“Aaron actually made my day by posting that chapter on Exaltation. I was really hoping for some significant changes. I recently participated in a conversation with a member online comparing our differing understandings of exaltation. I noticed that the Gospel Principles manual made an assertion(s) that was never made by Joseph Smith or by the scriptures, and I pointed out the part that I didn’t agree with. I’m glad to see that part was changed in the revised addition. I think this definitely a good thing!” (>>)
I will just say that for one who understands ALL the doctrine of the church, and who has read and studied, and learned concerning the words of the Prophets, nothing has changed from what was written to what is now written.
All that has happened is they have omitted certain items and topics that are difficult for the average person to truly grasp, and thus these topics or more a stumbling block then they are a blessing. This does not make them false, nor does it mean the church is denying them as doctrine. All it means is that they are looking after the spiritual welfare of the members. (>>)
At the end of the day, the Mormon Church is a fog machine, not a lighthouse beacon. The changes to Gospel Principles please all sorts of people in the Mormon Church with contradicting reasons to be pleased. I take a cautious and pessimistic approach to analyzing seeming changes from the Salt Lake institution. I am attempting to be optimistic about God at work, pessimistic about the depravity of unregenerate humanity, and realistic about changes (or lack thereof) that are taking place. Until we see the miracle of repentance, confession, tears, and godly sorrow, I implore anyone with an unchecked optimism to practice discernment and avoid naivety. Expect God to do great salvific things, but don’t be to quick to recognize a change as of repentance when it is done without integrity, clarity, and repentance.
Here are six reasons to be cautious:
1. Historically, when a Mormon teaching has died, it has died silently. Leaders lack the integrity to denounce it, and lack the pastoral love of their people to make clear contrasts between what is being taught and what was taught. The most important blog post I’ve read on this issue was at TimesAndSeasons.org, called, “How Does Mormon Doctrine Die?”. The best example is that of the lifting of the priesthood ban. The Church lifted the ban, but never from the highest institutional channels explicitly denounced the theology that leaders once used to justify the ban. So the theology largely still continued among the Mormon people, and only started to die off with the effects of deemphasis, silence, and time. Had the Mormon Church denounced the theology once used to justify the ban, and named names, it would have called into question the reliability of the historic succession of its prophets and apostles.
2. Mormonism attempts to keep old doctrines by using new, euphemistic, cryptic language. For example, the Mormon Church replaced the statement in chapter 47, “These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father” with “These spirit children will have eternal increase”. This will function in different ways for different people. For a few, it will draw back from the explicit nature of the potential worship-relationship between our future spirit children. For many others, it will simply continue this notion, yet with a short phrase that isn’t so clear.
4. Mormonism employs a deceptive “milk before meat” philosophy. As quoted above, shematwater interpreted the changes as a milk before meat stategy:
“All that has happened is they have omitted certain items and topics that are difficult for the average person to truly grasp, and thus these topics or more a stumbling block then they are a blessing.”
In another context a Mormon writes,
“I would be careful bringing [up] this matter with any nonmembers… [H]ow to address this [Lorenzo Snow Couplet theology] with nonmembers[?]. My advice: don’t. This is difficult doctrine. Remember, milk before meat.” (>>)
The popular internet Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay even writes that such topics can be beyond meat, being a kind of “dessert”:
“I personally feel that the whole of issue of ‘gods’ is an advanced topic that we don’t know a lot about, so I consider it as meat (actually, dessert) that doesn’t need to be served as the first course.” (>>)
Mormon Ian M. Cook writes:
“Fundamentally you are right, we need to stand up and distinguish ourselves from the pack.
“I have an experience though that makes me think twice about it that way. I was about 16 and I had recently learned some of the deeper doctrines of the church etc. Not sure where I heard it, but I happen to be sitting on the school bus talking to a bunch of people about LDS doctrine. I was teaching the plan of salvation. The other kids were really interested. I went so far as to teach the three degrees of glory and then I told them we could become Gods.
“I didn’t think anything of it at the time, but later, I was helping this guy build a house and I didn’t realize it but he was a recent convert to the church and the step father of one of the kids that were listening to the conversation. He told me that his step son really liked what I had to say, up until I got to the Gods part. It turned him away from the church.
“I have felt bad about it since then. This kid was the only member of the family that did not join the church. This was based on what I taught.
“Perhaps he would have found this out later and left the church anyway. I can’t help but think that he could have been converted more spiritually and then he could have accepted those teachings.
“Milk before meat as they say.” (>>)
Mormon apologist Daniel Peterson once wrote,
“I myself prefer not to discuss certain things in certain venues. And the fundamental nature of God is one of those things…” (>>)
5. Mormonism prides itself in using non-”creedal”, ambiguous, amorphous theological language that functions at different layers in different contradicting ways for different people. This is related to #2 and #4. Mormonism seems to appreciate the usage of language that does’t yield enough the kind of clarity that causes unwanted problems. One example here is the change in Gospel Principles in the 90’s from becoming Gods to becoming “like” God. For outsiders, this usually brings to mind the notion of becoming morally pure and sinless like God. For insiders, it more often than not denotes the act of becoming equal with God in knowledge and power (if you take the Prattian view) or achieving the level of knowledge and power that God has now (if you have the Brighamite view; cf. the relevant MRM article). It denotes becoming a God worshiped and prayed to by our own spirit-children. Some Mormons are uncomfortable with this and choose not to think about it and even opt for a re-invented Mormon theology that denies the traditional understanding of the Lorenzo Snow couplet. But more often than not the euphemisms like becoming “like God” serve a purpose of obfuscation, not clarification.
6. When Mormonism makes corrections to its own teachings, it confusingly refers to them as “clarifications”, implying that the same teachings have persisted to now only with elucidated language. In my experience, Mormons have a penchant for describing fundamental, contradictory changes as natural progressions. Moving from Adam-God to post-Talmage theology, for example, has been described to me as God’s plan for moving the church line upon line, precept upon precept. The 1978 revelation to lift the priesthood ban is spoken of as a clarification overriding a mere past “policy” of church. The 1916 formalization of the Elohim/Jehovah naming conventions are spoken of as a clarification of what was Mormon doctrine all along, despite the fact that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had radically different usages of the terms. As Mormon historian Thomas Alexander writes,
“Perhaps the main barrier to understanding the development of Mormon theology is an underlying assumption by most Church members that there is a cumulative unity of doctrine. Mormons seem to believe that particular doctrines develop consistently, that ideas build on each other in hierarchical fashion. As a result, older revelations are interpreted by referring to current doctrinal positions. Thus, most members would suppose that a scripture or statement at any point in time has resulted from such orderly change. While this type of exegesis or interpretation may produce systematic theology, and while it may satisfy those trying to understand and internalize current doctrine, it is bad history, since it leaves an unwarranted impression of continuity and consistency.” (>>)
All these things considered, I am driven to take a cautious approach when discerning the movement of Mormonism. The Mormon Church is an evil, corrupt, dysfunctional organization that lacks integrity, institutional repentance, and a real pastoral love that yields clarity, crisp contrasts, and more practical bottom-up measures of correction and methods to afford checks and balances. For 179 years the Mormon Church has moved its people in a direction with theological momentum. This has affected real people that I love. When people flippantly give the Mormon Church a free pass for all this momentum it has created, I have to wonder if they have the same dwelling Holy Spirit that I do. I am not content to suppose that certain unsavory teachings and beliefs in the Church will simply die out in four or five generations to come. Playing the endless game of quasi-ecumenism over shallow common ground won’t do. Today is the day of salvation, and in accordance with the gospel-call to get on board with the kingdom of God, we are to call persons and institutions to repentance and the fullness of joy in the truth of Jesus Christ.
WOW Aaron, your last paragraph…..I’m wondering if you’ve been “falconed”? First Martin, and now you. The Mormons aren’t going to like you one bit. I must remind them of the saying that goes something like “the sting of the criticism is where the truth lies.” I clearly don’t get Mormonism. I mean I really don’t. Mormonism, beyond the aberrent, odd and false doctrines, just really has trouble getting its act together. What good is their prophet? Not much I’d say. If he were worth anything, even within the context of Mormonism, he’d stand-up at conference and lay the whole deal out. But, alas, he can’t because he’s a politician with a multizillion corporation to run, LDS Inc.
You’ve laid out the issues here Aaron very well. Now starts the Mormon spin machine.
Aaron, you are not content to wait four or five generations and see if the burdensome, heartbreaking false doctrines of Mormonism die out–doctrines that lead real people after a false God? This is a demonstration of pastoral love, the same sort of love that should be driving leaders of the LDS Church to clearly define the faith and thereby protect their flock from being led astray; but this love is noticeably absent. How does one explain this, that a critic of Mormonism demonstrates more love for the Mormon people than do their own ecclesiastical leaders?
Sharon,
The operational word in Mormonism is not “love” as in pastorial love, it’s about “control”. Mormonism, from at least the time of Brigham Young, has been all about falling in line and following the leaders. It’s all done through fear and guilt, two favorite techniques of control freaks. The other part is making people feel defective and in need of validation.
If the little people actually did stand up for themselves in any great numbers, the organization would crumble. But that’s basically what’s going on with people leaving Mormonism in great numbers. There’s not enough people coming in to fill the slots of those leaving so the doctrine must be buried even deeper to rope in unsuspecting (people).
I remember way back when, when I got the Joseph Smith story the first time. The means of “translating” the golden plates was done by means of “magic spectacles”. I laughed! My hunch is that the “magic spectacles” have been field tested out of the presentation package by now. What would work with folks in the 1800s is obviously not going to work now days.
So the “magic spectacles” are gone and forgotten and so, it is hoped by the Mormon leadership, will the rest of it get buried with time. Unfortuately for them, the paper trail is long wide and deep……and so is the internet.
The Necessity of Keeping the Doctrine Pure.
“I have spoken before about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley.
Methinks that the Church got it right, keep it simple and pure. Study and ponder the LDS scripture and forget about that which we know little about and even if we could teach the many snippets, what would be the lesson in itself. Not much, since we have little information on the how and why of that which deviates from the pureness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Can anyone here do more then speculate on the Forty day of teaching we find in the New Testament, when Christ taught the Apostles, and so for forty days the Savior ministered to his Apostles and other disciples and taught them. Many things were revealed to Joseph Smith which we as a restored Church were not ready as of yet to understand.
“There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake. Many seal up the door of heaven by saying, So far God may reveal and I will believe. …
“It always has been when a man was sent of God with the priesthood and he began to preach the fullness of the gospel, that he was thrust out by his friends, who are ready to butcher him if he teach things which they imagine to be wrong; and Jesus was crucified upon this principle.”24
“Woe, woe be to that man or set of men who lift up their hands against God and His witness in these last days: for they shall deceive almost the very chosen ones!
“… When a man goes about prophesying, and commands men to obey his teachings, he must either be a true or false prophet. False prophets always arise to oppose the true prophets and they will prophesy so very near the truth that they will dec
deceive almost the very chosen ones.”
“In consequence of rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God have rested upon people, cities, and nations, in various ages of the world, which was the case with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets.”26
24. History of the Church, 5:423–25; punctuation modernized; paragraph divisions altered; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 11, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards; see also appendix, page 562, item 3.
26. History of the Church, 5:256–57; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Jan. 22, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.
For anyone who has been following these posts for the past week – I have to say one thing to Jason Rae, who constantly says Christians worship an “alien god.” This statement comes from a man who worships a being from the Planet Kolob. It’s probably somewhere close to where Klaatu or E.T. came from. I’m just sayin’…
Okay. Now to address the subject at hand. Mormonism “get out of jail free” card is prophetic revelation and the notion that they are led by a living prophet. So 2 things in a Mormons life put many Mormons beyond actually examining the changes, history, and theological chaos in which they live:
1) Their heart testimony that Joseph Smith is a Prophet and the BOM and the Mormon Church is true.
2) Supposed Ongoing Prophetic Revelation, which gives excuse for any changes.
What Mormon Coffee and others who witness to Mormons are trying to do is get LDS members to examine their beliefs in light of scripture, not emotion, not what someone tells them is true, not a subjective experience. But in light of the truth of scripture. When you read holy scripture do you see the Mormon Church there? Not only are the beliefs of the LDS Church absent from scripture, but many foundational truths such as there is ONLY one God are turned on their head by Mormonism. Salvation is through the shed blood of Jesus on the cross – the Apostle Paul sought to preach nothing but Christ crucified, a concept which must seem foreign to Mormons who want to denigrate the cross and say Jesus paid for “some” sins in the garden of Gethsemane (after all you can do). All the shifting and changing never really brings the Mormon Church any closer to trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross – for He alone can wash away our sins. Christians have no need for Joseph Smith, we have the risen Lord Jesus Christ, whom we worship and adore along with the angels in heaven. Aaron’s right, there is no repentance, no change of heart, only a keen desire to better market their aberrant beliefs – disguising them in order to keep the unwashed masses from their most obscene beliefs. These beliefs may fade with time, but they never really come any closer to the holy and righteous Sovereign God, the one true God – before Him there are no other gods, neither will there be after Him.
I guess the trouble I have with the Mormon church is quite simply WHAT they choose to teach and expand upon, and WHAT they choose to hide, and say they don’t. Some have talked here about the milk before meat scenario. I have always found that if I talked about the meat, I was either told that it did not matter or asked why it bothered me. After years of Seminary, Institute Classes and BYU Education week, I was never given the skinny on Joseph Smith. I don’t blame them for wanting their prophet to be an all around outstanding, upright, honest man. This just was not the truth. No manual ever talked about his marriages, telling Emma after the fact, or the 14 year old girl. I remember when I mentioned the 14 year old to a member, the back peddling was embarrassing. After all, didn’t I know that a 14 year old was not that young to be married then? These small known facts now, were just the tip of the iceberg. So, to make a long story short, and many meaty facts later, I literally almost choked to death on all the meat I got at once, after thirty plus years of just milk. Sometimes I am still upchucking.
Try as you may, you must realize that you’re preaching to the visitors and guest which I doubt there are very many. Emotion is a big factor in any Church, try and tell the partitioner that one is converted by a intellectual experience, tell that to Peter, who knew that Jesus was the Christ, but not by flesh and bone, but by God the Father in Heaven. Salvation is a free Gift to ALL, and as hard as it’s to believe for you, even in the darkest jungles of Africa, salvation is given to even those who will never hear of Christ while alive on this earth. There is only one God, and He is the God that created me, and the only one who I worship. I hate to disappoint you but there was a mighty change of heart, a change so great that it entered into every aspect of my life, making me good, and then eventually better, a conviction and testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the only one who can wash away my sins through repentance and following his commandments to the best of my ability, always knowing that He will do the rest.
R.
Kitty, Thank you for your post. I often times find it hard to express my feelings of betrayal and manipulation. You have said what I have at other times tried to expand upon.
I love this quote, “Fundamentally you are right, we need to stand up and distinguish ourselves from the pack.” The Mormon Organization cannot do this because they would have to face their past, and there past is not as holy as the missionaries would have you believe. Instead they hide or deemphasis the none popular teachings. I would have more respect for the Mormon who stood on a Mountain top and yelled out, “I am going to be a God some day!” as blasphemous as that is, at least that person has conviction, the rest, well…
Hank,
Sounds very Christian, and truly exemplifies what Aaron’s post is about. Do you care to flush out all the details– only one god who you worship, following commandments, a free gift, etc?
Cowboy up and tell us what those terms mean to you and to your faith.
HankSaint,
When you say “there is only one God” in what sense do you mean that? Do you worship Jesus as is seen in the scriptures, where people bow before Him and worship Him? Do you worship our Heavenly Father and pray as Jesus taught “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name?” Do you acknowledge that there is only one true God who created out of nothing all creation throughout the universe and beyond? Or are you redefining one God to mean “one god for us” and other gods for others – a virtual limitless number of gods? I don’t know if you hold to an alternate view of Mormonism that is monotheistic, or if you are just obscuring with your comment. I did notice there was no mention of the cross, which in the scriptures the Apostles exalted in as the source of our salvation. How do you feel about the Apostle Paul and his statement regarding only preaching Christ crucified? Does Mormonism do that? If not, why not? The scriptures preach and exalt the cross of Christ, and anyone who rejects this is rejecting the teachings of scripture, and what if the Apostle Paul is right? Where does that leave the Mormon Church? I do have emotion – my emotion centers on the cross of Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross – fulfilling the sacrificial system clearly established throughout the scriptures. My sins are placed on Him, and His righteousness is imputed to me! What a beautiful truth! Jesus is the ultimate and final sin sacrifice. And His triumph over sin is demonstrated in His resurrection. He freely gave Himself for my sins and rose again. That’s where I find freedom, emotional release, and joy – in Christ crucified for my sins. Do you share that focus on the cross as scripture teaches? If not, I would challenge you to read through the scriptures and ponder the statements about the cross and Jesus crucified. It could change your perspective and perhaps your life as it has mine.
HankSaint has demonstrated perfectly the “game” that is Mormonism and is a descriptor of what cults do to try and make their belief systems palatable to the general public and obscure what they really believe. What the cults do is obscure the language, hide the meaning behind a common vocabulary and do all of this knowing they are doing it to seduce people into their cult.
As I’ve pointed out on this blog endlessly, Orson Pratt said if you worship one of the gods you worship all of them.
I can’t believe our Mormon posters keep trying to recycle their nonsense here. Do they think this is our first rodeo? It may work with people who haven’t a knowledge of Mormonism; it’s beliefs, doctrines, practices and most importantly, it’s history, but please, who do Mormons think they are fooling here? Perhaps they’ve convinced themselves of these things but they’re not going to have much success with those of us who know Mormonism inside and out including the tactics used to obscure and hide what the religion is all about.
Given what HankSaint writes above, I would guess that all ev. Christians are Mormons. What else could be concluded? If pressed, the next thing we’ll be treated to is the “god of this world” fall back position regarding the multiplicity of gods and who Mormons worship. Earth to Mormons: you’re religion is polytheistic regardless of how many gods you say you worship. The belief in more than one god puts you squarely in the polytheistic camp. That means that throughout the universe men are becoming gods, receiving dominion over their own planets and conceiving spirit cildren in heaven so they can send them to earth to be born in mortality and repeat the process. Christianity has no common ground with the teachings of Mormonism no matter how hard Mormons try to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
All,
There is a historical/culture context here that Aaron understands and others do not. There are many Christians (I have those affiliated with Biola University and Standing Together Ministries in mind) who have a vision of the LDS church as an institution (key phrase) abandoning its false teachings and embracing the “one faith” that Paul wrote about in Ephesians. Those who would like to see this change come about have the Worldwide Church of God in mind as an example of an institution abandoning heresy and embracing the gospel of the NT.
Aaron is skeptical of this as so am I. While there are some similarities between Mormonism(s) and Armstrongism(s) there are many big, fat differences. I am not willing to wait generations for something that might happen.
I believe those who are trying to engineer a similar fate for LDS Mormonism are overly optimistic, afraid to look bad to others, and do not have a grasp of the historical differences between Mormonism and Armstrongism. They fail to recognize that what happened with the WW Church of God happened almost devoid of outside prodding (except for some faithful prayer warriors). It happened internally and it was not until much later, after the change had already taken place, that Evangelical Churches were aware of what was going on.
There is a whole paradigm that those who desire this type of change have. I have major problems with it, but everyone should know it does exist and it is impacting Christian and LDS interactions more and more. If you want to know more about what these people have in mind you need to watch the video Called to be Free; it chronicles the change that the WW Church of God underwent. At the beginning of the video it states, “It has been called unique in all of church history” –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWAtvE1xiRk
David,
It must be either because it’s early on a Saturday morning or because I’m in a hypnotic trance after practicing scales on my guitar, but I’m having some trouble following your train of thought. There’s a piece of the puzzle missing in what you write. Perhaps you’re leading the reader to discover the information on their own which is a good stratedgy and goes along with “if I tell you, you can doubt me, but if you say it, it’s true”.
Are you saying that ev. Christians have an idea/hope that Mormonism will collapse and you don’t think this is what will happen? I was thinking yesterday, as a matter of fact, that there will always be people who will be hooked on Mormonism just like there will always be people who groove on Free Masonry (for example). I’m encouraged by the number of people who are leaving Mormonism. The challenge for Mormonism is to keep the number coming in the front door exceeding the number going out the back door. With all of the information currently available, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult for Mormonism to block the back door and to escourt people through the front door. There’s just too much information available now regarding Mormonism; it’s beliefs, practices and history for the Mormon missionaries to fool people. When you’ve got half of the missionaries bailing out, formally or informally, following their missions, it’s obvious that retention is a major problem.
The Prop. 8 campaign by Mormons in California opened the Mormon church up to scrutiny also. It’s caused Mormonism some difficulty in regards to keeping the things they’d rather have hidden, stay hidden (and that is beyond the issue of homosexual marrage). Even within the Mormon fold there were people who may agree with the church’s stand on the topic but resented the heavy handed way it went about securing funds from members for the campaign.
Falcon,
I am saying that there are some evangelicals that want to see the mainline LDS Mormon church go the way of the Worldwide Church of God and as an institution abandon its heretical beliefs. I think this would be great but I do not see it happening and it is not something that Christians should try to bring about (as opposed to normal evangelism). The events surrounding the WW Church of God took place without the assistance of Christians trying to slide it into the fold.
I was trying to bring to light certain ideas or assumtptions that some people have when we see some of these “changes” in Mormonism. There are pastors, scholars, etc. who are currently “dialoging” with Mormons at BYU that seem to have this winfall idea in mind.
I see these “changes” as an attempt to slow the hemmoraging of members that has been taking place over the last decade. It is not a move out of strength but weakness. Mormon leaders once trumpeted the value of their system over and against that of traditional Chrisitanity. The recent overtures that the Mormon Church has made seem to be an attmept at a truce or cease-fire.
David,
Interesting thoughts, and probably accurate. I’d think the best way to achieve that goal would be by simply witnessing individually to Mormons.
I used to think the Mormon church was pusing its way to mainstream Christianity, but the more I see the tactics of obfuscation, the more I doubt that will ever happen. The language changes, but the heart does not.
Interesting, I for one see the LDS Church steadfast in the Doctrine we have always taught, but as Hinkley was trying to articulate,
“I have spoken before about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods”
The accusations of falling off course, hence the changes, is nothing more then clarification and keeping members away from the aberrations and eventually speculation and then apostasy. So many of the borrowed talking points that Evangelicals levy against the Church and the doctrine, are specifically peripheral issues, and nothing to do with the standard Doctrine found in all of our Authoritative Teaching manuals, and assured by the Scriptures we point to constantly, BOM, Pearl of Great Price, and D&C.
Subjects ranging from Plural Gods, God once a Man, Creating our own planets, etc, etc, are the peripheral aberrations, not the norm of our teachings. Question, how can the LDS teach something we know very little about? I for one go to Church to learn about our Heavenly Father and His Literal Son, Jesus Christ. Speculation does not in any way promote understanding of issues that have not as of yet been revealed in fulness.
R.
I worked a shift at the LDS cannery this last week. With me were about 100 other members from our community- housewives, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, the unemployed, teenagers. All were happy to give up their time working together canning apricots (16,000 cans) to be given to those not able to provide for themselves. This is just one of a hundred similar facilities around the world. And it is just one of dozens of quiet church pursuits that make enormous differences in the lives of members and nonmembers.
I couldn’t help but think about the two different worlds in what I saw at the cannery and the world painted by critics of the church. Is the organization that brings such people together to provide for the poor “an evil, corrupt, dysfunctional organization that lacks integrity, institutional repentance, and a real pastoral love?”
Meanwhile, critics sit at their computers penning clever and cynical arguments against the church, calling it a “ministry.” Relying a great deal upon heresay and speculation, they pain as bad a carcature as possible of the church and its people. Yes- you cannot separate the two, despite the fact that trying to do so makes one feel better about such attacks.
One world is that of the doer- the one trying to serve, lift, and forget about one’s self. It is not made of perfect people, but it is optimistic. It is light and good.
The other is darkness, cynicism, cutting and clever. It is finding fault and judgementalism at the slightest perceived mistake. It is the haughty and self-righteous position on the sidelines.
When the Lord judges us all, I know which side of the line I hope to be standing on.
The critics have been at it for 179 years, making the same claims and accusations- the church is falling apart, etc. etc. I wouldn’t hold my breath in waiting for the church to change its doctrines in favor of those of apostasy. And I wouldn’t bet against this quiet giant.
HankSaint,
To summarize your last post: Mormons should focus on “keeping the doctrine of the Church pure” and essentially disregard any teachings on plural gods, the nature of God, and what man’s destiny is (a summary of what you said in my own words).
May I ask – what is the pure doctrine if not the nature of God and man’s destiny? These seem like really big issues that Our Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ taught much about. Teaching would be limited to a very small sphere if we cannot learn who God is (is God an exalted man, or the eternal unchanging holy and righteous Sovereign God?)and man’s nature and relationship to God (are we to become gods, are we to worship Him forever, do we share the exact same nature as God?). If these questions are to go unanswered, what are the answers that Mormonism provides?
Olsen Jim,
The Church I attend is also involved in many social gospel activities such as rebuilding homes of the elderly, adoption, sending Christmas gifts to the needy – people who are not members and probably never will be. I, too, have personally participated in these activities. Therefore, my Church is true?
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Mobaby,
Not a bad summery, but lets actually state what I stated. Focus on the known, not on speculation or snippets of doctrine we know very little about. I can’t imagine giving a lesson or talk on a subject that can’t be proved by our own Scriptures and Teaching Manuals. Again Hinkley was right when asked about the snippet, “As man is, God once was”.
“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.” Hinckley.
“I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”
Whitsell said: ” I am saying that there are some evangelicals that want to see the mainline LDS Mormon church go the way of the Worldwide Church of God and as an institution abandon its heretical beliefs. I think this would be great but I do not see it happening and it is not something that Christians should try to bring about (as opposed to normal evangelism). ”
Finally some Ev common sense on this board.
The converting power of the Book of Mormon draws some 300,000 souls into the church every year. The 300,000 includes converts only, does not include children of current members being baptized which is a significant number as well.
Let’s be generous and say that for whatever reason 100,000 leave the church every year. Maybe they don’t like something they learned about Joseph Smith, they feel lied to, they don’t like the “meat” doctrine, the temple scares them or whatever it may be. That leaves us with 200,000 people with growing testimonies and in some cases significant life style changes for the better.
That’s some power for a book that’s only been around for 179 years. Is there any other religious precedent in our day? No. That kind of growth is staggering and unprecedented in world history given the timeframe.
The creedals (you guys) will just have to stand on the sidelines and watch twenty centuries of the alien god fraud slowly be replaced with the truth – and what a glorious thing it is to behold.
To bottom line it for you Evs: In full view of everyone and in full light of day before God and angels I cast my lot with the greatest prophet to stride the world stage since the dawn of man: Joseph Smith.
Hank,
Give me a break! You can’t be serious. I’m in a rage again! Controllable all be it. I’m breathless, mouth agape, incredulous, beyond words (hard to believe isn’t it?). I say big time dittos to mobaby.
Seriously, plural gods, progression to godhood and creating planets is not the norm? SORRY, I guess we should just ignore these itsy bitsy little diversions and really get down to the meat of the resorted gospel, which is what? Reminds me of our dear departed Amanda who used to sing the same song telling us that there was soooooooo much more to the restored gospel. Like what?
My friend there is no need to go beyond the first few questions in my old Baltimore Catechism that we used when I attended Catholic elementary school (back before you were born I’d guess).
1. Who made us?
2. Who is God?
3. Why did God make us?
4. What must we do to gain happiness in heaven?
5. From whom do we learn to know love and serve God?
Fill in the blank from the back of the first lesson.
1. God is the Supreme___________, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in________.
2. God made us to show forth His ____________.
3. To gain the happiness of heaven, we must _______, __________ and ___________God.
4. Jesus Christ teaches us through the _________.
5. The chief truths taught by the Church are found in the _______________.
Lesson 2
1. What do we mean when we say that God is the Supreme Being?
2. What is a spirit?
3. What do we mean when we say God is self-existing?
4. What do we mean when we say that God is infinitely perfect?
5. What do we mean when we say that God is eternal?
6. What do we mean when we say that God is all-good?
7. What do we mean when we say that God is all-knowing and all present?
8. What do we mean when we say that God is almighty?
Well, I think our readers get the drift. What a stroll down memory lane that was. I haven’t been a Catholic for forty years, yet I’m grateful for the basic knowledge I was taught
Jason, I think you’re missing the point. It’s not whether we should try to convert Mormons to Christianity. It’s whether we should give up urgent evangelism in favor of passive quasi-ecumenism to somehow get the Mormon leadership (and key figures of LDS influence) to move toward evangelicalism like a toad in warm to hot water.
Olsen, at final judgment canning food won’t be seen as a sufficient cover-up excuse for having taught gross heresy about the nature and past of God, nor for making silent contradicting changes all the while pretending to simply have made “clarifications”.
Wow Falcon,
What dribble comes from someone who specializes in the teaching field of education. I’m sure you just must have ignored everything I said, got out your talking points, and when finding nothing to counter my statement, you go off in a hissy fit, stating exactly nothing of relevance. Slow down, be specific and we can discuss each issue you disagree with in my post. Take a deep breath, let not your rage get in the way of focusing on the topic.
r.
Aaron said: Jason, I think you’re missing the point. It’s not whether we should try to convert Mormons to Christianity. It’s whether we should give up urgent evangelism in favor of passive quasi-ecumenism to somehow get the Mormon leadership (and key figures of LDS influence) to move toward evangelicalism like a toad in warm to hot water.
I would personally argue that, whie Evangelicals will continue to try a variety of approaches, the latter will be the best long-term strategy to move Mormonism closer to traditional Christianity, in the true spirit of ministry.
Yet Jesus tells us to call the world to repentance in this life, not to deceptively put treat people like frogs in the warm-to-hot water pot metaphor.
Jason,
Thanks, I think. It seems from the words that followed you don’t fully understand the point I was making. Let it be known those who advocate such an approach are those who are much more liked by the apostles of your church as well as the profs at BYU. It is those of us who favor more traditional (confrontational) approaches to evangelism that get labeled the “A-word”. Some Christians are overly optimistic, but right now your church is anemic at best and quite frankly a speck in the religious scene on earth for the last few thousand years.
If your church was doing so great then its numbers would far exceed what they are today. If one counted every kind of person who could loosely be considered Mormon (including “Jack” Mormons and non-LDS Mormons) you guys would still have less than 13 million worldwide. In terms of world religions that is tiny. The Assemblies of God denomination was started in the 20th century and boasts more numbers than your church. That is a precedent in our day. But numbers and good deeds mean zero in terms of truth claims.
“The creedals (you guys) will just have to stand on the sidelines and watch twenty centuries of the alien god fraud slowly be replaced with the truth”
Make no mistake about it. We are not on the sidelines and wherever your missionaries go we have been their first. You make it sound like our god is the weird one in terms of religions when in fact classical monotheism has a long tradition with billions of followers. Let it be known, you are not just mocking Evangelical Christians when you decry a transcendent deity, but rather billions of people who bare the name Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Your finite deity and monistic worldview are more at home in a Buddhist or Hindu temple in India rather than synagogue or church in Israel. Do you really believe that Jews and Christians of the 1st century believed in a finite man who became a finite god?
I think your position has integrity, Aaron; I just think it’s more likely to produce atheists than Christians.
In reading many stories over at exmormon.org, it appears the the Mormon church all by itself is doing pretty well in pushing exiters over towards atheism. I am also sure that some EC exiters move that way too. However, I am not sure that is solely the fault of confrontational evangelism. I am sure it is also part of our current cultural milieu and the deceptiveness of the evil one. Numerous self described experts want us to move towards atheism, regardless of our background.
I for one would rather have this movement take place with intentionality rather than polite default. Following Jesus is a choice, not an inheritance. Each of us has to make that choice, whether it be some public confession or other venue.
Better to take the high road of integrity than to play God and try to manipulate the results. Human wisdom says the way of less integrity yields better fruit, but we know from scripture that salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, wrought through the spreading of his word.
As Paul said in 2 Corinthians 4:
It’s a chiefly a spiritual endeavor, not a sociological one.
Whitsell,
” Do you really believe that Jews and Christians of the 1st century believed in a finite man who became a finite god? ”
Have you ever heard of the 1st century Christian doctrine of theosis??
Jason, give me one non-gnostic Christian 1st century quote on theosis that even comes close to the Mormon view, and I’ll buy you a pizza and a 24-pack of root beer. The language you’re thinking about comes centuries later, and even then, as a Catholic pointed out at MADB,
Hank,
Sit-up and pay attention. It’s all there for you to discover. I don’t see how you could miss the point but perhaps I could assign you some extra credit work or outside reading to help with your comprehension of the lesson. You didn’t make any specific points in your post to me except to try a little more of your now patented discount comments. Do you have a sense of humor? Can you read between the lines? Can you appreciate hyperbole or subtlety?
I think your need to make personal comments rather than offer anything of substance tells volumes about the shallowness of your position. Instead of expanding on your comments regarding “peripheral issues” you focus on my humor which you missed entirely. If you don’t get my style at least comment on the topic. My point, which I guess was too well hidden for you, is that what you consider “perpheral” is the heart of the matter. I know Mormons would like to shy away from the topic of the nature of God because their belief in a multiplicity of gods and human progression to godhood, for example, is so off the wall and off-putting that even the nominally religious person will see Mormonism as kooky. So Mormons want to avoid any of these substative issues wanting to talk about what, home food storage?
As far as service goes in the Mormon church this is another big area where there have been big changes. Mormons have often been criticized for only looking after their own. It has not been that many years that the church was even recognized for service outside the church. It took the examples of other churches, to bring Mormons into the light of actually being a church that looks out for the less fortunate, regardless of worthiness. Service projects for the youth used to be a joke. The church has had to make changes and is working hard not to be seen as a money making corporation. It seems that anytime that the church’s tax exemption is threatened, the church seems to get a little kinder.
Jason Rae, put your faith in Jesus Christ and not in some flim-flan man. Saying Joseph Smith is a prophet, does not make it so. Saying he is right up there with Jesus Christ is blasphemous. Even though Joseph Smith thought so himself and wasn’t shy about sharing how wonderful he was, it still doesn’t make it so!!!!
“But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8
Please try an attempt at something interesting on this site. I find myself losing interest so quickly with the small he-said, she-said back and forth. I have noticed only a handful of regular posters who have continued to post over the last year of my lurking.
Every discussion here spirals into childish bickering based on assumptions, opinions, emotion, and frustration. Seems there is so little room for substantive, fact-driven, thoughtful interaction.
Maybe this site is simply a mosh-pit for angry evangelicals who want a platform to state their talking points. So boring and un-stimulating.
Hanksaint said,..Plural Gods,God was once a man
…are peripheral aberrations…how can the LDS
teach something we know very little about?”
From what I’ve read,LDS General authorities have
publically taught about these doctrines multitudes
of times down thru the years.Joseph Smith taught
these doctrines.He mentored his close associates
(Apostles) and they faithfully proclaimed them
after his death.
This doctrinal “meat” as some LDS call it today
was’nt considered all that “off limits”.Joseph
said,
“There are but a very few beings in the world who
understand rightly the character of God….I will
go back to the beginning before the world was, to
show what kind of being God is….God himself was
once as we are now, and is an exalted man….that
is the great secret….These are incomprehensible
ideas to some,BUT THEY ARE SIMPLE….”
Elder James Talmage at Gen.Conference April 1915
taught publicly for all to hear: “…The doctrine
of the relationship between God and men, as made
plain through the word of revelation,….It is
provided that we, the sons and daughters of God,
may advance until we become like unto our Eternal
Father and our Eternal Mother,in that we may
become perfect in our spheres as they are in theirs.That grand truth, taught by the prophet
Joseph and ridiculed for the time, has now gripped
the minds of the thinkers and philosophers of the
age….It was crystallized into what we may call
an aphorism, by Pres. Lorenzo Snow: ‘ As man is
God once was; as God is man may be’…”
This same “meat” has been publicly taught down
through the LDS generations until recently,now it
appears to be an “aberration” What would Joseph
think?
Olsen, perhaps you would prefer another mosh-pit like MADB?
This is evangelical territory. Mormons are welcome to post here, but you’re definitely going to have to hold your own. It’s similarly the case when I’m in LDS territory on the blogosphere. I am a very hated man among certain parts of the Bloggernacle, so it makes it all the more tough to get a word in without a dog-pile.
Olsen, would you like to contribute any substance to the discussion related to the points of the original post? Would you contest any of the six points?
Grace and peace in the God who never had to go to single’s ward,
Aaron
Falcon, I asked for something specific, thats all. What I think I got was a hissy fit, very near to a tempered outright rage. Please pick anything, but make it only one issues. I have been trying to stay on topic here by stating my defense, and got little back except the usual exaggeration which most Evangelical find effective but merits little if any response. I specifically stated that the borrowed talking points, or peripheral nuggets of supposed doctrine do little to address what we actually teach and preach. I also noted that going North on small aberrations in doctrinal teaching is mostly a crafty stratagem resulting in imposture under the identity of Creedal Christianity.
Having a sense of humor, good Falcon. When are you going to apply for one. What you call the heart of the matter are snippets, nuggets, and little suggestions of doctrine that reveals little if any details of the what, how and why. I would love to see the results of your teaching your students, the fallacy of God was once a man, and Mormons believe that we will become God and create our own earths.
Well students we are going to teach you today the facts and evidence behind these unorthodox claims made by our Mormon Friends. What I have on the chalk board is known statements of General Authorities and there quotes. I will now state the Doctrine, and the source.
Student, Mr. Falcon teacher, can you give all the details, the history, and the manuals they teach from on these important points, can you show us in there scriptures the meat of these things, we are interested and would love to take these volumes of information with us to study.
to be continued.
Mr. Falcon Teacher, well now, I don’t really have much more then what is on the chalk board. The truth of the matter is that we know little about the teaching except for some here and there quotes, little detail was ever given, and there Doctrinal Manuals say little about these nuggets. In fact, going through there Scriptures does not really add anything to my collection of quotes. I have to admit even there leaders have stated, these are small aberrations in doctrinal teaching we know little about, and offer little in detail to teach our members.
Student, well that seems such a shame, we were all so excited to learn more about these aberrations, and then we would have a good offense to fight against our Mormons friends when they come knocking on our doors to preach the restored Gospel they claim is here again. What shall we do, we need more information to make us relevant? You see, they mostly preach a pure religion, and never mention these nuggets you have on the chalk board. We are loosing the battle, and never even knew it.
R.
Olsen, Jim
Knew we were getting to you buddy. You my friend have run out of anything to add to the descussion so you start dissing the regular contributors. You disappeared for a while after complaining that the Ev. Christians wouldn’t answer your questions. I voluntered Andy Watson and I to provide you with individual tutoring and you hit the dusty trail for a few days and now have made the scene again. So gripe, gripe, gripe about the posters while at the same time accusing the posters of the same. I believe in psychology that’s known as “projection”. If you are serious about learning about Christian doctrine, Andy and I are available. If not, perhaps disappearing again might serve you best.
OH Hank,
Do you really want to go there? I’m serious do you REALLY want to have the LDS sources, page numbers, exact quotes? It can very easily be supplied but then my friend the whineing will start. “You can’t use this, you can’t use that wah, wah, wah.” We’ve been there done that with Mormons. Nothing ever counts. There’s always an escape hatch. It’s like the “pray about it and read the BoM and you’ll have it revealed that it’s true.” So you read it and report that you have no confirmation of the truth. “Well read it again but this time be humble and sincere”. OK, done still no confirmation. “Well you weren’t humble and sincere enough.” And on and on and on because the only acceptable answer to a Mormon is that the BoM is true. It’s the same with providing sources right from LDS publications. It’s never enough. I’ve chased down too many Mormon rabbit trails and I know the game. IT’S NEVER ENOUGH! We could paper your living room with the evidence from LDS publications and IT’S NEVER ENOUGH!
You’ve got a bad case of “falcon obcessive syndrome” that various LDS folks have been afflicted with when they come here. I spotted you about the second day. You’ll either get serious or soon chase back to the wards and talk about the nasty Christians you battled on-line a real hero at testimony time.
HankSaint wrote:
Frankly this never stopped them before well at least not the Joey, Brigham, Johny, Wilford, Lorenzo, et cetera. It is only in light of modern “revelation” about their “revelations,” have the Prophets of the LDS Church have become, shall we say gun shy? Granted one could even argue that Brigham and following were a bit scared to add canonical revelation*, though they made no qualms about teaching the peripheral aberrations such as Plural Gods, God once a Man, Creating our own planets, et cetera, et cetera. Oh those darn history books containing sermons and what Mormon Prophets actually taught back then. I guess the redirected question would be why was this taught back then and if we really don’t know enough about it to teach on it, why isn’t that made public by renouncing them at least as unknown if not false?
Lautensack
*(Sans Joseph F. Smith [D&C138], and perhaps Wilford Woodruff[Official Dec. 1] and Spencer W. Kimball[Official Dec. 2], though the latter two’s canonical “revelations” seem politically motivated, that however is a discussion for a different topic.)
Lautensack,
The Mormon game here is to do a Lucy and pull the ball away just when we’re ready to kick it. What do I mean by that? Simply that they will always, and I mean always deflect, alibi, rationalize, deny and yes in some cases out right lie to protect their testimony in a religion that is built on deceit.
I remember Andy Watson staying up late into the night searching and finding some stuff that Nibley had written to counter the false information one of our Mormon posters had presented. We get a “big ho hum, so what” response. We learned after several of these that these folks are not interested in being exposed to the truth, even when it appears in their own publications. That’s why Andy carries the stuff with him in his a big bag so they can’t escape it. But you know the answer: it happened a long time ago, we’ve had further revelation, none of what is written in that publication counts.
Same old Mormon two step. It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.
Falcon,
First, with enough effort Jello can be nailed to a wall :-p
http://www.myscienceproject.org/j-wall.html
Second just because people don’t accept good apologetics and theology it does not follow that we should hold ourselves to any less of an apologetic standard than we hold others. Just because our opponents might be dishonest, it does not follow that we engage in Ad Hominem simply because they do or even because we perceive that they do. Remember the words of Paul in Titus 3, that we ourselves were once this foolish and lead astray but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy. (paraphrase) Finally you and I both know that the fruits of discussions like this are rarely seen in those who post here but in those who happen across the post and are honestly questioning the peripheral aberrations of Mormonism.
In Christ.
Lautensack
Perhaps its because of my metaphorical mind, but as I read the discussion on whether Evs should be trying to rescue individuals from Mormonism, or to try to turn the whole institution, I could not help think of the abused wife scenario.
What I mean is, you see your neighbour and she’s got fresh bruises. You’re concerned so you ask what happened. She tries to deflect the issue and affirms that she loves her husband (she made a vow before God, remember).
What do you say?
Do you say – Option 1 – ‘stay with your husband and try to reform him’.
Or – Option 2 – ‘leave your husband this instant – don’t go back because you might end up dead. If, afterwards, he repents and changes his ways, maybe you can talk about reconciliation, but its only ever going to happen on your terms’.
The trouble with Option 1 is that it probably will not work (maybe some qualified sociologist can comment). The reason it doesn’t work is because the abuser retains his position. Its only when his leverage is entirely destroyed (by removing the object of his abuse from him) that he has to confront and deal with the need for him to change. Option 2 might, therefore, actually succeed.
If LDS want to follow Christ, they need to jettison the entire LDS program and walk out now.
If LDS are concerned about the LDS movement, they will be in a much better position after they have stripped the LDS movement of its leverage by removing themselves from it.
For those LDS who do leave, please know that Christ has a place for you in His Church. In His Name, I (and others here) invite you to come, sit, eat, rest (Rev 22:17).
I think you’re right Martin. I’ve often discussed here the problem that people face who are in abusive situations; including spiritual abuse. Is it possible for someone to be spiritually abused and not know it? Of course, because the abusive behavior appears within the norm of their expectations. Spiritual abuse is not an uncommon characteristic of people who leave Mormonism and have a chance to reflect and put their experience inside a new “norm”.
I would say withholding information, intimidating and pressuring people to stay or come back when they leave is abuse. So is laying guilt trips on them, making them feel that they’re defective, wrong, don’t measure up, requiring more of their time, physical and emotional committment and money are all forms of abuse.
The “trap”, as I’ve mentioned before is called rescuing you’re equity. The person has invested so much, it’s difficult to walk away. It’s also difficult to come to grips with the fact that you’ve believed in and supported a lie.
Well good buddy, this is my second request or is it the third, who’s counting? so many attempts to get beyond your personal attack of me and your coy deflection with so little amount of refuting with any facts or hard evidence of my claims.
Mr Falcon Teacher, “Now class, we seem to have a problem, I have been challenged to show more detail of these so called aberrations or nuggets as we call them. I will be taking a Sabbatical, a day of rest, I will attack my Mormon Anti Books with fervor, go beyond the topic of deflection and show this TBM the what for. I will show this man a lesson in Falcon Class Protocol. He wants chapter and verse, and he shall get it.
Of course I won’t be using any of the Standard Works of Moronism, we will do better then that, what sense is it to argue against the purity of their Scriptures, we need to attack where they don’t go at all. We will take all of the snippets, out of context quotes, Journal of Discourse, and bingo, find enough information to sink his ship. None of this confirmation by the Holy Ghost or fuzzy feeling, besides we don’t put our trust in Revelation or additional Scriptures, for us Creedal Christian know that the Bible is the last word of God, you see He is dead and the Heavens are closed. We Creedal Christians know more about theology then even God. Man has the last say, and he says that God is not allowed to speak anymore.” Hmmm, interesting.
R.
It’s just so sad…
How can you not just have your heart rent for the LDS people, who have put their trust in an organization that systematically destroys them?
I can’t know if the LDS higher-ups are knowingly doing what they are doing, but I have many reasons to suspect that they do. If not, they have totally sold their souls, and are being used as pawns to drag these people into the ground.
Yes, oh yes, the LDS have service projects. And when they do, the cameras are usually there. What do I mean by that? The image. It’s always the image. Once the cameras leave, the gold stars have been handed out, the hearts have still not been regenerated.
I wish that I had something to say that could prick an LDS heart, something that could help one who has put all their faith in “The Church” to see what was being done to them. I wish I could present enough evidence, be “Christian” enough to show His Glory. But I can’t. and night after night I witness to people in my dreams, where most of my efforts come to some fruition…
It comes down to this. Even though I try and try and fail, I don’t always get to see if my part of it has had any effect.
The best and most beautiful hope I have for any of you, LDS or otherwise unbeliever, is that if God would bother with a wretch like me, He certainly would bother with another.
Put your trust in Jesus, guys? The higher ups in your church are not working for you. They wouldn’t die for you. They can’t take your sins. They can’t improve your life. They can’t hold your hand and give you peace in every rocky moment in your life. They are just men like you, who have been deceived somewhere along the line like you. Jesus could save them too.
But it’s Jesus, it’s always going to be Jesus, who is trustworthy.
Oh, I didn’t used to be a Jesus freak. I didn’t want to witness for Him. He decided that, against my will. Isn’t that terrific! Thank you Jesus, thank you for taking my life out of my hands. I love you!