-piece. If something doesn’t match up with whats found in the Bible, the “clergy” should be questioned.
Sorry for identifying you as defensive… it’s very hard to tell without body language to read.
As far as your interpretation of Luke 10 is concerned, I think you’ve made another faulty assumption. While he did give us “one simple commandment for Salvation,” it does not follow that this commandment is the ONLY one. In fact, love of God means obedience. To what? To the other requirements He has of us. God does not sit by and let his followers idle by… He gives us instruction. He commands us and expects things of us. To love god is to obey Him, and vice versa.
At no point does Christ say, “Love God, love your neighbor, and you’re all done.” He calls these the greatest commandments because adherence to them inevitably leads to full obedience… to seeking God’s will over our own. While we may differ over much else, I don’t know that any sensible individual can read the Bible and not see that we have been commanded to be baptized. Love is not the beginning… it is the end. Obedience to God’s commandments is the way we show we love him, not just by wholly-internalized devotion.
This goes to everyone, not just Jeff: In all honesty, if God told you to join the LDS church, would you?
If God told me to do something, yes I would.
Granted, this whole “Saved by grace or grace works” is and has been an entirely different topic of discussion so I wont comment further on it than the following.
Deterred – “Love is not the beginning… it is the end.”
This I disagree with in some ways. God decided to give us the FREE gift of Grace/Salvation as long as we hold our faith in him. I view His love much like himself (Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end).
God had love for His people so he sent his Son. Did we deserve his Son, no way! Human kind is and has been horribly sinful.
So first, at the start, he gave us His Love and his Grace accepting it through faith that he will deliver his promises, then after, not before, we receive that grace, and our EVIDENCE of our faith is done by the natural outpouring of the love thats inside of us.
For example. For a woman to GIVE life to another human being, she herself has to receive life from her mother. God has created us, gave us a gift, and we show our appreciation and acknowledgment of that gift through being obedient.
to throw out my own quote, here it is.
“God’s love had a beginning, when he created us, and it will NEVER end.”
I can say that I agree with nearly everything you just posted, Jeff.
I think we have to be careful when using the word “free” because it is open to many interpretations. You yourself indicate that it is conditional (“as long as we hold our faith in him”). I think we agree that there are conditions to receiving salvation, it’s just a question of what those conditions are.
As far as my comments on love are concerned, I think we’re just having a difference of approach to the issue. I do not disagree one bit that God gave (and continues to give) His love to us from the beginning. My comments were only intended to communicate the idea that the way we show the love Christ commanded of us is to be obedient. With my parents, I can tell them I love them all I want, but I show them I love them by doing what they ask of me.
Remember Christ’s parable about the two sons, where one said he’d go and did not, but the other said he would not but did. As Christ explained, what separated the pharisees from the harlots was that the harlots ACTED upon the commandment to repent. Action is required of us.
What I mean by “free” is that we don’t have to any physical works to receive it. I don’t consider faith a physical work. I do consider baptism and temple marriage/sealing and the like as works.
It seems that our debate is ending. It was good fighting with you.. lol, just kidding. It was good conversing with you, undeterred.
Undeterred, I am not go to play games or word games with you. Either answer the question on Gal 1:8-9 or dont. As my point about no one replying with a Good answer, the only answer I got so far was, Paul was speaking to people in his day about Doctrine, no Scripture or evidence to support that view, it was more a matter of, “I BELIEVE” that was what Paul meant, to me thats not a Good answer.
As Far as if a homosexual believes he /she can live that life style and say they are a Christian, then you guys clearly do not know your Bible. The Scripture teaches, Homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Then Read Job chapter 42, Job’s friends gave Job bad and inaccurate counsel and taught bad Doctrine, God told Job to pray for them and God rebuked them for their wrong views of Him.
Then as I said before, Jesus said to some People, many will say to me in that day, Lord Lord did we not cast out demons in YOUR NAME. Did we not perform MIRCALES IN YOUR NAME, Jesus says, Depart from me into everlasting Fire, for I NEVER KNEW YOU. So we have people that think they know Jesus, use His name claim to be his, Yet Not according to Jesus. They even Cast out Demons and did miracles, so Did they do these things by Gods power even though He never knew them, Or did they do it by a demon claiming to be Jesus?
Paul and even Jesus mention Children of the Devil and a different Gospel, I will also claim that and use Scripture to support my View. Rick b
Rick B.
I just read Gal. 1:8,9
What on earth is your point?
I can see why no one answered your question. There’s nothing to answer. Just you making an unsupported assertion that our teachings are somehow different from Paul’s.
Talk about begging the question.
I concur with Seth, Rick. The verses just say that if one teaches anything different to what Paul teaches then it is false. So all that’s saying is either you are wrong or I am wrong. It does not prove your right. If you are then going to refer to the “just believe and you are saved” written in the Bible that you go on about, then what do you mean by believe. Is it just an acknowledgement that Jesus is Christ or is it also following what God has asked us to do? If it is the former, then we are at odds, if latter then we believe the same, we just believe that God has different requirements and we can both support our requirements from the Bible.
An example of someone who just professes belief – if someone says they have accepted Jesus as their own personal Saviour (same conditions as you), but then goes out and lives with his girlfriend without getting married (ie fornication), or sleeps around, is he saved? What if he goes and bombs an abortion clinic and kills people in the process (a Baptist or Presbyterian priest did this a couple of years ago), is he saved?
So yes, all those verses are saying are the either you or I am wrong or we both are wrong.
Seth Said I just read Gal. 1:8,9 What on earth is your point?
The LDS who feel they have no clue as to what my point on GAL 1:8-9 is, I really want to say, are you kidding, I almost believe you guys are lying and refuse to answer that. Not trying to be offence here, but I say that because I was very cleary many times on my point of it.
I clearly laid out Major Differences between what LDS teach/Believe and what us Christians teach/believe. I even recall some LDS admitting we do not believe teach the same thing.
Now you are correct that Gal 1:8-9 does not prove I am right and your wrong, but Mormonism is not what Paul taught. Add the many Doctrines that Mormonism teaches/believes that cannot be supported by the Bible in any way, you use Other Scripture or Prophets to ssupport your views, that in it’s self is a different Gospel.
Then you guys ignore my Question on Gal 1:8-9 about JW’s or Muslims or Christian Science or who ever, You deny Eternal hell, yet these groups do not teach Mormonism or believe it’s true, So According to Paul and Gal 1:8-9 what happens to these People, are they eternally Damned as Paul says, or Not as LDS teach.
Then Add to Gal 1:8-9 the Verse that teach about False Prophets and Teachers coming as Wolves in Sheep’s clothing, The wolves had to kill the Sheep to get their Wool to pose as sheep. The Wolves are not going to admit they are liars looking to kill you. The Bible speaks of Doctrines of Demons, and the believers walking away from Truth.
So yes you teach a different Gospel. Even Jeff B laid out that your former Prophet claimed LDS are not Christian like we are. Then Undeterred you accused Jeff of taking quotes out of Context. I posted those, he re worded what I said, I own the entire JoD, Please provide evidence to support exactly the view you hold on those verses, or announce that you retrack what you said about them being taken out of context.
Undeterred said
As for the helpful quotes, I’ll be very upfront about the fact that I dislike taking my time to respond to out-of-context quotes taken from mormonwiki, or wherever. The brethren were not distancing themselves from the religion of Christianity generally, but from Christianity as practiced by those priests who preached for money and influence and persecuted the Saints.
Since I own the entire set of JoD please give Chapter and verse to support this view you stated, otherwise admit it’s your opinion.
Then remember also, the Bible teaches and Jesus said, Your of your father the Devil. So it shows some People are not Children of God, but Children of the Devil. We read and use Gods word to show these things, you cannot support LDS teaching from the Bible alone, you need out side Sources and “Revelation” That is why I can say, your Not a Christian, and Gal 1:8-9 applies to you. Rick b
Rick B has said in two different comments:
“So again, the one verse LDS REFUSE to answer is Gal 1:8-9, if [sic] we both teach a different Gospel, who was Paul speaking to about a different Gospel and if Paul says they will be Damned and LDS admit, JW’s, Muslim, Catholic and others do not teach the same Gospel as LDS, What [sic] happens to them according to Paul in Gal 1:8-9.”
“We read and use Gods [sic] word to show these things, you cannot support LDS teaching from the Bible alone, you need out side Sources and “Revelation” [sic] That is why I can say, your Not [sic] a Christian, and Gal 1:8-9 applies to you. Rick b”
I will try and take a stab at responding to what I think you are asking.
First, I am not entirely sure what you intend by saying that you can exclude others from the Christian name based on a reference Gal. 1.8-9. This passage says nothing concerning who is entitled to the name of “Christian” based on the beliefs you have aforementioned in this post and claim that LDS Christians espouse–in fact, the word “Christian” is not used anywhere in the letter itself (and hardly anywhere at all in the NT for that matter). What Paul is clearly fighting against in Galatians as a whole (and Gal. 1.8-9 is a sure precursor to the following arguments Paul makes) is the necessity of the practice of circumcision and Torah obligations on Gentile converts in the early Church, and whether or not Gentile Christians are entitled to be a part of the covenant promises, community, and divine covenant blessings without having to undergo circumcision as well as follow the Jewish ethnic laws as regulated under the Torah (which some Jewish Christians of Paul’s era thought necessary to follow to be a true member of God’s people [i.e., the New Israel] and follower of Jesus). This is simply the case, and you may feel free to look at any scholarly treatment on Galatians to realize this simple (yet foundational) point.
Hopefully that will answer your question as to what Paul meant by a “different gospel” and the historical context of who he was speaking to and what he was speaking about. I would recommend starting with something simple like the ABD (Anchor Bible Dictionary) entry on Galatians or the OCB (Oxford Companion to the Bible). However, if you want in-depth scholarly treatments of the material, and especially on Galatians itself, I would recommend most works by James Dunn, Krister Stendahl, and N.T. Wright, as they exemplify some of the best NPP (New Perspective on Paul) scholarship. Since this is the historical topic Paul is addressing specifically, your comments simply do not apply to LDS Christians, since I can certify to you that LDS Christians don’t believe that circumcision (or Jewish dietary laws for that matter either) is required to be a part of the covenant community or to receive the divine blessings of being in covenant relationship with Him. If you think you can read Paul’s mind and extrapolate whether or not such a statement as Gal. 1.8-9 in its historical context is somehow applicable to LDS Christians and their beliefs, that will be simply your personal assertion and has nothing to do with what Paul was actually saying at the time he wrote Galatians.
I am further baffled by your quote above, as it seems to imply that doctrine(s) found outside the bible necessarily fall under the anathema of Gal. 1.8-9. This is rather absurd, as the notion of a “bible” as far as many modern evangelical Christians conceptualize it certainly did not apply to Paul or exist in his day. (Paul used the Septuagint [LXX] predominately anyway, which is not the usual modern protestant bible.) Galatians is one of the earliest of Paul’s writings and of the NT as a whole (usually dated somewhere in the late 40’s or early-mid 50’s). The New Testament (or Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for that matter too) simply did not exist as a collected, canonized book at that time.
Therefore, pointing to Galatians as a blanket condemnation of non-biblical (not necessarily contra-biblical) teachings is anachronistic. Besides, I am unaware of any respected modern critical biblical scholars in the academic community who think that the creedal notion of the Trinity is contained in the New Testament. You, therefore, fall under the condemnation of Gal. 1.8-9 by your own interpretation of the passage. However, I am not entirely sure that you intended such a meaning by your comment. However, that is how it appeared to me. Hopefully this response is sufficient for you regarding Galatians. Best wishes in your future understanding and exegesis of the passage.
Mike, thanks for your participation, but please refrain from back-to-back comments in the future and comply with the 2,000 character limit for Mormon Coffee comments. You might want to review the Mormon Coffee Comment Policy.
Mike, Paul said nothing to the effect of what you said. You were saying Paul in Gal 1:8-9 was speaking about What Paul is clearly fighting against in Galatians as a whole (and Gal. 1.8-9 is a sure precursor to the following arguments Paul makes) is the necessity of the practice of circumcision and Torah obligations on Gentile converts in the early Church, and whether or not Gentile Christians are entitled to be a part of the covenant promises, community, and divine covenant blessings without having to undergo circumcision as well as follow the Jewish ethnic laws as regulated under the Torah (which some Jewish Christians of Paul’s era thought necessary to follow to be a true member of God’s people
I agree that Paul was fighting Againt that, But Paul also said, any other Gospel than what He preached. Paul preached against Works, But LDS teach Works. I know many Christians who feel Gal 1:8-9 Speaks against Mormonism, so for you to say, you know many “Christians” who dont believe Gal speaks against LDS means nothing. Plus your reply to me did not answer my Question about False Prophets/teaches coming in Sheeps clothing, or the Various other Religions that teach a different Gospel than Mormonism or Christianty.
I also posted a link to my blog topic about LDS not being Christians and why, did you read it? If not you need the link again? Do you even Care to read it? Rick b
Rick B said:
“Mike, Paul said nothing to the effect of what you said.”
then after quoting me:
“I agree that Paul was fighting Againt [sic] that, but…”
I see a simple contradiction here. So which statement are you claiming, the first or second? If it is the first, I recommend you come to my University and write a scholarly monologue rebuffing current NT scholarship and the major figures I recommended to you in the field. Until then, I think I will stick with the scholarly community on this issue. However, you may have truly meant your second quote. In any case, your comments are simply contradictory.
Again, I just simply encourage you to look at the historical context and what Paul was referring to by a “different gospel” based on his situation and purpose of writing Galatians. These same scholars would also answer your concern about what Paul meant when he talked about the “Law” (Torah) and its relationship to God’s “grace.”
Rick B. also said:
“I also posted a link to my blog topic about LDS not being Christians and why, did you read it? If not you need the link again? Do you even Care to read it? Rick b”
I was only responding to what I found in this post (shocking! I know 😛 ), and more specifically to your question regarding the historical context of Galatians; not to the question of whether LDS Christians are indeed “Christians” according to your own personally subjective definition. Hopefully that answers those questions.
Rick B. also said:
“for you to say, you know many “Christians” who dont believe Gal speaks against LDS means nothing.”
Where did I say I knew many Christians who don’t believe Galatians speaks against LDS Christians? I only talked about the scholarly concensus on the historical context of Galatians which disagrees with your interpretation. But I will certainly say now that I don’t think Paul was “speaking against” LDS Christians at any rate (regardless of what some evangelicals assert). Again, best wishes.
Mike said, I see a simple contradiction here.
I could/should have worded it better, I see why you feel that way, so let me put it better. Gal 1:8-9 say’s and I quote Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul did not get so spefic that he was saying, If any one teaches You must practice circumcision and Torah obligations. Now I know that Paul does speak againt that in the Book of Galations, But over all in the whole of All of Paul teachings through out the Bible, He teach’s lots of other things that LDS either Do not believe or simply Deny, That was my point.
Then you said Where did I say I knew many Christians who don’t believe Galatians speaks against LDS Christians?
I was refering to these people you Quoted,
However, if you want in-depth scholarly treatments of the material, and especially on Galatians itself, I would recommend most works by James Dunn, Krister Stendahl, and N.T. Wright, as they exemplify some of the best NPP (New Perspective on Paul) scholarship.
I simply assumed you were pointing to these guys are believers who do not hold Gal as speaking against LDS. If I mis understood you on that point, then I am sorry about that.
But still no reply as of Yet about the false Teachers/prophets and wolves in Sheep’s clothing.
And I still believe you have a different Gospel, I know Some LDS are at least honest enough to Admit such, and I believe it is wrong and cannot be supported by the Bible alone. Rick b
“But still no reply as of Yet about the false Teachers/prophets and wolves in Sheep’s clothing.”
OK…
Those things are bad…
Now, did you have any sort of proof as to WHY LDS are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” or are you just stating your opinion again?
I did not say the LDS ARE wolves in Sheeps Clothing, I said the Bible teaches their are wolves in Sheeps Clothing. Your Reply to say those things are bad is Lame, That says nothing as to who they are or what they teach.
Wolves in Sheeps Clothing are liars and decivers preaching a Gospel or teaching Doctrines that are taking people to hell.
Some LDS are simply Blind and theirfore are Decived, But still that is no excuse for not searching for truth.
I simply cannot say this enough, LDS teach a different Gospel than what Christians teach and believe. Simply look at all the things I posted before hand that show the differences between us, Then as I keep saying, Some LDS are honest enough to admit, we DO HAVE different Gospels.
You believe yours is correct, we dont, but at least be honest enough to admit the differences exist.
One God or Millions is a really big Difference.
Some LDS here have said, their is no difference in Beliefs, it is more a matter of we both Interpret verses differently. So From these verses where God CLEARLY states I KNOW of NO other “gods” How do you get around God himself not Rick B say their are NO OTHER “gods” to their are millions of “gods?
Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.
Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].
How can God clearly state I KNOW of no other “gods” Yet you believe you can become a god, I would think God would know about You being a God. Or God says in the Pearl of GP, He sat in the Counsel of “god(S)”. Did He lie? In the Bible He says, No other, but in the Pearl, He sat among Other gods. Rick b
Hey Rick B.
I posted a reply to the last half of your last comment, but for some reason it didn’t post immediately; it said that it was “under moderation” for some reason. If you would like to continue the discussion I request that you ask for my comment to be posted. I would request the same from the moderators. Thank you very much.
Best wishes.
I know we teach a different Gospel from you. But we do teach one that is not in conflict with the Bible, and I happen to believe it’s a true one.
The Isaiah verses are simply God saying there is no other Supreme Being that we are to worship besides Him. He says nothing here about whether we can become gods or not ourselves.
Rick B
Here is the post I previously wrote in response to the second half of your last post (as it seems my last post was eaten):
Rick B said:
“God says in the Pearl of GP, He sat in the Counsel of “god(S)”. Did He lie? In the Bible He says, No other, but in the Pearl, He sat among Other gods. Rick b”
-My Response-
Then God said, ‘Let US make humankind in our image, according to our likeness’ Gen. 1.26 (NRSV)
When the Most High apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods; Deut. 32.9
God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgement Ps. 82.1
Your accusation that the biblical texts do not at all represent a divine council or other deities with God in the ancient Israelite religious system is mistaken. Following the scholarly consensus current in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies, biblical scholars today recognize that Israel originally had a polytheistic background. Their view developed over time, finally becoming a type of “monotheism” after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and their subsequent captivity, as exemplified in your post-exilic quotes from Isaiah. I would recommend you read some representative scholarship from scholars such as Frank Moore Cross or Mark S. Smith if you are interested in the ancient Israelite view of the divine council of the gods (as exemplified in Psalms 82.1 quoted above), as well as the historical developments of Israelite religion over time and its relation to its surrounding cultures.
I might as well point out there are evangelical biblical scholars who concede that the Israelites saw God as sitting among other deities (gods), such as Mike Heiser. His website is here:
http://thedivinecouncil.com/
I would also recommend the exchange he and David Bokovoy (LDS Christian) had in a recent FARMS review, here:
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvolume.php?volume=19&number=1
Again, best wishes.
Seth Said,
The Isaiah verses are simply God saying there is no other Supreme Being that we are to worship besides Him.
That is not what it says, God does not say, I know of no other supreme being that you can or cannot worship, God says, and beside me [there is] no God, I know not any
Seth, you simply refuse to believe the truth. Rick b
Hey Rick B.,
As I mentioned previously, I have replied to your comment regarding other deities in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament; but as of now the post is apparently awaiting moderation. Maybe you could wait for my comment (or even request to have it displayed) before the conversation continues further? Thanks.
Best wishes.