Katrina Marti is an ex-LDS friend of mine. She and her husband, Steve, are currently serving with New Tribes Mission as Christian missionaries in Mexico. In mid-December (2008) Katrina read a blog article written by Baptist pastor Tim Wade titled, “Are Mormons better Christians?” Originally posted on Pastor Wade’s own blog on December 2nd, Katrina found it republished on the MormonTimes.com blog.
“Are Mormons better Christians?” praises several aspects of LDS society, taking today’s Protestant churches to task for a general lack-luster approach in some areas of their faith. Mormons love it. At TimWade.com you’ll find comment after comment from appreciative Latter-day Saints.
But Katrina left a different sort of comment, getting, I think, at the heart of the matter. I reprint it here for your edification – and discussion.
Katrina Marti // December 19, 2008 at 4:41 am
Tim, I haven’t the time to read all the comments here, so maybe what I have to say has already been said. . .if so sorry for the repitition. From what I’ve seen however, I have a bit of a different take on it–the perspective of someone who has been on both sides of the fence.
Yes, I’m an ex-Mormon who is now a Christian. My family goes back to the beginnings of the Mormon church, and about 10 years ago I went from being a temple going, active Mormon to knowing Christ, and the power of His work in my life (and attending Christian churches)–and honestly the contrast couldn’t be bigger.
While I was LDS the focus of my life was on myself, on what I could do, and what I had to do to “please” God. I loved Jesus Christ, or thought I did anyway but didn’t really know the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus I knew was a far different character, a man who was better behaved than I, and further along in his progression towards becoming God. He was my older brother (as [is] Satan), and as such that’s kind of what I thought of him–like you would an older brother whose somewhat of a hero to you. And, my relationship to him was always based on my performance–had I done some good thing to please him (like wearing my sacred underwear faithfully, going to the temple, fulfilling my calling or job in the church, not smoking, drinking, etc., and more).
Since becoming a Christian I’ve come to know Jesus who IS God and is so amazing and awesome that I’m left without words when I think about Him. I honestly can’t describe Him–not that He can’t be described, but that my words seem puny and insignificant when I try. And, my relationship to Him is on such a different basis–it’s on the basis of a God who did all that needs to be done for my salvation, and who I am eternally grateful to, but not just grateful, but who I owe my very life to–in fact, He IS my life. And, of course because He is my life I do certain things–many things like I did as a Mormon–and many more things I wouldn’t have even considered as a Mormon, like giving up all the world has to offer to become a full-time missionary–devoting my life to reaching the lost.
But, my focus is far, far different. My focus is on the God of the Universe, and not on myself and what I can accomplish (I’m afraid if that was my focus I’d have gone home by now! :{ ). . . and what a difference that makes. I no longer serve a God who was once a man, and who wants me to learn to be a God myself, but instead serve a God who ALWAYS was God, and who loved me enough to do everything necessary for me to come to Him in faith, be adopted as His own dear daughter, and have free access to Him, and not only free access, but the right and priveledge to come into His awesome presence anytime–even when I’ve really messed up and to have the confidence that He’ll forgive me because He loves me, and loved me enough to die for me while I was STILL His enemy. . .
So, in the end, for me, I can see so clearly that there’s a wide, vast gap between us and them, and it’s not just in doctrine, it’s the difference between life, the Vinelife, or the life of a Christian who’s walking in a faith relationship with God–doing as He says, learning from Him, being corrected by Him, and walking in faith day by day as opposed to a religion that’s focused on man, on what man has to do, on what he has to achieve, and on what man can become with help from god of course. . .
It’s my sincere desire that people can see that difference. In my opinion it’s the difference between life and death. Feel free to write me if you have any further questions. I’d love to help you see, from an insiders perspective what it’s really like.
Pingback: OD Today: 5 January 2009 (early edition) « Online Discernment Today
Unfortunately the quote in this post is a gross misrepresentation of the LDS faith. To throw out the assumption that the LDS faith teaches that the focus of one’s life is on the individual is absurd.
The grace vs. works debate really is old (which is at the heart of this comment). Common sense should tell any individual that to have faith is an expression and requires action. To dislodge the two is ridiculous and to say that the LDS faith is all about works and “pleasing” God is even more so. To me, it is like arguing that breathing in is all one needs to do to live or all that matters is that the sun rises in the east. Forget breathing out and forget the sun setting in the west.
This comment, “My focus is on the God of the Universe, and not on myself and what I can accomplish” is exactly like saying that breathing in is all one needs to do to live. Let’s exclude the sun setting in the west because quite frankily…it’s just not important.
The problem, MDavis, is that Mormonism does not merely teach that works are an evidentiary outflow of saving faith. Mormonism also teaches that such works decisively prove oneself worthy and meritorious of earning eternal life. That alone, with or without an explicit “focus on yourself” kind of literature in Mormonism, creates a self-centered approach to the plan of salvation, no matter how much necessary and assisting grace is spoken of.
Another issue is Mormonism’s ambivalent definitions of repentance, one of which is downright perfectionistic (the Kimballite model).
For more on these issues see here, here, here, and here.
The question of whether Mormons are better Christians is absurd. The word Christian is used so loosely.
I used to be an active Mormon and last year my eyes were opened to all the lies of Mormonism.
I relate 100% to what Katrina said in her reply. God is an unconditional God. He doesn’t put conditions on my eternal salvation. He loves me!!
I would disagree. To emulate someone else is far from being self-centered. Nor does the plan of salvation teach wholly about the individual but of families and good works to others. It teaches moving away from one’s own desires, putting off the natural man, and being reborn again through our Savior’s Gospel.
Good works are a natural consequence of an individuals faith. That is not being self-centered, quite the opposite. Nor is it self-centered to follow the Master. Being self-centered is denying the Master.
I read her explanation as this:
“I was a Mormon but did not follow the doctrine. I then declared Mormonism to be false based on my own interpretation of the doctrine and then did what I wanted to do. Hence, I can go out and do my own life time missionary work and whatever else makes me feel good because God has sanctified what I wanted to do.”
Sharon,
Nothing monumental here! This is clearly somebody who either did not understand the basic doctrines of the LDS church or has ulterior motives in her misrepresentation of those doctrines now. I find it interesting that her misrepresentations mirror perfectly those of evangelical LDS critics. I know you see this as another testimony from somebody who broke free from the “blindness” of mormonism. That is not what I see!
Again I will point out the propensity for critics to take a positive and turn it into a negative. This started with an article praising LDS for their service to others. Somehow this is morphed into criticism that their gospel is selfish.
“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” Luke 6:26
“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Matt 12:34-35
MDavis,
Other than misunderstanding that Mormons think works are necessary for salvation, was there anything else that she got wrong? In Mormon theology when is one saved?, when do they pass from death to life? Do you pray acknowledging your repentance and acceptance of the completed work of Christ? If one dies immediately after accepting Jesus, do you believe he or she would go to be with Him in paradise? Or are there other works that are needed to enter the celestial kingdom? Could one come to feel that these other works are saving them, since they are necessary for the celestial kingdom? Or are there no works necessary?
Is there any other doctrine specifically that she got wrong? If so, what is it and what is the correct doctrine?
Also, you seem to think she is insincere in her comments and is really just after what she wants – which is actually the exact opposite of what she wrote.
Excellent post.
I would say that at a MINUMUM, THREE things have radically changed for Katrina:
1)Her understanding and experience of Jesus Christ
2)Her understanding and experience of GRACE
3)HER understanding and experience of what salvation and the gospel really is.
It’s possible that she and her husband just didn’t know a good thing when they had it. Possible. OR, what they had was not so great, and what they have NOW is worth a big , fat, PRAISE PARTY. Seems obvious how KATRINA is voting.
PS if you want to draw up a “to do” list and make that THE barometer of how you are doing as a christian, than I can readily see how someone gets the idea that the LDS are “better Christians”. I can think of a number of false groups that are good at doing stuff that could get a similar write up. FoF: I have a response working for your “good fruit” post………thanks. GERMIT
One big misrepresentation in Katrina’s comments is that the focus of our lives is our self. We teach, and this can be seen many times in conference talks, that we are our brothers’ keepers. We teach that God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man – and that we are here to help Him do this. This is why we have missionaries, to teach those not of our faith. It is why we have HOME TEACHERS and VISITING TEACHERS to teach those of our faith and help them stay strong in the path of God. The home teachers and visiting teachers also are supposed to tend to any temporal needs to help and support the families they teach.
We follow the Saviour’s counsel in Matt 25 where He talks about His sheep and how they feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc. This is emulating His life and we can only do it PROPERLY if we are focused on our faith in Him
But when it comes to salvation, we all must focus on our own before we assist any one else. This teaching can be found in the Bible
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION with fear and trembling
Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and WHEN THOU ART CONVERTED, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN.
Ralph: just a note in passing, Katrina’s main points had to do with what HER focus WAS, compared to what (for HER ) it now IS. How can you pretend to know that this is a “misrepresentation” of anything ?? Granted, blogsters like myself will extrapolate her comments out somewhat, but SHE did not. I just found that interesting……I would think that she probably was, and is, a better judge of what her focus is/was than you or I.
GERmIT
Greetings all…I haven’t commented for awhile but I thought I would chime in here. I have been working though “Surprised by Hope” by N.T. Wright and he has (as usual) made me rethink so many things I thought I had all figured out. I can’t claim to understand all that he has written (let alone explain it half as well) but when you read a scholar like that you see all the more how the views of Mormonism just don’t square with a comprehensive study of the whole of Scripture.
Even the idea of salvation has been “individualized” and made into a Platonic “escape” from the physical world into the non-physical. The ultimate goal of redemption is the resurrection of the body and it’s transformation into a Spirit-driven creation. What we know as heaven is a temporary idea. God’s creation was good and it will be transformed and we will enjoy it for eternity. The idea of celestial “kingdoms” is simply silly and finds no basis in historic Christian or Jewish thought. It brings to mind Romans 8 where all of creation awaits the “revealing” of the children of God. We won’t be gods…we will be perfect icons of God who will fulfill our appointed roles in His new creation.
The book is worth a read but it only makes me appreciate an inductive approach to Bible study all the more. There is a continuity within the whole of Scripture that is critical to understanding. Not to say there still won’t be some differences in interpretation but it certainly makes the Gnostic groups and aberrant groups stick out like a sore thumb!! Blessings and Happy New Year to all…
Another thing that I was confused about by Katrina’s post is her claim that she never knew the Jesus of the Bible – that the Jesus she knows now has done everything that needs to be done to save her – all she needs to do is accept His gift – unlike the Mormon Jesus who expected her to repent and be a better person. Yet the Jesus of the bible spent most of his time telling people they do need to repent in order to have their sins forgiven – that if they didn’t they were in danger of the judgment, the council and even possibly hell fire. The followers of the Jesus I read about from the bible carried on this message after his death and claimed that those who did not repent would not be forgiven and would not enter Christ’s kingdom.
Here we go, faith versus works again – is the work and effort of repentance relevant to Christians? It seems it was relevant to Christ. She why are Mormon’s reviled by carrying on his message – by trying to live repentance everyday? Not saying only mormons do this, but it seems we are criticized for preaching and trying to live repentance – ‘earning salvation’ It seems clear to me that Jesus said the same thing.
Here we go again. It’s always a guarantee that one or both of these “cards” are going to be played by the LDS faithful when one of their own learns that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet of God and that the Mormon god is not the God of the Bible:
Card 1 – “We don’t believe those things”
Card 2 – “He/she didn’t really understand our teachings”
Katrina said she was a temple Mormon. That distinguishes herself from many Mormons who never step foot in the temple because they aren’t WORTHY enough and can’t get a temple recommend. She must have been living the Mormon law pretty well and had a firm grasp on what Mormonism teaches. There are several points in her post that stood out to me separate from grace and works and that is the nature of God and who Jesus Christ is. These are two biggies in my opinion that separate the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. She was correct when she defined Mormonism as believing:
1. The Mormon god is an exalted man
2. Mormon god hasn’t always existed as god but became god via eternal progression
3. Mormon jesus is her older brother
4. Mormon jesus became a god (in the preexistence)
5. Mormon jesus is A god – not is God
The list could go on and on, but these are some spiritual whoppers. The Bible refutes all of the above listed Mormon beliefs. For a Mormon or anyone to believe any of these listed will cause them to lose their sould for all eternity by spending it in outer darkness. I imagine right about now that card #1 will now be played. Please – let’s don’t insult each others intelligences. That isn’t going to be played out well on here because just everybody on here has done their homework. One doesn’t have to look hard. It’s in all the LDS institue manuals, conference reports and other LDS references not to mention the infamous King Follet Discourse. For the latest, read the November 2008 Ensign (Conference Reports). It doesn’t get any more recent than that.
No, Katrina didn’t get it wrong. She got it right and when she learned that the teachings of Mormonism not ony regarding grace & works, but also the doctrine of God and Jesus in the Bible showed that the Mormons were in error, she did the right thing: she left the Mormon Church instead of swallowing her pride and remaining in it and spending eternity in outer darkness.
Well, Mr bws71……it’s apparent that what is clear to you is just not so clear to Katrina, Arthur Sido, Mobaby, Jeff and family (quick shout out to Jeffster……HEY!!!), MikeDavey….should I keep typing……no, gotta get to work. I’m not trying to seem or sound smug, but IF you were involved in something that looked biblical from the outside, but actually was thoroughly false, maybe you would be the last to know……maybe it woruldn’t be so “obvious” to you or other Mormons for the simple fact that fish don’t know they are wet.
If in fact Katrina and company (and this is a big company) have stumbled into something false, then THEY don’t know they are wet. She sure seems like a happy believer (now), a lot like those I’ve read about from the NT and history.
Hmmmmmm GERMIT
PS: she seems VERY concerned about obedience…..yet without the guilt or burden of a works oriented religion. Like her soul does not hang in the balance if her efforts are not 100% perfect. Sell your approach, that’s what you must do, but hers sure seems like the real deal to me.
Ah….Katrina got “it”. I’m sitting back, smiling and thanking God for what He did for Katrina. The heart of the matter? “Who is God?” That’s it LDS folks. Please don’t tell me that Katrina got the LDS faith that she practiced wrong. Dont’ tell me that the LDS don’t believe the five points Berean listed above. You know LDS folks, this is why Christians see Mormons as liars and deceivers. Whether you like my in-your-face accusation or not, that’s how you are perceived. The LDS just can’t stand the fact that the cover has been pulled back and their doctrines have been exposed for what they are, a total repudiation of the Christian faith. What are you going to do when you have to face God, the great “I am” and give your rationale for not only getting it wrong concerning His nature, but also the means of salvation? It’s too late at that point. You will have spent your entire life in this vain pursuit of trying to become a god and will be lost for eternity. Try telling God, at that point, like you are telling us, that He just misunderstood what you really believed all the time. It doesn’t work that way.
MDavis, read my comment again, closely. I did not say that to merely emulate someone fostered self-centeredness. Nor did I say that teaching that good works were a natural consequence of saving faith fostered self-centeredness. What I said was,
Do you see it now?
Here are my answers to your questions mobaby:
Other than misunderstanding that Mormons think works are necessary for salvation, was there anything else that she got wrong?
No, anything else is just opinion. Her thesis is basically what you mentioned in your question and I made a comment towards that.
In Mormon theology when is one saved?, when do they pass from death to life?
The problem with these questions is that the terminology is different. The answer, in the general sense to your first question here is everyone. LDS theology separates saved and exaltation. This then gives way to your second question. I do not know what you mean by life. LDS theology teaches that everyone will be resurrected. So in that sense the answer is everyone. If you mean more to life than just having a body once again, then the answer becomes more in depth.
Do you pray acknowledging your repentance and acceptance of the completed work of Christ?
Again, terminology here but I would say yes. Please expand on this though because I could be reading this differently than you.
If one dies immediately after accepting Jesus, do you believe he or she would go to be with Him in paradise?
Again, what do you mean by “accept” and “paradise.” These can mean different things in the LDS faith. For instance, paradise can mean Spirit Paradise or Celestial Kingdom depending on what context is being used. And of course, do you mean accept implying following the Savior’s teachings or just verbally accepting his name? I assume you mean the first part considering your mention of repentance earlier (which is an action following the Savior).
Or are there other works that are needed to enter the celestial kingdom? Could one come to feel that these other works are saving them, since they are necessary for the celestial kingdom? Or are there no works necessary?
The Savior said come, follow me. It implies action, a conscious decision to follow the Savior. You mentioned repentance. That is action. Yes, one could feel that these works are saving them, but that is wrong. I do agree that many LDS look at it that way, but that is not what the doctrine is saying. Good works follow those who follow the Savior. They cannot be seperated.
Really, the whole issue of grace vs. works is an unneccessary argument. You cannot separate the two. They are two ends of a rope. And as I said above, it really is a moot point. So for this person to use it as an argument only shows that she never had an understanding of the LDS Faith. To then condemn something she does not understand, in my opinion, is the ultimate self-centered thing one could do. I believe her whole argument holds no water in other words and is not credible.
Is there any other doctrine specifically that she got wrong? If so, what is it and what is the correct doctrine?
Also, you seem to think she is insincere in her comments and is really just after what she wants – which is actually the exact opposite of what she wrote.
germit,
I’m not trying to seem or sound smug, but IF you were involved in something that looked biblical from the outside, but actually was thoroughly false, maybe you would be the last to know……maybe it wouldn’t be so “obvious” to you or other brands “Christians” for the simple fact that fish don’t know they are wet.
If in fact Katrina and company (and this is a big company) has stumbled into something false, and THEY don’t know they are wet. She sure puts on the appearance of a happy believer now, a lot like those I’ve read about that are involved in homosexual behavior.
She seems VERY UNconcerned about the work of total obedience…..she is without the guilt or burden of a conscience, because it is seared. Like her soul does not hang in the balance regardless of her continuing sin. Sell your approach, that’s what you must do, but hers sure seems like a phony deal to me.
There!!!! Fixed it for you.
As Paul says;
Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of GOD LEADETH THEE TO REPENTANCE?
5 But after thy hardness and IMPENITENT HEART treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 WHO WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 To them who by PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN WELL DOING seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and DO NOT OBEY THE TRUTH, BUT OBEY UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, indignation and wrath,
9 TRIBULATION AND ANGUISH, UPON EVERY SOUL OF MAN THAT DOETH EVIL, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 BUT GLORY, HONOUR, AND PEACE, TO EVERY MAN THAT WORKETH GOOD, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
(EMPHASIS MINE)
Berean and all for that matter,
I suppose you are referring to D&C 130:22 “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”
Let’s say I believed in the bible and held that there was one God with three persons. Then wouldn’t I then conclude that the Christian God is an exalted man? Isn’t Jesus an exalted man? “As man is God once was” ie going through the same mortal experience. Isn’t that the chief accusation of Judiaism aganist Christianity that Jesus (a man) made himself God. How does the Bible refute D&C 130? And while you are at it, how does one reconcile the Trinity with John 17. Isn’t that chapter alone sufficient to “refute” your belief in the Godhead?
You may want to go easy on the outer darkness comment. Isn’t that light-minded, at the very least? Mo Baby said earlier that noone, including Joseph Smith or the ancient apostles will sit as judges, but maybe he was wrong. Maybe Berean has taken the mantle for himself.
OK, so now we are pulling out the “her testimony is proof” argument regarding the truthfulness, or lack thereof, of the LDS church. Why don’t we consider the hundreds of thousands- maybe more- protestant and evangelical people who have converted to the restored church and have born beautiful testimonies of their lives being changed and their eyes opened. I suppose all those people have simply been blinded by us, whereas your converts are “freed” etc. Give me break!
Its great you all feel wonderful about this person whose been “freed from the blindness of mormonis.” But really, big deal!
As this thread shows already, we are back to the same arguments: faith vs. works, obedience, guilt, etc. You are free to spin our doctrines and statements from leaders how you desire, but it brings you no closer to the truth. falcon brings up honesty- I truly wonder about the honesty of a person when they make the same claims over and over, especially the faith vs. works spin, despite multiple explanations to the contrary.
For example- as I have said on many occasions, we do not believe we save ourselves. Christ does 100% of the saving. But he commands us to repent and follow Him, and keep His commandments. Unless we do those things, He cannot save us. This is quite simple, but people here really are dishonest when they say we believe our works save us. Why do you do this? Do I twist your religion and your words? Truth is I don’t. But truth is not the focus- it is manipulating perception and winning the argument via talking points and spin. blah blah blah.
Falcon,
If it is the nature of God that is the crucial issue, I am surprised that you would bring this to the forefront. There isn’t any doctrine that seems more anti-Biblical especially the NT than the Trinity. Jesus doctrine was tritheist, clearly seperating himself from the other members of the Godhead. Falcon, when you face the great I AM what do you think you will see? The prints of the nails in His hands and feet or some three in one spirit? Just curious?
The main assumption posted by Berean is very interesting. This assumption goes something like this:
1. If it is not in the Bible, then it is not true.
2. The Bible contains everything one needs to know for salvation.
Thus, since these five points are not in the Bible, Mormons are wrong. You assume these assumptions are correct, but these assumptions cannot logically be taken from the Bible for the Bible does not assert them at all!
The Bible as we know it is consisted up of many books written by many authors. Some assume that because this book has existed for so long and in a certain structure, that God somehow has sanctioned this book to be it with nothing more to say. The Bible does not mention this at all, but alludes to the fact that MORE is to be written. The very structure of the Bible itself shows that it should continue. I mean, it is like saying that a train should not continue anymore because the track was destroyed, and since it was destroyed in this spot, that is where the train must stop.
Second, as one looks at the book in this light, they then assume that the Bible has to contain everything one needs to know–there is no alternative.
So I am here to not play card 1 but to play card 3.
Card 3 – “Your assumptions are faulty with no support whatsoever”
The Bible is an unfinished group of texts–a beautiful glimpse to the workings of God, but incomplete.
Any acknowledgement of this completely destroys any “traditional” Christian faith, which is why so many cling to faulty assumptions.
Saying the Bible is “incomplete” is your way of saying God is too small to tell us all we needed to know the first time around so he needed Joseph Smith to fill in the gaps. So that’s basically saying you don’t believe in the Bible…so if Mormons don’t believe in the Bible, they aren’t really Christian, are they?
FoF, you said that Jesus saves us 100%, but ONLY if we repent…sounds like a string attached, doesn’t it. Sounds like something that we must do to earn salvation, doesn’t it? I think Mormons have a false idea of evangelical Christianity and their view of salvation. Mormons believe that to us it’s all lip service because we believe that God saves us without requiring anything but belief from us. That’s false because God sends His Holy Spirit to us, who convicts us of our sins and who leads us to change. We don’t HAVE to do this for salvation, but when God dwells in us we simply don’t desire the sinful lifestyle any longer. How can a mormon repent BEFORE Christ enters Him, if he has no conviction of sin?
DOF,
Beautiful point.
I have wondered a great deal about why a person would spend so much time and energy criticizing the LDS church. I am talking about somebody who has never been a member of the church (I understand the motives of most former members). And I am referring to religious critics. It simply does not make sense.
I heard recently somebody suggest that it reveals insecurity. I have to agree. Insecurity possibly from the church’s successes and feeling like that might take away from their religion or church. Or a feeling of insecurity about one’s own beliefs. Or maybe their own beliefs do not offer enough intellectual meat to warrant the time on them. Why else spend so much time criticizing others? Saying that a person is “fighting for Christ” simply doesn’t work because such criticism is completely contrary to the behavior Christ commanded and demonstrated, which I have suggested several times without much response.
For example, when the disciples were concerned about the religious group who were out in left field, Christ told them not to worry about them- if they be true, they will stand. If they are not true, they will fall. Or the whole “by their fruits shall ye know them” idea. These stories and concepts are quite powerful and universal, and come from the Savior Himself. But religious LDS critics don’t seem to care for them. Instead they focus on Pauls statements, usually taken out of context, to justify their considerable efforts to destroy the faith of other people.
Don’t get me wrong- none of your criticism bothers or threatens me much. But what is bothersome is that some individuals are taken in by the volume of your shouting and thereby think you know what you are talking about. I really do not mean to be rude, just taking a break from the cyclical nature of all these arguments and thinking out loud about what it is all about.
I see in so many evangelical churchs time and seminars dedicated to discussing (a generous term) the LDS church. I am sorry, but that is simply pathetic. A light on a hill has no need for such behavior.
Poetchick,
“The first time around”= approximately 4,000 years. Your argument is sillly- sorry. Using your logic, I could argue that since you believe all of God’s words are in the Bible, He has lost His ability to speak, and is losing His power. Does believing in a such a failing God make you a Christian? Simply crazy logic.
I will break with my history and point out something I find astonishing in another religion. The idea that all we have to do to be saved is believe- a mental act- is a fairytale. I can hardly think of a more false religion. You started to refute this idea, then turn around and support such a concept. Or am I misunderstanding? According to your explanation, we have absolutely no influence on our salvation. Basically God chooses whom He will, and sends the Spirit to convict them and therefore save. So it is not up to us? And you say “we don’t HAVE to do this [change] for salvation”- do you really believe that?
I fear many have so narrowly focused on verses from Paul, or even phrases from him, that they lose everything Christ said and taught. Christ could not have been more clear in outlining the “law of the harvest.” “As a man soweth, so shall he reap.”
Well it is incomplete. It is a collection of books put together by people AFTER the fact and then just stops, as if you were reading halfway through it. It gives no direction or instruction as to how these books are to be arranged and what books should be apart of it.
It does not say how matters should be after the Apostles were gone. We read from Paul, Peter, James, etc. and then it just stops. We know for a fact that Apostles not of the original 11 were called to the position.
It is a fact that the Church setup of the time of Christ and the years after up til John was DIFFERENT than the time of the Nicean Creed, and even a bit before then. The Bible gives no clarification or justification for any change. A true follower of the Bible would have set up their Church as it was IN the Bible.
If everything we need is in the Bible, then an explanation must be found in the Bible containing these inconsistancies. Otherwise you are telling me that, if the organization of the Church and additional creeds were sanctioned, they MUST have obtained them by other means. If that is true, then the Bible is, as I said, incomplete.
There is another explanation too. The Bible stopped because the people, as a whole, refused to follow God. Their rejection built upon itself until the organization of the Church was perverted. Joseph Smith’s story is no different, in essence, than any of the stories in the Bible. There was an apostasy and a Prophet was called to bring people unto repentance.
And instead of appealing to an incomplete book, an object, Joseph Smith taught to go to God and ask Him–not following an incomplete book bound together on what people thought was best for mankind.
Scripture is there to enlighten mankind, but does NOT take the place of God Himself.
There is another explanation. The Writer of Hebrews meant what he said in Hebrews 1:1-2.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to understand…
If I were to hand you twenty dollars and said that it was a free gift to you, the only action required on your part to receive the gift is to reach out and take the money…Since you do have to reach out and accept it, is it still a free gift?
God’s gift is for all of us, but we do have to accept it. We do this by accepting Christ into our lives. He saves us IN our sins and From our sins. I was still a sinner when he saved me…but I had no way of knowing to what extent I had fallen, until Christ was in my life.
That is all I was saying.
No, instead of following God’s word (the Bible) Joseph Smith told everyone to trust what his magical stones were telling him…
There’s no bigger threat to Mormons than exMormons. They’ve been on the inside, sampled the doctrine and the culture and have said “no thanks”. So to Mormons there has to be something wrong with these people. They’ve got to be into sexual immorality or someone must have offended them or they really didn’t understand Mormonism. So this is more Mormon logic: if you believe Mormonism, you understand it……if you don’t believe it, then you don’t understand it.
One of our posters wanted to know who I’ll see when I get to heaven. I’ll see God, but I won’t see Joseph Smith standing there waiting to punch my ticket. That’s a sure bet!
FoF: well said about the “her testimony as proof”. Not only HER testimony as proof, but YOURS, MINE, and everyone else who fogs a mirror, or used to…….. you are beginning to catch on, HOLD THAT THOT WHEN WE’RE TALKING “I HAVE A TESTIMONY”
While on Shelfari, I noticed that of the 200 or so RAVING reviews for Eckhart Tolle’s “New Earth”, there were only a literal handful that didn’t much care for his words, his message, his example as a “teacher”. Count mine in the minority, but the point is: ANYTHING CAN BE PROVEN BY TESTIMONIAL and to put it negatively: NOTHING CAN BE DISPROVEN through testimonial . At least not “testimonial ALONE.
Hence the need for something a lot stronger than personal experience to use a benchmark for truth.
To recap: your comment “no big deal” really has a lot going for it…….that’s why anyone should COMPARE what Katrina, or anyone else, says about her experience and bounce it off the written testimony of God Himself and see if looks, smells, and feels like Jesus………
and in Katrina’s case, as you’ve seen, there are many here at MC who are saying: yeah, that looks like the real thing, compared to not only OUR experience, but compared to the objective truth that God so lovingly preserved for us….
If that were the case, you would invalidate the scripture you used to support your claim since the author of that scripture was not Christ specifically. Thus, the situation is the same–a man inspired by the Lord to write scripture on behalf of the Lord to speak/write the will of the Lord to the people.
Ironically, since there is this belief of God being the same, yet not the same, 1 in 3, 3 in 1 thing (and us Mormons are called crazy for OUR beliefs), Christ would have spoken to the Prophets anyways.
It is quite clear there is more meaning than how you are using it and in no way proves your point.
McGermit:
I do appreciate your thoughts. It seems you are one of the only LDS critics I can comfortably dialogue with here because I feel you are honest with me. Thanks.
Regarding your response to my blabbing: one of the things that struck me about the testimonial from the article is how routinely such individuals misrepresent the LDS doctrine and conform to evangelical talking points after leaving the church. It is simply not an accurate representation of our doctrine.
Now, you will say that she has seen the light- truly seeing Mormonism for what it truly is, right? But it is so hard to take her seriously when she so misrepresents who we are. You (to my knowledge) have never been a member of our church. So you cannot fully understand the truth of what I am saying. I, along with countless others, have seen life on both sides.
Bottom line is that something happens in these LDS as they leave the church. You and I cannot know with certainty what that is in the majority of these cases. But I personally know the background of departures of many such individuals from the church, and what I know suggests that there is a serious issue with honesty in every case I know of (lots). You can dismiss this, and you probably will. I cannot find an evangelical who will discuss this or who seems interested. I feel this is a significant issue that gets swept under the rug. And it is not a matter of me feeling threatened by their intellectual arguments. It is a credibility issue.
My “no big deal” comment was based on this idea that here is another person portraying our doctrine dishonestly. Ya’ll high five each other and we roll our eyes because we have seen it so many times and see the dishonesty.
I’ve been a sometimes poster here but I wanted to bid farewell to this blog. The reason that I’m making a formal post to do so instead of simply disappearing is I want to explain why and maybe give a final try to influence this interfaith exchange for the positive. The reason I’m choosing not to continue to participate is becasue the spirit here is too toxic – on both sides. I’m sad and embarrassed by the negativity and lack of mutual respect shown by the people on this blog, LDS and non. Besides being unpleasant, I feel these types of exchanges are simply and totally unproductive. Has any change come from these conversations on either side?
I feel I am the perfect type of Mormon for this exchange – educated in my religion – but not overly so, open to new ideas and perspectives but still with a conviction of my own beliefs. I have sincere respect for my fellow Christians (LDS and non) and I wish them nothing more or less than what God wants for them right now. I enjoy vigorous debate with people with opposing views but what happens here does not feel like debating to me. It feels coarse and militant – a total lack of love. “Fine” you may say, “take your ball and go home.” I will. But not without saying, especially to those who feel called to mormon outreach, realize that you are disaffecting the very people you might possibly influence for good with the tact of your mission.
God bless.
BWS
Bsw71: your entreaty is honest and probably needed. I’ll miss your posts, tho we (you and I) didn’t have a chance to get into it much here at MC. Not sure if you look for interaction on other blogs, but maybe we’ll meet up down the road.
I am easily pursuaded that all of us are as accountable for PRESENTATION or PACKAGE as we are CONTENT, and “truth” or what we see as truth can make a fine hammer. God help us all hear HIS voice and represent HIS methods, as best we can.
GERMIT
your farewell is appreciated as well, the easy thing to do would be just to slip out the side door and go………
FoF:
Let me reply back, and as God as my witness, this is not flattery, that I like your posts because:
you have no hidden agenda
you are direct
you rarely waste time with personal attacks
your posts are honest and reflect a high regard for honesty (you need to devolve, or you will NEVER, at the current rate, make it into one of my conspiracy theories….don’t you want to play the villain, just once ??
I won’t try to defend Katrina or her post, she doesn’t need the help, but I would just remark how her comments read as absent of mean spiritedness, you no doubt disagree with her take on LDS theology, but she does not seem to be “out to get someone”. Not saying her tone proves her right, but that’s what stands out to me.
I found your earlier question about “why all the animosity….” to be very intriguing and I’ll try to add to that thot in an e-mail…..I think that topic would “go toxid” to use a bsw71 expression in a NY minute , and it would be off topic, even tho I think it’s well worth talking about. So……I’ll see if I can reach you by e-mail on that one.
Thanks in advance GERmIT
Sharon emailed me and let me know she’d used my comments in this post, and invited me to see what kind of feed-back it’s getting, both pro and con. Honestly, it’s a bit weird to see my words being used, and to see myself talked about by people who don’t know me (with the exception of Sharon) and obviously would like to see me slandered for the simple reason that I differ with them on the issue of the LDS church.
To set the record straight, when I left the church I handed the Bishop my valid, still current, and still worthy, temple recommend. I did not leave to sin, and indeed don’t engage in any sin now that would keep me out of the temple, except to drink coffee (and mostly decaf at that). And, I didn’t intentionally misrepresent the church–or at least my view of the church. Before I left, and especially during the process of leaving, I did more research than most LDS folks, and have read most all the important books of the church–and all of the Standard Works a few times over. To say that I know the doctrines of the LDS church is probably an understatement–often I find myself educating LDS folks about what their doctrines are.
But, I suspect that’s not real important to those who would malign me. What’s important is that I could NOT have left for good reason, and I obviously could not be right.
I also want to point out that I wrote this post with a Christian pastor in mind–I wrote it so he could understand, using terminology he would understand. For that reason I stated things as I did. I may have changed the wording a bit if I were writing to an LDS person. But, the thought is still the same. For that reason, I’d like to just pose a few questions to those who accuse me of misrepresenting their faith.
1. When you are blessed in a way that’s obviously God working in your lives what is your first thought? Do you think: Wow, God blessed me richly–or do you think: Wow, I did the right thing and so God blessed me?
2. When you think about going to the Celestial Kingdom what do you think you have to do? What part does God have in getting you there? And, in getting your family there?
3. When a financial blessing comes to you–a paycheck, a unexpected financial gift, what is the first thought that comes to mind?
4. When you keep the law of tithing what do you expect in return?
5. When you keep the Word of Wisdom what do you expect in return?
6. When you’re worthy to go to the temple what part does God play in that?
For me anyway, the credit for all these things was on me–what I had to do, what I did do, what I had messed up on as well. Oh, yes I thought I worshipped God, but honestly I didn’t even know how to do that–or why? I mean, why worship a God for a unexpected, but needed financial gift when I’d payed my tithing and He owed me? Or, why be thankful to God for my health (although obviously I was) when I had kept the Word of Wisdom? Or, I certainly was grateful to God for sending Jesus to die for me so I could be forgiven, but still the focus for getting to the Celestial Kingdom was always on me–I had to do certain things–forgive others, live the WofW, do my genealogy, fulfill my callings, go to Sacrament meeting (at least), go to the temple, pay my tithes, etc.,etc.
So, for me at least, and I suspect many others (my LDS SIL when we tell her about how abundantly God has blessed us is very quick to point out that of course He’s blessed us because we deserve it–the thought that we deserve His blessing never, ever crosses our minds at all! And, there’s lots and lots of other LDS folks I”ve talked to who have the same mindset so it’s not just my imagination) the focus was on ME–not because it should be there, or because the church teaches it’s there, but because it’s a natural thing to be there when the burden for all the work is on me, and ultimately my eternal salvation and exaltation is on ME.
It’s kind of like this: say you work for a big innovative company and they give you the project of developing a new type of energy. And, after months and months of research, during which they pay you, provide all you need, and support you in every way they can, you come up with a new innovative idea. Who gets the credit for the idea? YOU (oh sure there’s companies who steal the idea from you, but we’d all agree they’re crooks). It becomes Joe Blows Energy Idea, not Acme company’s energy idea, although the company may take your idea, mass produce it, and sell and market it under their name–it’s still YOUR idea, and you get the credit for it.
For me that’s how Mormonism was and is–I do the work and therefore I get the credit, although obviously I’m very grateful to God for making it possible, and to Jesus for doing the work to pave my way so to speak still I get the glory–I did it, I deserve it, and I earn it (or on the flip side I don’t do the work, I don’t deserve it, and I messed up big time and therefore don’t get the glory, or the kingdom of glory. . . .
Anyway, as I said before, those who would speak poorly of me will continue to believe that I left for some evil reason, and/or never knew LDS doctrine at all. That’s normal. But, I hope those who really want to understand what I wrote will take into account what I’ve said–and honestly think about what I’ve said–who gets the glory in your life? And, to whom is the focus? Honestly. . . .Katrina
MDavis,
I take it from your answer that in the testimony of Katrina, she really did not get any doctrine wrong other than you’re difference with her on works. I would argue that she has it correct, since specific temple works are necessary for the celestial kingdom. We’re not talking about the grace of God, the forgiveness of Christ motivating the believer to a changed life – we’re talking about specific temple ordinances or works that Mormons believe are necessary to live with God the Father in the Celestial Kingdom. These specific temple works are necessary for salvation, isn’t that the motivation for Mormons to baptize for the dead and perform ordinances for the dead – the dead NEED THESE works to be saved, no? What a heady thing, to think you are doing works that are needed by those in the afterlife to get entrance into the celestial kingdom with God. God is waiting for these works to be completed, and if the person accepts these works, enter into the highest heaven. According to the LDS Church without the temple work for the dead, these people “can’t get there from here”….
You really didn’t answer my question about someone coming to know Jesus and understand his sacrifice on the cross in repentance and then immediately dropping dead. Would they go to be with Jesus in the celestial kingdom? If not, wouldn’t it be their lack of specific temple works, works of righteousness, that would be holding them back. Wouldn’t these works then be saving? From a Christian perspective I would say YES – if all these specific temple works are required for salvation/the Celestial Kingdom, then the works are saving you – you still think you can add something to what Jesus did on the cross. Or worse yet, think you can work your own way to heaven, doing your best, and Jesus will make up the rest. This viewpoint, makes a mockery of the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
From a Christian viewpoint, life with God is the only true paradise or heaven there is. Separation from God is Hell, eternal death, pain and suffering. True life is being with God the Father for eternity. Death is our natural fallen state – separated from God by our sin. God draws our hearts to him and EVEN gives us the ability to respond in faith to Christ. The Bible says everyone is DEAD in their sins, and unless God brings us to life and draws us to himself we cannot come to him. God has sought us out.
Go Katrina, Thankyou for sharing your thoughts.
What’s the difference between Christianity and all other religions?
In all other religions, we do the sacrificing in order to coerce the deity to respond favourably.
In Christianity, God sacrifices himself so that we can respond in love.
DOF said “And while you are at it, how does one reconcile the Trinity with John 17”
OK, this has come up in several previous posts about the Creedal statements of the Trinity, and it has been forwarded as a ‘proof’ against the Trinity. Time to tackle it head on.
The objection raised is something along the lines of “if Jesus were God, how could he pray to the Father as a separate person” as we see in John 17 and elsewhere.
This objection is not actually against Trinitarianism, but against some of the heretical variants such as modalism and Sabellianism. As stated before, modalism asserts that God assumes different ‘modes’ in his presentations to us, and Sabellianism asserts that God puts on different ‘faces’. Both these variants fail because of John 17, and other similar passages.
The Creedal statements, by contrast, look these passages full in the face and acknowledge that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). They also acknowledge that Scripture points to only one God Isa 44:6, and the Name of God in Ex 3:14, for example), and that the attributes of God are given to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If the word “Trinity” is giving you a problem, why not come up with something else? However, you will need to reconcile the “one God” and “separate persons” themes in Scripture. I have yet to find an LDS definition that does it as reliably as the creeds.
PS, I have just finished reading “The Shack” by Wm Paul Young and I would recommend it as an allegorical approach to the subject.
Katrina: your posts have been unbelievably honest and heartfelt, saying “THANKS” sounds so weak and puny……..but “THANKS”.
I’m going to reread what you’ve written more that a few times, I think you’ve given us (at great cost to yourself) great insight into your Mormon experience. Since i’ve never been LDS, without that, I’m at a huge defecit to understand. You’ve helped bridge that gap. May God give permanence to the work of your, and your husband’s , hands as you take the GOOD NEWS to the nations.
GERMIT
Go to any fast and testimony meeting, held every month in every ward, and then answer the question of who gets the glory for our blessings. I think the claims being made about us giving ourselves the credit are comletely unsubstantitated. It may apply to one person, but a little presumptuous to extrapolate to the church in general.
Martin,
“The Creedal statements, by contrast, look these passages full in the face and acknowledge that there are THREE DISTINCT PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).”
The 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary definition of “person” is;
1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul.
We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.
A person is a thinking intelligent being.
2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.
A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.
3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only.
The form of her person is elegant.
You’ll find her person difficult to gain.
The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.
4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man.
Let a person’s attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.
5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character.
A player appears in the person of king Lear.
These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.
6. Character of office.
How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.
7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents.
I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.
8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.
In person, by one’s self; with bodily presence; not be representative.
The king in person visits all around.
So a person is a separate and distinct individual.
Again from the 1828 dictionary;
INDIVID’UAL, . [L. individuus; in and dividuus, from divido, to divide.]
1. Not divided, or not to be divided; single; one; as an individual man or city.
–Under his great vicegerent reign abide
United, as one individual soul.
2. Pertaining to one only; as individual labor or exertions.
INDIVID’UAL, n. A single person or human being. This is the common application of the word; as,there was not an individual present.
1. A single animal or thing of any kind. But this word, as a noun, is rarely applied except to human beings.
Sounds like LDS doctrine to me!!
Thanks Martin!!!
And as Paul says!!
Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
GB: If in fact I WAS involved in something thoroughly false, you are probably right, I would probably be the last to know…….you’ve got me there. You are also right about there being large numbers of people going to the LDS from some kind of traditional Christian background, I don’t know how large, but I’m sure it’s nothing to sneeze at. Touche.
AS for Katrina having a seared conscience and living a life of sin……..well, I’ve never met her, and all I have to go on is her blogging (so far). Maybe you have a leg up on this with your ability to “revelate”……I don’t kow.
PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN WELL DOING…………I like that phrase, thanks, I owe ya one. TRYING TO DO JUST THAT= GERmIT
bws71,
See this is the deal, the folks that show-up here are hard core believers. It’s been of great help to me because it’s allowed me to see the extreme within the Mormon realm. These folks aren’t moving one iota and I understand that, but I figure if I can get a handle on what the kool-aid drinkers [Moderator note: Kool-aid drinkers? Warning: Avoid language like this or you’ll get a “yellow card”] think and how they present their arguments, it gives me insights on how to talk with the less militant Mormon seeker who senses something is wrong and needs someone to help lead them out of the maze. FYI this is what I’ve learned about Mormons, especially the TBMs interacting here:
1. Mormonism has altered the thinking process of Mormons in the area of religion. A Mormon can think very rationally about his job, what clothes to wear, and things like that, but when you push the button on religion he stops thinking and gives back what he has been taught.
2. Mormons have given up their right to think independently.
3. Talking about spiritual things to Mormons is like trying to describe a rainbow to a blind man. You are talking about a rainbow to a person who doesn’t know what color is.
4.Mormons forfeit their right to question authority. Mormons are told to trust the “feeling” they get in response to their investigative prayer. Once they make that purely subjective determination (testimony) they have found the truth. They are required to believe whatever they are told from that point forward. Mormons will trust that subjective experience in the face of all logic and reason.
5. One common denominator runs through Mormonism; “fear”. Call it black, sticky, paralyzing fear. Those who want out of the program can’t get out. Those who choose to leave Mormonism often pay a heavy price.
6. Mormonism is a religious system that stands in direct opposition to basic teachings of the Bible.
7. Mormons can’t differentiate between God and the Mormon Church.
This may be too strong for you bws 71, but Mormonism is a system hatched in hell and birthed in the occult necromancy of Joseph Smith. Those of us who interact here understand that the hard core Mormons that we are faced with are operating under a spiritual delusion that is real, pervasive and nasty. It’s really not a lot of fun but spiritual warfare rarely is.
Wow!!
Sounds like you didn’t and don’t really understand the following:
Mosiah 2:20 I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.
22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.
23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.
24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?
25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you.
Cheers!!
falcon,
Are you an alien? Be honest!
fof
Giving my opinion on these points:
1. The LDS faith does no such thing. Having served a full-time mission, I can say that people are not bullied into making their own decision. They act on their own free will to join the faith. To say otherwise is an utter insult to millions of people. They may not do what you wish them to do, but to insult their intelligence is going too far.
2. This totally contradicts your beginning statement for if Mormon’s cannot think independantly, there is no need for you to find the “less militant Mormon” is there?
3. Another insult which refutes what you are saying as well.
4. This statement is just completely false and is a mischaracterization of our faith, our scriptures, and our intelligence. I don’t know what else to say except that our own scriptures refute what you are saying.
5. This is simply untrue. Any individual can look at the doctrine and realize this. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is full of love, service and happiness. It lifts an individual and families to beautiful heights. The Book of Mormon and all scripture does not teach fear, or entrapment in the way you speak of here.
6. The Bible, when correctly understood, is in complete harmony with the LDS faith. It unlocks the mysteries of God and dispels the sophitries of man.
7. Mormons know who God is, our plan here on earth, and the wonderous life to come.
I do not like the term spiritual warfare. It implies force from the opponent forcing them to surrender. That is what war is all about. We present our case and let the individual choose. If they choose not to follow the LDS faith, that is fine. It does not hurt my feelings and does not change my viewpoint of them as children of God. Nor do I think of them as deficient.
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Aaron,
I thought that you understood LDS doctrine better than this. The simple reality is that the LDS position on the whole works versus faith debate is that LDS doctrine (ie the absolute necessity of ordinances and covenants) is much more in line with traditional, orthodox Christianity (apostolic Christianity) than that taken by some more radical protestant sects which deny these major tenets of traditional, orthodox Christianity.
The very notion which you espouse that LDS doctrine creates a “self-centered approach to the plan of salvation” is ludicrous and frankly dishonest.
Mobaby,
The viewpoints which you espouse (that ordinances and covenants are unnecessary for salvation) are not in accordance with traditional, apostolic, orthodox Christianity, but rather are those of minor sect of Protestantism which eschews much of Biblical Christianity.