Mormon Times guest blogger Kate Jensen wrote about some of her memories from growing up in Texas in the 1980s. In a piece titled “To see forever,” Ms. Jensen provided a little background on her Mormon faith as she explained, “its true that all church members seek to develop and maintain personal relationships with God the Father and the Savior, Jesus Christ through the Gift of the Holy Ghost.”
I was interested in Ms. Jensen’s reference to developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ because, as she was growing up in Texas in the ‘80s, LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was speaking out publically against seeking, developing and maintaining a personal relationship with Christ.
On March 2nd 1982, Mr. McConkie spoke at Brigham Young University and delivered an address he titled, “Our Relationship With the Lord.” He began by telling his listeners that he would explain what must be believed relative to the Father and the Son “in order to gain eternal life.” He continued, “I shall express the views of the Brethren…everyone who is sound spiritually and who has the guidance of the Holy Spirit will believe my words and follow my counsel.” Bruce McConkie, as a Latter-day apostle, counseled (in part),
- “Now, it is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus.” (Our Relationship With the Lord, typed transcript, 2)
- “…the devil would rather spread false doctrine about God and the Godhead, and induce false feelings with reference to one of them, than almost any other thing he could do. The creeds of Christendom illustrate perfectly what Lucifer wants so-called Christian people to believe about Deity in order to be damned.” (3)
- “We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost.” (5)
- “Now, in spite of all these truths, which ought to be obvious to every spiritually enlightened person, heresies rear their ugly heads among us from time to time. There are those…who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous. I say perilous because this course, particularly in the lives of some who are spiritually immature, is a gospel hobby which creates an unwholesome holier-than-thou attitude.” (18-19)
- “Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence: ‘Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son.’ This is pure sectarian nonsense.” (19-20)
- “Now I know that some may be offended at the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ. It will seem to them as though I am speaking out against mother love, or Americanism, or the little red school house. But I am not. There is a fine line here over which true worshippers will not step.” (20)
- “ And you have never heard one of the First Presidency of the Twelve…advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ.” (21)
- “I am well aware that some who have prayed for endless hours feel they have a special and personal relationship with Christ that they never had before. I wonder if this is any or much different, however, from the feelings of fanatical sectarians who with glassy eyes and fiery tongues assure us they have been saved by grace and are assured of a place with the Lord in a heavenly abode…I wonder if it is not a part of Lucifer’s system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true [LDS] Church.” (22)
- “I do not suppose that what I have here said will be an end to controversy or to the spread of false views and doctrines. The devil is not dead and he delights in controversy. But you have been warned, and you have heard the true doctrine taught.” (24)
As a Christian, I treasure the amazing, intimate relationship I have with my Savior – a profound and deeply personal relationship He graciously offers to all people who seek Him. I find it impossible to believe that a true apostle of Jesus Christ would teach such things; for, as Jerald and Sandra Tanner have pointed out,
“From beginning to end the New Testament stresses the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In Matthew 11:28 we find Jesus Himself saying: ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ This same theme continues right into the book of Revelation where Jesus says: ‘Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.’ (Revelations 3:20) The Apostle Paul certainly taught a close personal relationship with Christ in his epistles. For instance, in Philippians 3:8-10 we read: ‘Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;’”
Now this–the call through the Word of God to a special, personal relationship with Jesus Christ–is true doctrine.
So for you Mormons who come here and read and don’t post and are seeking answers to some pressing questions regarding Mormonism, let me offer you something to consider regarding the nature of spiritual warfare.
The apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
What you see going on between Mutu and myself here is an example of that spiritual warfare struggle that Paul writes about. The Bible is very clear in drawing a distinction between the Spirit of God and demonic spirits. The thing about demonic spirits is that they present themselves as a spirit of light and therefore have a deluding influence on people. When people are under this deluding influence, things that a born again believer in Jesus Christ can easily spot as of a demonic influence, are not that apparent to someone who is not.
This spiritual battle started with Lucifer attacking the throne of God and was manifested again in the Garden when Satan tempted Eve.
The lie that Mormons accept is that God isn’t who He says He is in the Bible and that men can become gods. Adam and Eve bought a form of this lie and Joseph Smith simply put his creative twist on it.
Joseph Smith and his cronies, especially Martin Harris, were using second sight vision to peek into the spirit world. They were really no different from a guy like John Edwards of “Crossing Over” fame with his supposed conjuring of the dead.
Mormonism is good at painting a pretty picture of itself as being devout, pious, moral, reverent and sincere. It’s a great way to hide the truth of the matter that the foundation of Mormonism is in the occult.
It’s difficult for some to reconcile what they see as the beauty of Mormonism with the reality that the surface, exterior face of the religion, hides what’s lurking underneath.
Thankfully, two-thirds of those on the rolls of the LDS church, are inactive. If they haven’t bailed out for spiritual reasons, they just got tired of the grind of the program.
God speaks to the hearts of people showing them the way to salvation. I would pray that the seed that has been sown in you here, will grow and bear fruit in this life and into eternity.
Falcon from yesterday: “Nice try Mutu, but your not going to win your argument with that approach.” (To clarify, it was in regard to my satirical, fictive portrayal of myself as an atheist who writes off Judeo-Christian faith—just as I see Falc likewise writing off Mormon faith on very similar grounds.)
I was going to comment on this remark by you in my last post, Falc, but thought it would digress to the style of argumentation that you favor, and which I certainly do not. I appreciate that your posts have turned in the last two days to a more respectful tone towards me. I also get that you sincerely want me to leave what you see as a destructive line of thought, belief, and tradition.
That said, Falcon, you must understand that I recognize two forms of dialogical argument. There is the argumentation that seeks to “win” a certain platform, or point of view; and there’s the argumentation that seeks to teach. It’s no more correct to claim that only one of these forms of argument can be “objective” any more than it is to say only one of them can be “critical.” Both forms can obviously be critical, and both can establish objectivity, as well. And the two forms of argument often overlap. The purpose of the U.S. & many other court systems is to reach an objective “truth” through the criticisms and objective evidence forwarded by two opposing factions both trying to “win” the argument. And this approach works when you have an ideally unbiased arbiter, like a judge or jury. However, in a loaded court like the Mormon Coffee forum, a Mormon poster like I or Ralph–or anyone that sticks around for a commendable length of time as the opposition voice–is likely not in it to “win” the argument. While I’ve caught myself a few times heading that direction, the object that keeps me coming around is simply to teach. To clarify, and to correct. And to learn, as well, I hope.
Though Ralph and I take very different approaches to our faith, I think we shared that objective as teacher on this board–and he was usually more pure & genuine in it than I. Though I could never be Ralph, and have no desire to be him, he gained my respect as a person & as a fellow in the faith. His form of argumentation, his subject matter, and his opinions didn’t allow me to come to his aid very often, but it saddened me to see him disrespected by you and others here as it often and as vehemently as it played out. It played a part in why I compromised my role as teacher a few times here, and became a pretty effective spoiler as well. And relished in that role a bit more than I should have.
As for your opening comment I quoted, Falc–that my earlier form of satirical, comparative argument doesn’t work in winning the case–& neither did it with Ralph–do you not see, Sir, that all you’ve accomplished in making this statement is admit that you’re unwilling to be taught. Neither I nor Ralph would use such an argument tactic if it were our objective to “win” some sort of battle with you. We are simply trying to get you to remove the biased lenses from off your eyes—that don’t allow you to look at Mormon faith with the same critical level that you examine your version of Christian faith with. From my own observations of your patterns, Falc, I believe that if you examined Evangelical faith through the same critical lenses, you would not hold to your current faith for very long. That much was as obvious to Ralph as well. While I can’t speak for Ralph, I can assure you Falc that I have critically examined my faith far more than you have critically examined yours. Does that make my faith more right than yours? Of course not. But it does allow me to be far more persuasive of my faith than you could ever be with yours.
What you don’t get is that when I present to you the atheist/Moses analogy, or clarify the distinctions between Mormon Christology/Gospel and Evangelical Christology/Gospel, is that I’m not posing evidence primarily to “win” an argument with you. Nor am I sugar-coating my Mormon lingo with Evangelical or biblical lingo simply to make it more palatable for you. What I am primarily doing is sharing with you my reasons for holding to Mormon faith. And a good part of why I share my faith on this board is that I believe it to be a message delivered by God first to American Christianity, of whom Evangelicals form a healthy part. Though most Mormons are quite ignorant of the specifics of how this is so, the Book of Mormon was written as both an endorsement of Evangelicalism, and as a critique of Evangelicalism; and it is done so in a far more biblical lingo than Mormons generally use when explaining and presenting it. (If they indeed even explain or present it fairly.) For Evangelicals, I understand this lengthy revelation to be both a testimonial, and a call to repentance. Mormons themselves are simply not the Book of Mormon’s only primary audience. And quite frankly, their insular thinking and language have often deprived them from understanding the Book of Mormon at a level it was intended for them to be understood. For the good of themselves, and for those on the outside of the faith.
Given this understanding, it’s my hope that one of you guyz will be willing to trust in the strength of your own Christian faith, and answer my specific doctrinal challenges from the Book of Mormon. And so I will get back to just one of the few original challenges I raised in this post: What evidence exists in the Bible that the “salvation” often spoken by Paul (the “being saved” (present tense) in Jesus)—What evidence is there from the Bible that this clearly refers to returning to God in heaven, versus returning to God in judgment? While I know Paul & other NT writers often spoke of returning to God in heaven forever, I simply want to know if that clearly is what they intended when they referred to their fellow Christians as those who have already been saved. I know this is how traditional Christian exegesis has read the NT for well over a millennium, but I want to know of the clear proof for it in the biblical text itself. Obviously, the Book of Mormon gives a solid challenge to that view.
While I appreciate the cordial turn this conversation has in a degree taken, Falcon, until you (or anyone here) can provide an answer to the above question, I have to end this exchange at this point. I’m not in this to win. That is, to convert you. I simply want to teach—or even better, to be taught.
Sincerely, mutu.
Mutu–
I haven’t posted in quite a while, the previous posting system was inaccessible to me at work and at home. (Thank you again for going back to this one!!!!!)
And I’m not one of the “guyz”, 😉 so I hope you don’t mind if I jump in briefly.
I am at work, so I can’t get too in depth on this, but to start, what are your thoughts on Phil 1:21-24?
Ooookaaay. that didn’t work quite like I planned, but I’ll keep practicing.
Rae, you sound like one of the “guyz” to me. As I consider myself one of them here, I’ll definitely take every thoughtful response I can get–after all, I’ve felt rather lonely on here at times for someone who considers himself one of the “guyz” on Mormon Coffee. (And I do like coffee very much–don’t drink it regularly as a good Mormon, of course. But I do keep my favorite brew on hand for emergencies. And I try to have an emergency no less than once a month!)
So you’re officially knighted, friend, whether you feel like one of the “guyz” or not.
As for online access, I unfortunately don’t have home access, & work from my unofficial “office” at the library–which is about to kick me out. (They lock up by midnight.) So I’ll have to pick this one up tomorrow. But I’ve read your Philippians passage, and briefly considered your views and question, & will find the time tomorrow (though w/ Sundays, it may not be till later in the day).
Thank you for your time, Rae.
Talk to you soon.
mutu.
P.S. Your HTML level looks fine to me. Maybe not what you intended, but you did at least one thing I don’t know how to do.
Strictly speaking, mutu, I’m one of the “gurlz”. 🙂
I’ll have a cup of coffee in your honor, (and to help me stay awake tonight).
Fair enough, Rae. Sorry. The spelling certainly should’ve tipped me.
The honor is still the same. Thanx.
In the case of John 12: 26, I agree that it is “straightforward enough” that the servants of Christ will be where he’s at, which in Mormon belief certainly won’t be some lesser degree of glory. But the question still remains, I think, (and therefore isn’t all too straightforward, perhaps): Who qualifies as “the servant” of Christ? That is, Who is the one who serves him, and therefore follows him (ultimately to his heavenly abode, I think we both agree)? Is it the one who is a confessional Christian—that is, the one who Paul says is “saved in Christ,” and seems to plainly imply in Rom 6: 1-12, is the one who has followed Christ symbolically in death and life through Baptism (& thereby been born anew in him)? Or is it restricted to the confessional Christian who has afterward served Christ faithfully in this life?—that is, the one whom Christ redeems as his own at the last day (of Judgment)?
When I consider passages like Christ’s parable of the Sower (Matt 13: 1-9) or his dealings with the young rich man (Matt 19: 16-26), & many, many others of his words and judgements, I struggle to see how anyone can think that the confessional Christian somehow has the right to say they have been guaranteed a final place with Jesus. In my view they plainly do not have that right. Have that hope, yes. Have that hope strengthened by the Spirit, definitely. But have a right to confess a sure place with Jesus? No. Let my service to Jesus speak for itself, & trust that the Lord will lead me in a service worthy of him. A worthiness that he alone will bestow and declare in the last day. That, I believe, is solid Christian faith.
Usually at that point in my faith confession I’ll have at least one Evangelical in a group protest that my worthiness will never save me! But that is not what I believe. I believe that Jesus, and Jesus alone, will judge of my worthiness. Ultimately it will be a matter of my heart, but a heart that has been molded in faithful service. The matter of Jesus’ blood covering for me at that day—is a point of Christianity that, again, is where Mormons diverge. We consider that blood to be the emblem of the suffering that qualified Christ to be our righteous judge. His sufferings allowing him to determine of our faithfulness in light of our personal trials and sin. As the NT time and time again says, Christ will determine whether I am one of his. And I do not believe that anything but my faithful contribution to Christ’s service will determine his call at that day. Some within the Protestant ranks will invariably protest that that sounds like I think I can work my way to heaven, but that is not at all what I believe. To serve Christ is to emulate Christ from the heart outward. It is the service motivated by love, and by a faith that Christ and eternal life—not death—are the ultimate realities of this world. Such love never worries about one’s personal salvation. I believe that all Mormons who are motivated to serve Christ as a requisite for the Celestial kingdom are as lost as any Evangelical who believes that their personal salvation with God in heaven has already been assured for him or her.
And going to Paul’s words in Philippians that you cite:
“For to me, living is Christ & dying is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart & be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.” (RSV)
As you expain, Rae: To me this says plainly that there are two options, 1) “to abide in the flesh”, or 2) “to depart, and to be with Christ”. If we are “in the flesh” (alive), then we are able to show serve Christ in this world, if we die, we are in His very presence.
I think that all who are motivated by faith in Christ, yes, these are their two options. They are the options of faith. And they are the options of hope. One who lives in the love of Jesus simply does not fret over whether they’ve done enough to be counted worthy of Jesus. At the same time, I don’t think that good Christian faith assumes that belief–minus a good-faith striving to be in Christ’s service–can ever achieve the type of yearning for death and the afterlife that Paul had come to embrace. I’ve met a lot of Christians who claimed they were there, but I knew from their actions & motivations that they weren’t even close. They simply were not Jesus’ humble servants that were striving to emulate him.
Now I know we all can’t be Paul in our faithfulness; however, I do not believe that Paul was claiming here that he knew his place with Christ in the eternities was assured. Rather, he was expressing his hope & faith in the face of death that sustained him in his labors (as he apparently was in the constant threat of death). The hope and faith of being reunited with Christ that is the foundation of his Christian faith. Christ is salvation, period. That is the reality that every Christian lives for. It’s not something we swear by, & it’s certainly not something we claim exclusive rights to. But it is something we ever live for.
That is my basic Christian belief, anyways. And that is how I understand Paul’s words, here. I certainly can’t claim I speak for all Mormons (& I probably don’t speak for a majority of them), but that is how my Mormon-inspired faith reads these words.
Look forward to your thoughts. And sorry for my lateness in getting around to the response today.
Sincerely, mutu.
Dear Mantis Mutu,
Thank you for participating at this forum. It is good to have you here. I hope you and Rae know you are welcome here.
In the piece you wrote, you spoke about Jesus’ blood, and what it means to you. This is a very important subject. I thought I would take a moment to look at what you wrote.
“The matter of Jesus’ blood covering for me at that day—is a point of Christianity that, again, is where Mormons diverge. We consider that blood to be the emblem of the suffering that qualified Christ to be our righteous judge. His sufferings allowing him to determine of our faithfulness in light of our personal trials and sin.”
If I understand, Jesus Christ shall be your judge. And he needed to qualify to be your judge by first gaining experience. Particularly in suffering. (To better measure your faithfulness in the midst of difficulties?) It was his blood that manifested his suffering.
So the trial is all ready. A qualified judge has been found. Though your trial date has yet to be determined, it will come. It will come for you. The joyful prospect to consider every Eastertide.
Here are three things I offer for your consideration:
1. What if the judge was God? One who has always known everything? Everything about you before you were ever born.
2. And he looked at Jesus on the Cross, and saw Mantis. Your unfaithfulness: your sin and unworthiness.
3. What if when Jesus went to the Cross … that was your trial?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” — John 5:24
I remember well the day I passed from death to life. There was a time, Mantis, when every Christian at this forum was lost. Was under condemnation. And now we seek to share with others where we found eternal life.
Mutu,
My apologies for the late response – have been rehabbing a rental property, planning for a family wedding, and taking care of our sweet Rebecca – our adult daughter with special needs.
Regarding sameness: (not sameness as in so-called ‘oneness’ theology, which is what you seem to be under the impression that Christians believe….Christians do not believe in Modalism!) Christians believe in the ‘sameness’ of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as regards Deity, perfection, power, holiness, love, knowledge, and wisdom. Why do Christians, as do I, quote over and over the verses having to do with the Deity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? One reason is the knowledge, starting in the Old Testament, and certainly known to Jews and Christians alike, that there is one God and that there are no other gods besides Him or before Him, nor will there be after Him. Hence, one of the most well-known declarations of the Jewish people regarding God was/is: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! (the first part of Deuteronomy 6:4, NKJV) There is only one acceptable explanation for the fact that the Holy Bible (Old and New Testament, from beginning to end), clearly declares that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the attributes of Personhood and are God – not three, separate Gods (Polytheism) and not one God Who manifests Himself at different times and for different purposes in 3 different forms (Modalism). The only acceptable explanation is that there is one God, eternally existent in three Persons.
The Father is God and is not a god of flesh and bone, as we are!
John 4:23-24, NKJV, 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Numbers 23:19, NKJV, 19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
1 John 3:1, NKJV, Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!
Jesus is God! He is not a different god, nor is He a lesser god. Matthew 1:22-23, NKJV, 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God [θεός – Theos] with us.” John 1:1, NKJV, 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [θεός – Theos].
The Holy Spirit is God! Acts 5:3-4, NKJV, 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God [θεός – Theos].”
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit give Life! John 5:21-24, NKJV – 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life [ζῳοποιέω] to them, even so the Son gives life [ζῳοποιέω] to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. See, also, John 6:63, NKJV, 63 It is the Spirit who gives life [ζῳοποιέω]; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
See, also, Acts 10:19-20, NKJV, 19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.” Here, the Holy Spirit speaks, commands, sends, and refers to Himself as I, as a person would. John 14:26 says that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and bring the words of Jesus to our remembrance. [Teaching is an act demonstrating personhood.] John 16:8, speaking of the Holy Spirit, says that He will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. In Peter 1:2 we learn that the Spirit sanctifies us. [Convicting and sanctifying are acts demonstrating Divine Personhood.] Matthew 12:31 talks about “blasphemy against the Spirit.” One might rightly ask; How, then, could one blaspheme the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is not God? The Holman Bible Dictionary defines blasphemy as: an attitude of disrespect that finds expression in an act directed against the character of God [a crime which, in the Old Testament, resulted in the death penalty]. Ephesians 4:30, NKJV, says, And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. How can the Holy Spirit be grieved if He is not a Person, and how can He “seal” people for the day of redemption if He is not God? In Acts 13:2 says, As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” [Calling to ministry is an act of Divine Personhood.]
In addition, there are simply more verses than I can post right now in which God the Father and God the Son, or God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have the same attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternality, and have attributes of Personhood.