“Evangelical hostility toward Mormons”?

In a recent article applauding how more Evangelical Christians are apparently accepting the Republican presidential candidate in spite of his Mormonism, Dr. Richard J. Mouw—who recently announced that he’s stepping down as president of Fuller Theological Seminary—explained that

“anti-Mormon sentiment runs strong among evangelicals. We differ on this from mainline Protestants and Catholics. Those two groups don’t necessarily like Mormons, but the evangelical version of the dislike is more intense.”

Mouw, you may remember, preceded Ravi Zacharias in the pulpit a few years ago at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, making an “apology” on behalf of the Christian community, even though he was not commissioned to do so and had been warned about doing this in the first place. His seven minutes of fame trumped Ravi’s words in the next day’s newspapers and other media accounts, which was a shame since the sermon was definitely Christ-centered. (For more information, see Are “we evangelicals” guilty of bearing false witness when it comes to explaining Mormon doctrine?)

Mouw’s June 17th (2012) Washington Post article comes on the heels of his recently released book titled Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) where he makes similar claims. In the Post column, he writes:

“Evangelical hostility toward Mormonism has been there from the beginning. And it has typically been reciprocated. Joseph Smith saw himself as restoring true Christianity from the distortions that had run rampant for almost two thousand years. And the kind of ‘false church’ that loomed large in his mind was represented by the various strands of evangelical Christianity that dominated the religious scene in his part of New York state. The angry denunciations flowed freely in both directions.

“Unlike our mainline Protestant and Catholic counterparts, we evangelicals actively seek converts, and this means that we see Mormons—also passionately committed to evangelization—as direct competitors. In fact, we often compete for the loyalties of the same groups of people. In some regions of South America, for example, missionaries from both movements are aggressively seeking to bring exactly the same villages—whose residents may hold to a form of animistic religious—into our respective folds.”

As attested by his book and article, this Evangelical Christian leader doesn’t see Mormonism as a “direct competitor.” Why? There are at least three reasons.

First of all, as recorded in his book, Mouw seems to sympathize with LDS founder Joseph Smith. Saying that Smith “gave an orthodox-sounding account of salvation matters,” he says it’s possible to “demonize a person who is not a demon,” adding that “evangelicals have to be careful not to sin against Joseph Smith and his followers by setting up false devils” (p. 18—these words are apparently so important that he cites them again on page 87). What did Joseph Smith teach? Let’s start with a God who is opposite in nature to the God of the Bible. For example, Smith said,

“Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 346-47)

While Mouw doesn’t accept LDS teachings, for some reason he equates publically exposing Smith as sinful. However, the case against Joseph Smith is quite long, with heresy, immorality, and deceitfulness among just some of the many possible charges.

Second, Mouw appears to take Mormon apologists at face value. By this I mean that Mouw accepts the words of his LDS friends (such as BYU professor Robert Millet) on theological issues instead of researching the teachings of the Mormon leaders themselves. When he asked his Mormon friends about the Godhead and the role of good works in salvation, Mouw received answers that sounded very Evangelical. He apparently is easily satisfied, responding, “I believed them and was encouraged.” (p. 40). This is a most naive approach. He also refers to General Conference addresses made by LDS leaders and says that the LDS leadership is more emphasizing the cross, the atonement, and supposedly other distinct Christian doctrines (pages 92-93). However, he does not provide specific evidence to show how this is true. From my regular readings in church manuals, magazines, and web sites, Mormonism is only moving closer to Christianity in the language–not the meanings of the terms. While his Mormon friends may say that they believe in the same things as Evangelicals, his friends don’t have the same authority as the Standard Works and the official teachings by Mormonism’s general authorities. Trust me, Mormonism is still denying or distorting every fundamental teaching of the historic Christian church!

Third, Mouw does not see Mormonism as a cult. I might be wrong, but when he talks about South American villages and animism in his Washington Post article, it almost sounds like he is suggesting that the two groups ought to work together rather than compete. In his book, Mouw refers to his LDS friends and says that “it has never felt to me as though I was talking to members of a ‘cult'” (p. x). He claims that “the label ‘cult’ seems inappropriate for describing the Mormonism that we’ve seen up close.” Then he has the gall on page 30 to call Jehovah’s Witnesses a “cult.” Why? Because “they stick to a party line” and don’t argue amongst themselves. And the JWs don’t have a “world-class” university. These distinctive characteristics sound superficial, at best.

Alan Gomes is a professor at Talbot Seminary and Biola University who wrote a book called Unmasking the Cults (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995). He defines a cult as

“a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible.” (p. 7)

This definition has historical support, and Gomes makes it very clear in his book that Mormonism is clearly a cult. Gomes received his Ph.D. in historical theology from Fuller Theological Seminary, the same school where Mouw used to be president. Dr. Gomes provides plenty of historical and theological support for his views. Dr. Mouw, on the other hand, has a Ph.D. in philosophy. He doesn’t support his view with outside sources, merely relying on his feeling and the trust he has in his Latter-day Saint friends (mainly BYU professors) to declare that Mormonism is not a cult. Gomes and Mouw disagree. Whose view holds more weight? While Mouw is a fine scholar on Calvinism, he is out of his league on this issue.

Before I close, I need to give one more quote from Mouw’s Washington Post article:

“Hoping to reduce the level of angry rhetoric on the evangelical side, I have encouraged my fellow faithful to engage in friendly give-and-take with Mormons before simply making uninformed pronouncements about their church’s teachings. Some evangelicals have thanked me for taking up the cause. They have friends—even close family members—who are Mormons and have been looking for a more positive approach. But others continue to reproach me. They tell me that I am aiding and abetting an ‘evil cult.’”

My goodness, talk about a straw man comprised of loaded language. From the earlier quote of “intense” “dislike” to “angry rhetoric” and “abetting an ‘evil cult,’” all contrasted with a “positive approach” (his method, of course) of engagement. However, Mouw fails to understand that this is not a contest to see who can get the most converts in a South American village. And this is not a Facebook moment where each group is competing to get as many people to “like” our status. No, this is about eternity, something that this Christian scholar doesn’t seem to understand.

Mouw may have plenty of friends at the LDS university based in Provo, Utah, and even dine occasionally with an apostle or seventy of the Mormon Church. Good for him. But giving the faulty impression that Evangelical Christians are somehow sinning against Mormons and bearing “false witness against our neighbors” because “God is not honored when we’re unfair to people with whom we disagree, misrepresenting what they believe” (p. 22) is a dishonest evaluation. His slam is aimed directly against good Christians who belong to churches and parachurch organizations desiring to see the Latter-day Saint people come to an understanding of the genuine gospel available to mankind. For those who reject pluralism for exclusivism (i.e., that there is only one way to God and repercussions await those outside the fold), the worst thing a person could do for the unsaved is decline to tell them about it by pretending their house is not on fire. Waving and walking by is disingenuous when you know the people inside will perish. On the other hand, doing what you can to warn those inside the house of the impending doom is the very least a good citizen would do.

Truly, what Mouw sees as “Evangelical hostility” is nothing more than what Paul described in Eph. 4:15 as “speaking the truth in love.” Imagine, if you will, those who will one day stand at the Great White Throne Judgment, looking into the eyes of the Judge Himself. Will the unsaved wish they had dined with more friends who had a “positive approach” like Dr. Mouw’s? Or will they wish they had known Christians who were willing to risk relationships in order to offer them the truth? I believe that Dr. Mouw needs to apologize once more, but this time the pardon needs to be requested of his many Christian brothers and sisters whom he has unfairly slandered.

This entry was posted in Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to “Evangelical hostility toward Mormons”?

  1. Mike R says:

    It sure be nice if high profile Christians like Dr. Mouw would learn more about Mormon
    doctrine before he speaks publicly on the subject. I’m sure the Mormon PR dept. will
    be milking his latest comments for all their worth . I have personally met individuals
    who did have a terrible attitude towards Mormons but this minority cannot be allowed
    to represent all those others who have a love for the Mormon people to be free from
    their allegiance to their leaders and the aberrant doctrines they have created.
    Taking Jesus’ warnings such as recorded in Matt.7:15; 24:11 etc, and trying to help
    Mormons therefore evaluate their prophets teachings can be done in accordance
    with 1 Peter 3:15 .

  2. falcon says:

    I think Dr. Mouw was having a Rodney King moment here. Remember Rodney’s words, “Can’t we all just get along?” Well Dr. Mouw to answer that question applied to Mormon and Evangelical relations I would say, “Probably not!” I don’t mean this in the sense of personal relations but rather in the sense of religious doctrine.
    I can get along with all sorts of Christian groups even though I may disagree on some points of doctrine. That’s because at the heart of things, we agree on the eight to ten basic doctrines that define Christianity.
    How in the world are Evangelical Christians suppose to get along with Mormons doctrinally? We don’t even worship the same God. At least with people of various other world religions, we know they aren’t trying to tamper with Christian doctrine. Not only does Mormonism tamper with Christian doctrine, it sets it on its head.
    The really critical thing here is that the eternal life of the Mormon people is at stake here. Preach the truth in love is our charge. Now what form that “love” takes is a whole other matter of discussion. But the bottom line is, we are required to point out the differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity and in doing so persuade Mormons to embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; once they know who Jesus is.

  3. Rick B says:

    I remember the first time this not spoke, I cannot stand this guy, and as far as I’m concerned he’s a closet LDS member and has a false gospel. I have nothing nice to say about this guy and as far as Ravi goes, I lost all respect for him after he let Richard run his mouth before Ravi spoke, and Ravi just went along with it and said nothing.

  4. Rick B says:

    I said

    I remember the first time this not spoke

    I meant to say, I remember the first time this guy spoke.

    Now with that said, People like Richard, they say stuff about us Christians, and fell we are hostile towards Mormons. But do these people realize the stuff LDS say and how hostile they are towards Christians?

    Have people like Richard been to websites like Fair LDS? Have they meet LDS members like the guy that runs the Mormon Hater blog? Have they read what the Mormon Prophets of old have said about us? Or the BoM saying if we are not of the true church, then we are of the church of the devil? Of what God supposedly told JS when he had his confusing first of nine visions. Do the people like Richard know this? If not they should really keep quite with out knowing the facts. If they do know this, then they should mention all of this and give both sides and not one.

  5. spartacus says:

    Rick B,

    I understand where you are coming from with your remark about Ravi. But I have to wonder what you wanted him to do. The Bible instructs us to approach our brother in privacy when correcting. For all we know Ravi did this, or attempted to. Ravi’s talk was too good and too perfect for the LDS church to throw away because we assume he did nothing just because he didn’t do anything publicly. And yet, Ravi did, his talk was the gospel strong and seemed pointedly against LDS teachings.

    Again, I can relate to what you said, but it seems obvious we don’t know the whole story.

    As for Mouw, two things:

    1-How do you pronounce his name?

    2-I haven’t read or heard any of his stuff. Does he ever get into specifics enough for us to know how much he is informed about Mormonism?

  6. Clyde6070 says:

    One of the most glaring examples of false witness and easily distorted one at that is Pre-existence. All one has to state is Jesus and satan are brothers. you don’t tell that we all are brothers, we all preexistenced and all have this in common. The damage is done. You have won the battle no need to go any further.

  7. Mike R says:

    Clyde, Jesus , Satan , you, and me were not all spirit brothers in some pre-existence
    world before coming to earth. Jesus is a little more special than to degrade Him
    that much . He is the Lord God Almighty, always was , always will be , not some
    spirit baby who was the first one born to one of the wives of a polygamist God who
    Himself was not always God . Thinking that little of our Creator is not a good thing.
    Please exchange your apostles for those who can teach you a correct view of God
    and Jesus , you’ll be glad you did . You can do it because God will help you .

  8. Clyde6070 says:

    You don’t understand. I am not degrading Jesus I am up grading man. He is the Son of God who prayed to his Father just like we do. He is an example we should live by. We can be like Him if we set our selves in the right direction.

  9. falcon says:

    Do you claim to strive to be like Jesus in “character” or like Jesus in “deity”? That’s more of the Mormon smoke screen, using double meaning to hide what Mormonism teaches. There was no pre-existence as far as we are concerned. There was of course for Jesus because He is God. In order to believe what Mormonism teaches, then you have to take off on the wild ride of a mother and father god combination procreating spirit children on or near the planet Kolob. Nutty stuff clyde with no Scriptural foundation. It’s just another one of Joseph Smith and his buddies’ features of their created religion.
    Heretics and cults always go after the person and work of Jesus. Mormonism does this as it down-grades Jesus and elevates man to the status of deity. Your much anticipated pay-off in the Celestial Kingdom where you think you will become a god won’t happen clyde.
    You need to spend some time in prayer and study to discover Jesus and in so doing find the pathway to eternal life.

  10. Rick B says:

    If your going to teach and believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers, then that means you are willingly rejecting what the Bible says and the BoM says.

    Both the Bible and BoM teach Lucifer is a created angel, If Satan is a created being, then that means so is Jesus, if what you believe is correct. But the Bible tells us that Jesus created EVERYTHING, and the Bible tells us that God the father did not ever say to any angel, come thou art my son. If the Bible is true in all these things, then you, JS and all Mormons who teach and believe it are found to be false witnesses teaching false doctrine.

    That and it is really sad you dont know the BoM enough to know is says Lucifer is a created being.

    Then along with the pre-existence, if that is true, then that means the reason Satan was tossed out of heaven was for God the father choosing Jesus plan of salvation of Satan.

    Yet again both the BoM and the Bible teach Satan was cast out of heaven for trying to exalt himself above God the Father. Man, you better go back and study your scriptures and the Bible, your embarrassing yourself and the Mormon Church for claiming to know Mormonism, when in fact you clearly dont.

  11. falcon says:

    Who do you think would come up with a scenario that God and Satan are brothers? I can think of only one created being who would gain from people falling into such a trap and that is Satan himself. He makes himself equal with God and then teaches men that they can be equal with god.
    “Oh”, but the ignorant and deceiving Mormon will say, “We don’t teach that we will be equal with God. We teach that we will be like God.” And in the twisted thinking of the Mormon, there’s a difference in their explanation. The difference, of course, is that the Mormon god of this planet is constantly progressing so Mormons will never catch-up with him.
    I doubt if Dr. Mouw has any idea what Mormon prophets have taught and what the core of Mormon belief actually is. Mormons have given themselves over to a seducing deceitful spirit that leads them into accepting blasphemy as a blessing. In OT times, any Jew suggesting such a thing as Mormons do would have been stoned.
    The key here though is how Satan can manipulate Mormons into believing his seductive gospel.
    Mormonism, with it’s cultic symbols on its temples and undergarments have demonstrated what spirit they are committed to. Using names like heavenly father to mask what’s actually underneath is a very clever ploy.
    The pathway out of this deception is to acknowledge who God is and what He has done through His Son Jesus Christ.

  12. Rick B says:

    What I said about Ravi is how I feel. I dont run around telling Believers or people in General to avoid him. I only share how I fell about him to people when they bring him up to me. Or on a blog like this when his name is mentioned. I did avoid the last topic he was mentioned in since I would have simply said the same thing.

    When You said this

    The Bible instructs us to approach our brother in privacy when correcting.

    I dont fully agree with you on this, Mouw made a public statment, he should have been corrected in public in front of everyone. All Ravi had to do was get up in front of everyone and say, Hello Everyone, I just want to say, I dont agree with what Richard said, He cannot speak on behalf of every christian. He cannot claim all Christians are clueless when it comes to Mormons since some Christians are former Mormons and many who have never been mormons like Bill, Arron, Sharon and others have spent years studying Mormonism.

    If Ravi were simply to “Correct” Richard in private, it would have done no good since I dont believe Richard would have went back in public and set the record straight. I back that idea up with, If Ravi did correct Richard in public, Richard has never went back and apologized.

    So that leaves me to believe, Ravi either never talked to him in private, or he did and Richard did not care enough to apologize. Also this newest topic confirms to me, Richard stands by what he said. So Ravi might be awesome in the eyes of many, but I refuse to listen to him any more and have lost all respect for the man.

  13. falcon says:

    It looks to me like Dr. Mouw is either making the same mistake Mormons make i.e. not really investigating Mormonism, or he’s so insistent on harmony that he’s just ignoring the significant differences in the Mormon and Christian gospels.
    Would the apostle Paul write a letter to Timothy telling him just to overlook doctrinal differences so that everyone could get along? That’s really not how the Church operated in the first four centuries of its existence.
    For example in First Timothy 1:3-4 Paul says “…….in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rater than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.” He goes on to say in First Timothy 1:6 “For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion”
    I would say that the Mormon gospel according to Joseph Smith was an endless stream of fruitless discussion. And yet Dr. Mouw doesn’t seem to realize the harm that such speculation brings.
    Later in First Timothy 4: 1-2 Paul writes: “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron”
    The Mormon gospel is an example of Paul’s “doctrines of demons” charge. And yet Dr. Mouw seems to want to accommodate such doctrines to achieve harmony. In the end we are all answerable to God not only for our behavior but our service to His Gospel. Sincerity, piety, devotion and positive attempts at attaining harmony do not further the goals of the Gospel when the Gospel itself is maligned.

  14. grindael says:

    Actually, Clyde’s line of reasoning above makes no sense. In Christian theology, Satan is a created angel, and men are also created beings. Christians speaking of Satan as the brother of Christ without mentioning that Mormons teach that all men are also, means little. It’s all wrong. Men become the children of God by taking on the divine nature. According to Mormonism, all men already possess the divine nature, which they somehow lose by being born into mortality. (Now that makes no sense). Especially in the light that somehow Jesus was different. If God is fair, why was Jesus different? Why didn’t he have to earn his godhood like the rest? How did he become a god without going through mortality? Mormonism makes little sense.

  15. grindael says:

    In fact, there was so little emphasis place on Jesus as a pre-existent god in early Mormonism, that they didn’t even equate him with Jehovah until the turn of the twentieth century when Jesus the Christ was published. Mormonism was not a revelation, it was a construction of ideas that were fitted together as circumstances warranted. The evolution of their theology proves this.

  16. grindael says:

    Dr. Mouw was described by Paul:

    “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Timothy 4:3

    He needs to do more research, and stop being spoon-fed by Mormon apologists with an agenda who are using him as a witless tool.

  17. Clyde6070 says:

    What seems to be happening is some of you are trying to tell me what I believe. There seems to be no understanding of why I believe and how I came to believe but Mormonism researched Ministries should have a section on this.

  18. falcon says:

    We aren’t telling you what you believe. We are telling you what Mormonism teaches. Perhaps you should share with us what you believe and why you believe it. You have this terrible habit of expecting us to read your mind. A two sentence post that is confusing in and of itself doesn’t speak well of your ability to clearly articulate Mormon doctrine.
    Besides, as has been demonstrated here numerous times, Mormons believe what they “think” their church teaches rather than what it, in reality, teaches. And what should MRM have a section on; what clyde believes? I’m sure the world is interested in what you believe.
    Actually clyde, I’d personally be very interested in what you belief and why you believe it. After all dialogue is the purpose of this blog. Put yourself out there and commit to what you believe. Spend some time crafting a post rather than just tossing out a couple of sentences.
    For many Mormons, Mormonism has become a buffet style religion. They amble down the table taking the doctrinal food that pleases them and ignoring the items that don’t please them. In thinking about it, some of the food items are declared “spoiled” but they’re still sitting on the Mormon doctrinal belief buffet table. Because these doctrinal items have a shelf-life that has expired, they have a little card in them that’s label “folklore”. It like hardtack from the Civil War.

  19. Rick B says:

    Clyde said

    What seems to be happening is some of you are trying to tell me what I believe.

    Clyde, As Falcon said, we are not telling you what you believe, we are saying what Mormonism teaches. As I said already, The BoM teaches Satan is a created Angel, The Bible teaches the same thing, The BoM and the Bible both teach Satan tried to exalt himself above God and God cast him out of heaven. So then Clyde said

    There seems to be no understanding of why I believe and how I came to believe

    He is the Problem with this, You never tell us what you believe, We have asked before for mormons to tell us what they believe and they just give us more o the same, Mormon teachings and things like the pre-existance which I proved from your scriptures is bogus.

    I can again show you from the Bible and the BoM what is said about Satan and Jesus, but you cannot show me what you claim about Satan and Jesus from the Bible or the BoM. You need to prove it from sources other than the Bible or mormon scriptures. You need to go by what Prophets and presidents have said.

    But the problem with this is, we can quote those same presidents and prophets that you use to support your view, but then when we do it, you guys claim they were speaking only their opinion because what they said when we quote them is so false it’s not funny. Dont believe me? Give me the names of prophets you use to support your view and someone will give you things they said in return that Mormons will claim we cannot use, or was their opinion.

  20. Rick B says:

    Falcon said

    And what should MRM have a section on; what clyde believes? I’m sure the world is interested in what you believe.

    Falcon, I sense sarcasm in what you said, and sarcas

  21. falcon says:

    As Christians we are charged to be ready and prepared to give a defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are told to witness to the hope that is within us. Dr. Mouw, by his actions, has violated that mandate.
    We don’t do people who are bearing witness to a false gospel any favors by coddling them and shielding them from the truth. Now the manner of our defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be vigorous, with passion and conviction. It doesn’t have to be obnoxious or unnecessarily mean spirited however.
    Read through the Book of Acts for examples of defending the Gospel. Stephen ended up getting stoned for his presentation and defense of the Gospel. Paul talks about being beaten and flogged (Acts 16:23), stoned (Acts 14:19) as well as ship wrecked and abandoned at sea.
    Through it all Paul remained faithful and constant in the preaching and defense of the Gospel. The lesson of course is whether or not we want the approval of men or God. Eternal matters are at stake here, the salvation of souls. To neglect the Gospel in order to get along with people is not staying true to our charge to be the instruments of the Holy Spirit in bringing the words of eternal life to those lost in darkness.

  22. Rick B says:

    I hit post to early by accident.

    Falcon said

    And what should MRM have a section on; what clyde believes? I’m sure the world is interested in what you believe.

    Falcon, I sense sarcasm in what you said, and sarcasm can be taken as hostility, Seems your part of the problem and not the solution. LOL.

    I like the saying that says, I’m responsible for what I say, not how you understand it.

  23. Mike R says:

    Clyde, sorry I did’nt get back to you sooner with comment on your reply to my post
    concerning Jesus and all of us allegedly living in a pre-existent life. Admittedly , I
    should have used a different word than “degrade ” to describe how I view the Mormon
    teaching on Jesus etc. I do not wish to call into question your striving to live for
    Jesus the best you can , but at the same time I hope you can see the importance of
    Paul’s warnings about false apostles who will introduce teachings about Jesus that
    are so removed from the truth that it creates a different Jesus as it were . This is
    similar to Paul’s warning about false gospels also. Since only the true Jesus has the
    ability to save us from our sins then to embrace ” another Jesus” would be to place
    our lives in jeopardy spiritually . This is such a clear and logical scenario that even
    your own leaders have said as much . So this being the case it is vital that what
    Mormon apostles have taught about Jesus Christ/ Jehovah be in alignment with what
    the Bible declares about Him , that’s where we can start , and if we start right we will
    likely end up right . Now there’s enough info on this subject available from MRM
    that you should available yourself with it . The comments by Grindael and Falcon
    ( and others ) here relative to the uniqueness of Jehovah/Jesus are also for your
    benefit . I certainly do not wish to tell you what you believe etc. But I do know
    what Mormon authorities have taught about Jesus , if you disagree with them that’s
    your dilemma. Thanks.

  24. falcon says:

    Have I ever displayed sarcasm in my posts? You know me better than that. Actually I’ve been really good for a long time however occasionally my evil twin sneaks in and uses my computer when I’m not around. I have video monitoring to prove it.

  25. Rick B says:

    Honestly Falcon, I like your twin. I like it when people are honest and tell it like it is. I just sent an email to someone we know, I said I was given a gift of three videos, Bible Vs Joseph Smith, Bible Vs BoM and DNA vs BoM.

    I just got them Yesterday and watched BoM vs the Bible today. I was telling this person one thing I really like in the Video was that a former Mormon who really new a lot about Mormonism was flat out saying, Daniel Peterson was lying. Then later he was saying Mormons are deceiving people.

    The reason I liked him saying that is because, It’s true, Daniel knows enough to know His church is false, and the LDS that really do the research like Peterson and other know better.

    I understand the average 18 year old Missionary does not know and they are simply deceived. But way to many Christians simply coddle the wolves in sheeps clothing and the false prophets, and I really hate that.

    Show me from the Bible where we are told to treat wolves and false prophets like that. I respect people like the guy in the video for saying the truth and calling Peterson out like that.

    My joke about me fishing with a harpoon was from a home video my pastor showed in Church. He meet Bill and Eric at a pastors conference in California, and Bill said to my pastor, what was it you said about Rick Fishing for men with a harpoon? And the pastor said, yes, thats how Rick does it. Or something to that extent. I want to share something with people and to everyone who disagrees with me, Keep it to yourself since I honestly dont care.

  26. Rick B says:

    Here is what I wanted to share.
    Now what I was going to say was, My pastor said to my wife, Many people will complain to him about how I share the gospel and they dont like my style. My pastor will say to the people, Well what are you doing in the way of sharing the gospel, If they are honest, and some have been, they will say, I’m doing nothing. Then the pastor will tell them to shut up. He says, you cannot complain about Rick when your doing nothing.

    I find many Christians are quick to Judge me and how I handle things, yet they themselves are doing nothing. Also the Bible says, If you have a problem, take it to your brother and deal with it, not run to your pastor and complain. Also Christians dont understand or relies this, but I have had many Mormons and atheists tell me they highly respect me for standing up for what I believe and they admit they dont agree with me, but they respect me. So how can a group of people I am telling are wrong and going to hell respect me yet a group of brothers I am not even talking with get so mad at me for how I do things?

    Their was a Mormon who was posting here in the days before this blog existed, when it was questions only. He went by the Wer62 and I know Sharon remembers him. Well This Mormon and me disagreed on many things, but he respected me so much we spoke via private emails and he shared things about his life. He started a blog on Mormonism all because of me. I feel that is a huge achievement when a mormon starts blogging due to you challenging him.

  27. Rick B says:

    How many Christians that complain about my style can say that?
    Also a women came onto Wer blog and accused me in a some what subtle way of raping her. She claimed I got her drunk off of a 6 pack of beer and took advantage of her, Wer told her, he does not agree with me on theological issues, but he knows I did not and would not do that, so he removed her and her posts from the blog. Again, How many Christians claim, LDS dont like or agree with you, yet they still stand up and defend your character? I can say that, another proud achievement. Then their is a website called reachout trust. I like the website and was on it for a few years.

    Their was at the time a christian on the website who always gave me a hard time about how I handled Mormons, I kept getting mad at him and asking why he gives me a hard time, yet never witness to them? He fought to kick me off because He refused to share with the LDS, I would bring that up and told him he needs to stop crying about me if he wont share with the LDS. Also Many LDS came to my defense and said they dont agree with my doctrine yet they respect me for being honest and backing up my
    mouth with bible verses and quotes from LDS sources. Yet this so called believer did not care, he finally somehow became a mod and then was able to kick me off. So it bugs me that people complain about my approach, yet many atheists and LDS respect it, and the people who complain, more times than not dont do or say anything. Lastly, I gave my life

  28. Rick B says:

    Lastly, I gave my life to Jesus because people cared enough to tell me the truth and challenge me, so If I can and was saved by people like me, then it tells me so can others.

    So Like I said, If you dont like my witnessing style, dont bother telling me, It works, people respect it, some dont, I was saved like that, I’ve seen people give their lives to the Lord, and sadly many just complain while doing nothing. I figure if people dont like it, go to God and complain to Him. I am a child of God used by Him so go and complain to God about His Child and see what He says about it.

  29. rpavich123 says:

    Spartacus said:

    Rick B,

    I understand where you are coming from with your remark about Ravi. But I have to wonder what you wanted him to do. The Bible instructs us to approach our brother in privacy when correcting.

    End Quote

    No it doesn’t…only when your “brother sins against you…” as in some personal affront.

    When it’s doctrine, you can correct in public as Paul corrected Peter in Galatians 2:11

    “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

    But***** when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all,****** “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”” (Galatians 2:11–14, ESV)

    Notice that when something other than the truth is being publicly taught…then a public rebuke and correction is in order….that was those who’ve heard the false teaching will also be corrected.

Leave a Reply