Joseph Smith and Romans 4:5

Posted on May 8, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

BibleCorrectedJoseph Smith revised the Bible. Some say he “corrected” it. The resulting volume is known as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) or the Inspired Version. My Mormon edition of the King James Version of the Bible (1989) includes seventeen pages of JST “excerpts too lengthy for inclusion in footnotes” at the back of the book. One of these excerpts is Romans 4:2-5. In this short passage the Prophet made fourteen changes to the text, but none so significant as his revision of Romans 4:5.

In the King James Version of the Bible, Romans 4:5 reads:

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

As Christian pastor and author Mark Cares has noted, “What is so striking about this passage is that it describes God as ‘him that justifieth the ungodly.’  Justifies is a courtroom term that means to acquit or declare not guilty.  In other words, this passage startles us by describing God as acquitting the ungodly.  That doesn’t seem right! But it is. This is what makes the Bible unique.  Where else do we hear about a God who acquits the ungodly?”

Not in Mormonism. According to Mormonism, God cannot save (acquit) people in their sins (see Alma 11:37), though He can save people from their sins (Helaman 5:10. See Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Resource Manual, lesson on Alma 11:21-40, “True or False”). But (according to Mormonism) if one is to be saved from their sins, they cannot be ungodly (i.e., sinners) but must be godly (i.e., “putting off the natural man and becoming a saint.”)

This Mormon doctrine, that God cannot save people in their sins, does not square with Romans 4:5 as God gave it. But Joseph Smith, without any manuscript evidence to support his position, changed this verse:

“But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (JST Romans 4:5)

Joseph Smith here changed God’s Word to state the exact opposite of what the apostle Paul wrote. Paul said God justifies the ungodly; Joseph Smith says God does not justify the ungodly. Joseph’s change brought Romans 4:5 into greater conformity with Mormon doctrine while at the same time spotlighting what Mark Cares described as “another striking difference between Christianity and Mormonism.  Christianity’s God is the one who justifies the ungodly. Mormonism’s god doesn’t.”

What’s so stunning about Joseph Smith’s change (other than his sheer audacity) is how preposterous it appears in the greater context of Paul’s argument that leads up to Romans 4:5. Christian theologian John Piper explains,

“Up to verse 21 of Romans 3, Paul has shown that all men are under sin and accountable before God… Now Paul turns his attention to the remedy of their universal disease of sin and judgment. ‘But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.’ This is the best news in all the world for us who feel our guilt before God and know that our righteousness is wholly inadequate to win God’s favor.

Romans5“The good news is that God, in his great love, has made a righteousness available to all who find their confidence for life in Jesus Christ. We cannot work for this gift so as to earn it, merit it, or deserve it; but it is there for everyone who hopes in Christ. Romans 4:4, 5 make this plain: ‘To the one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work (i.e., does not try to earn, merit, or deserve God’s gift) but instead trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.’ The good news is that there is free acquittal for the guilty who stop trying to impress God and men but instead rest in Jesus. There is no human drug or salve that can ease the guilty conscience like this truth can.” (“How Is It Right to Justify the Ungodly?”)

Indeed, as Aaron Shafovaloff has said elsewhere, “justification of the ungodly by faith ‘apart from works’ seems to be the whole point of Paul in the passage”:

“What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.’” (Romans 4:1-8)

You who seek to follow Christ: does God justify the ungodly? (This is the God I worship.) Or does he not justify the ungodly? (This is the god Joseph Smith served.) Who got it right: Paul or Joseph? Which God is your God?

Posted in Bible, Christianity, God the Father, Joseph Smith, Mormon Scripture, Nature of God, Salvation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 44 Comments

Who Is Your Proxy?

Posted on May 5, 2014 by Joshua Valentine

Guest Post

mormon-baptismMormons believe in doing baptisms for the dead for a number of reasons. Primary to these is the belief that people must be baptized in order to be saved.  According to Mormonism, baptism was not an option to many of history’s populations; they were utterly unable to fulfill this requirement.  In life they did not have the true church authorized to give true baptism.

Mormons recognize that dead people can do nothing for their salvation, not even a simple baptism. No matter what that dead person does in spirit prison, they cannot meet the requirement of their own baptism.  They need someone who is alive to accomplish the work for them.  Then, that deceased person, upon hearing the LDS gospel in spirit prison, can accept the gospel and accept the work of their proxy in the living world.

Therein, perhaps, lies a way to communicate, and have a Mormon actually relate to, the biblical Gospel.  Whether we attempt to help them realize that they are “dead in their sins” or we confront them with their church’s impossible requirements of sinlessness, righteousness, and perfection, or if we simply let the Holy Spirit convict them of their personal failures, perhaps they can more easily comprehend and finally see their need for Christ’s true Grace by hearing of it in terms of proxy work.

  • Jesus is my proxy justice, taking upon Himself the punishment I deserved.
  • Jesus is my proxy righteousness, living the life Himself that I can’t.
  • Jesus is my proxy perfection, being Himself that which I never can become.

Jesus is my Proxy.

Posted in Baptism, Christianity, Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , , | 16 Comments

What Do Mormon Missionaries Teach?

Posted on May 1, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

In the FAQ section at Mormon.org is found the question, “What will the [LDS] missionaries talk about when they visit my home?” The answer, as provided by the Mormon Church:

“Missionaries share a message about Jesus Christ and His Atonement for all people. They teach about our Heavenly Father’s great plan of salvation, which allows all people the opportunity to return to Him.”

MissionaryAtDoorThis would probably come as no surprise to anyone sincerely asking the question, and, of course, it’s true – as far as it goes. But the answer really does not go very far at all. If you are thinking about inviting strangers into your home, you want to know what to expect from these strangers in order to determine whether (or not) it’s a good idea to extend the invitation. The Mormon.org reply doesn’t really provide enough information to help you make that decision. Therefore, a more detailed overview of what the Mormon missionaries will talk about if/when they visit your home is provided here.

According to the Mormon Church’s Guide to Missionary Service, Preach My Gospel, the first lesson missionaries teach is called “The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” The stated purpose of the lesson is for missionaries to

“prepare your investigators to meet the qualifications for baptism taught in Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 and in the baptismal interview questions. This is best accomplished by inviting your investigators to make and keep the commitments listed below.” (Preach My Gospel, 31)

The questions that investigators are to be prepared to answer correctly relate to: belief in God as Father; Christ as the Son, Savior and Redeemer; that the gospel has been restored through Joseph Smith; and that Thomas Monson is a prophet of God. The commitments listed are: read and pray about the Book of Mormon; pray to know Joseph Smith was a prophet; attend the Mormon church the following Sunday; make an appointment for the missionaries’ next visit; and others as the missionaries may deem appropriate for each individual investigator (e.g., quit smoking or stop working on Sundays).

It might be important for you to know up front that the primary purpose of Mormon missionaries visiting your home is not to talk about Jesus and His atonement, but rather to extract commitments that will qualify you for Mormon baptism.

Of course, these commitments are not all there is to the missionary visit. The missionaries will talk about Jesus, His atonement, and the plan of salvation (according to Preach My Gospel). The bullet points of the first missionary lesson are these:

  • God is our loving Heavenly Father (with a body of flesh and bone)
  • The gospel blesses families
  • Heavenly Father reveals His gospel in every dispensation (the gospel is here defined as “Our Father’s plan for us to be successful in this life and to return to live with Him”)
  • The Savior’s earthly ministry
  • The great apostasy [of the Christian church]
  • The restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith
  • The Book of Mormon
  • Pray to Know the Truth [of the message of the Restoration] through the Holy Ghost

Additionally, at the end of this, the very first lesson, missionaries are instructed, “do not hesitate to invite people to be baptized and confirmed” (Preach My Gospel, 40).

This is what you can expect the Mormon missionaries to talk about the first time they visit your home (or the first time they teach you a lesson). They will mention Jesus and His atonement but, as instructed, their principle focus will be talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and LDS Church membership (in short, “The Restoration”). This is in sharp contrast to the message Christian missionaries are called to proclaim:

“But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’” (Romans 10:8-15)

When Mormon missionaries visit your home for the first time they will bring you a message about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and talk to you about setting a date to be baptized and confirmed as a member of that church. Christian missionaries, on the other hand, do not point to a church; they point to Christ. As Paul said above, they preach “the good news.” This isn’t good news about a church or a modern prophet or a new religious book; this is very specific good news. As Luke explained elsewhere in the Bible, Christians preach “the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Christian theologian John Piper explained,

“…what makes the gospel ‘good news’ is that it connects a person with the ‘unsearchable riches of Christ.’…

“This is why the New Testament often defines the gospel as, simply, Christ. The gospel is the ‘gospel of Christ’ (Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 9:13; 10:14; Galatians 1:7; Philippians 1:27; etc.). Or, more specifically, the gospel is ‘the gospel of the glory of Christ’ (2 Corinthians 4:4). And even more wonderfully, perhaps, Paul says that the preaching of the gospel is the preaching of ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ’ (Ephesians 3:8).

“Therefore to believe the gospel is not only to accept the awesome truths that 1) God is holy, 2) we are hopeless sinners, 3) Christ died and rose again for sinners, and 4) this great salvation is enjoyed by faith in Christ — but believing the gospel is also to treasure Jesus Christ as your unsearchable riches…

“The gospel is the good news that the everlasting and ever-increasing joy of the never-boring, ever-satisfying Christ is ours freely and eternally by faith in the sin-forgiving death and hope-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  (John Piper, “What is the Christian Gospel”)

How beautiful are the feet of those who preach this good news — the good news of Jesus!

Posted in Great Apostasy, LDS Church, Mormon Missionaries | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 34 Comments

New LDS.org Gospel Topic articles were submitted to the “presiding Quorums of the Church and the First Presidency for approval”

Posted on April 28, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

I am already hearing of BYU professors mocking the new LDS.org gospel topic articles as non-official.

Elder Steven E. Snow, LDS Church Historian and Executive Director of the Church History Department, explains that each of the articles was submitted to the “presiding Quorums of the Church and the First Presidency for approval”:

“How does the Church provide answers to historical questions?”

Most who study our history well understand the context of these matters as far as time and place. But some members of the Church — many, really — are surprised by some of the things they learn in our history. And we want them to be able to go to a place where they can read accurate information and be able to seek to understand those historical chapters in the context of time and place. And understand that those answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the Church. I think that will give many of our members confidence that they can rely on these answers.

We have actually retained outside the Church History Department — we have retained scholars, for the most part outside the Church History Department — known LDS scholars to do some very extensive research. And this has been groundbreaking in a way. These issues have not always had academic attention. They haven’t really been researched carefully. So we are very pleased that these scholars would agree to do this research. They then submitted a draft of their paper to a committee of historians here in the Church History Department as well as General Authorities who have reviewed their work and adjusted some edits. Those edits are made with the permission of the original writer. And that’s then submitted to the presiding Quorums of the Church, the Twelve and the First Presidency for approval. And then it’s published in Gospel Topics under LDS.org.

Much of what’s written now, these arguments and these issues, have been around for decades — 150 years. And it’s the same material repackaged. And we understandably have not spent a lot of time in the past worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. But as the information age is now upon us? We feel with all of this information out there, we owe it — particularly to the rising generation — to provide good, reliable information about these matters.

Of course, not even that will stop a BYU religion professor or history professor from ultimately dismissing these articles as “not official”, not binding, and just the opinions of some men who shouldn’t be held accountable for what they publicly teach.

Source: https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=11373505780672488714-eng

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, LDS Church, Misconceptions | Tagged , , , , , , | 22 Comments

What’s In A Name?

Posted on April 24, 2014 by grindael

mormon_matchThis is kind of a dual subject post, so bear with me. We sometimes place a lot of importance on names. For example, the Mormon Church places a lot of importance on the name of the Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But more recently, with the advent of the internet, “handles” or short screen names have almost become essential with people using sites like Twitter, where short, brief micro messages are the new vogue. According to wiki,

In some countries, Mormon and some phrases including the term are registered trademarks owned by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (a holding company for the LDS Church’s intellectual property). In the United States, the LDS Church has applied for a trademark on “Mormon” as applied to religious services; however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that the term “Mormon” was too generic, and is popularly understood as referring to a particular kind of church, similar to “Presbyterian” or “Methodist”, rather than a service mark. The application was abandoned as of August 22, 2007. In all, the Intellectual Reserve, Inc. owns more than 60 trademarks related to the term Mormon. [For more info on the Mormon service mark issue see “Mormon” History.]

But it appears that the Church hasn’t abandoned its desire to control the word “Mormon” in the United States after all, for recently they have sought to have a Mormon Dating site shut down for calling itself “Mormon Match.” According to the Daily News,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is crying foul at Mormon Match’s decision to use [an image of] the Salt Lake Temple and the word “Mormon” on their site, claiming the church has total ownership over those things.

Reportedly, the use of the word Mormon “is the central issue of this case.” The Church’s Intellectual Reserve, Inc. “questioned [Mormon Match’s] right to use the word Mormon anywhere” on the site. To protect the Mormon name, the Church has engaged in what the Daily News calls “backhanded” and “clandestine” tactics. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Stay tuned.

The second part of this post has to do with an issue closer to home, (here at Mormon Coffee).  Recently, we had to ban one of our more prolific Mormon participants here, who went by the handle, faithoffathers (FOF). This was done because FOF had become so trollish that he was not adding anything of value to the discussions he participated in. For examples of his derogatory rhetoric, please read my comments here.

sock puppetWhen someone is banned from Mormon Coffee (see the Mormon Coffee comment policy), Sharon puts them on a list that she keeps for quick reference. This gives us some behind-the-scenes information that allows us to identify the IP Addresses of those who contribute here. Why is this relevant? Because some who get banned simply make up another profile so they can continue to post and disrupt discussions. One might say they engage in backhanded and clandestine tactics.

When Sharon added FOF’s name to that list, she noticed something interesting. FOF had numerous Sockpuppets that he had been posting with, at least one of which had been previously banned.

This wasn’t noticed by Sharon earlier, because let’s face it, who has time to do that kind of thing unless it becomes an issue; and there have been so few people banned (under 10 over the entire life of Mormon Coffee) that it wasn’t really any kind of a priority. Finding FOF’s Sockpuppets led us to analyze the profiles of some of the others that had been banned in the past.

For those who post here regularly, this might come as a surprise, but FOF can be linked to 8 different Sockpuppets, among them David Brown, DJ Brown, D Brown, Brown, Brownie, Observer, Jim Olsen, and Olsen Jim.

Another prolific troll here was HankSaint, who  had 6 different Sockpuppets, including Hank, Henry, Janet, Solid LDS, and Helen Louis Smith.

We also found that Fred Park joined the Mormon Coffee community as fproy222 and, after he was banned from further commenting, returned as Parkman.

As there were only a handful of such deceivers in the over 2000 User Profiles registered here at Mormon Coffee, this is not a common behavior, it seems, and many of those that were banned were Sockpuppets of those mentioned above.

David J. Brown (FOF) claimed to be a surgeon and a faithful Mormon whose goal, he said, was to defend the Church. But he also claimed that he was a “lurker” named Jim Olsen and deceived us with several Sockpuppet profiles.

HankSaint, who is really Richard Johnson as revealed by himself here (after I called him out about it), also claimed to be defending the Church, but used deceptive Sockpuppets to do so, claiming to be someone that he was not, even his own wife.

One method that Sockpuppets use is to refer to their alternate identities in conversations. I found a few examples of comments made by David Brown, for example, did this. Here is one of his FOF comments from 2008:

Michael P,

I must disagree with you. I have outlined several lines of evidence supporting the Book of Mormon on this site. There have been no responses to the specific evidences. DJBrown also listed quite a long list of prophecies in the Book of Mormon that have been fulfilled. I am happy to once again list these evidences, but my guess is the response will be no different- change the subject or fall back on a more general and global dismissal of the church.

Notice how FOF drops the name of DJBrown, who of course is himself. Here is David Brown as “Observer” also referencing himself in another conversation,

I ran across a post from DJBrown a while back that I thought explained this topic well…

And then we have the Sockpuppet Jim Olsen (David Brown) telling Aaron Shafovaloff that he was,

Just a lurker for a long time. But the degree to which you take pleasure in the misfortunes of others is stunning. Lightning strikes a church or temple- and you find enormous meaning in that? You even seem to revel in it. Seems so contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Of course, he wasn’t “just a lurker for a long time,” he was Doctor David J. Brown, who had already been posting under various Sockpuppet identities to try and bolster his own arguments — which itself seems contrary to what the Bible teaches.

There are many more examples, but those should suffice to show the Sockpuppet’s pattern of deception here at Mormon Coffee. Richard Johnson, or HankSaint/Janet – after I had outed him on another forum – actually told someone there,

You can call me HankPriest, Janet, Richard, HankSaint, Jared, etc. It does not bother me since those were the handles I often used.

The fact that he had to deceive people in order to use some of those “handles” didn’t seem to bother him at all, claiming censorship as his reason for doing so. Like many others, he seems oblivious to the behavior that got him (and his Sockpuppets) banned.

The “backhanded and clandestine” behavior employed by both the Mormon Church (as alleged in the Mormon Match conflict), and its overzealous members in their attempts to protect and defend the Mormon name, seems to fall into the category of the-end-justifies-the-means. While claiming allegiance to the Mormon creed that says “We believe in being honest, true…virtuous, and good to all men,” (Articles of Faith 1:13), they find themselves stooping to conduct antithetical to these very principles.

Do you consider someone who would use this kind of tactic to be honest? Is this kind of deception acceptable as an Ambassador of Jesus Christ? (2 Corinthians 5:11-21)

Is this behavior part of the Mormon pattern of “lying for the Lord,” wherein anything goes as long as you are defending the Church?

Would you trust someone who uses deception to reveal what they claim is the truth to you about God and their Church?

What’s in a name? What do you think?

Posted in Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism, LDS Church, Mormon Culture | Tagged , , , , | 95 Comments

Should the cross just be an afterthought?

Posted on April 21, 2014 by Eric Johnson

How one viewed the historical events remembered over the past week makes all the difference in the world. Yesterday some families woke up and had the kids hunt for Easter eggs before putting the ham in the oven and driving to a local church for the semiannual visit. Happy EasterAt the end of the day, everything probably felt satisfying. How many of these folks woke up this morning (this is traditionally even called “Easter Monday”) with nothing changed, just another “Monday Monday” as the memory of Easter is bound to quickly fade away?

Suppose you were visiting Seattle in early February 2014, less than a week after the city’s football team won a Super Bowl championship. A million people fill the streets as well as the city’s two stadiums for a celebration of the arrival of the Vince Lombardi trophy. Players on the team stand in flatbed trucks that wind through the parade route heading to the football stadium. Because you’re not a football fan and don’t live in the Pacific Northwest, you don’t quite appreciate the exuberance of these crazy people, but you still become excited and join the festivities anyway. Somebody hands you a hard-to-get ticket so you can enter the stadium and watch the presentation of the trophy, with the “12th man” crowd roaring its approval throughout the afternoon.  It is all very exciting, even for someone who doesn’t quite get what all the fuss is about.

Now switch to the person who has been a faithful fan since the Seahawks were invented in the mid-1970s. There were plenty of losing seasons for those Seattle faithful, as hopes were usually dashed by late November or at least by early December, yielding annual frustration for the fan base. Of course, at the end of most seasons, these fans were fond of saying, “Wait till next year.” Winning a Super Bowl was just a fairy tale fantasy.

Throughout the 2013 season, the Seahawks had many ups but also a number of downs, including several injuries to key players and close losses to top teams later in the season. Yet the team got a win in its last regular season game to claim the conference’s top playoff spot. Seahawks FansTwo weeks later, victory was easily secured in the first playoff game. In the NFC Championship game, it appeared that the team’s rivals—the San Francisco 49ers—would be successful in marching down the field for a winning touchdown with only a minute left. However, when a Seahawks cornerback tipped a potential game-winning touchdown pass and the ball floated to a teammate for an interception, the invitation to the Big Game was sealed.  Two weeks later, the Seahawks crushed their AFC opponent, claiming their first-ever Super Bowl. Despite enduring many years of losing seasons, the newfound “we are the champions” song blaring in the stadium had to be ever sweet for fans in attendance as well as those watching on TV!

Now it’s a few days later and time for the victory celebration. Ask yourself, which one of these two people attending the parade will have fully celebrated: the visitor who just happened to be in Seattle that day or the fanatic who lived and breathed Seahawks football since 1976? I think the answer is obvious.

To someone who grasps the significance of Easter, it would be impossible to celebrate on Sunday and then return to life as normal on Monday. The whole story must be understood, starting from the time a baby was born in a manger; after all, this “God in the flesh” was sent from heaven above to provide forgiveness of sins (Matt 1:21). This child became a man, dwelling among the people with whom He was sent to save (1 John 1:1-8). Even though He was hated by many, Jesus ended up entering Jerusalem on a donkey and was proclaimed the “king of kings.” Ultimately, He was hanged on a cross before uttering the words, “It is finished.” (John 19:30)

AtTheCrossThe events that took place on this gruesome day known as “Good” Friday might be considered a “wait till next time” moment by observers.  Certainly this was not the way the disciples must have pictured the ending. In 1 Corinthians 1:18, the apostle Paul admitted that there was a discrepancy between expectations and reality when he wrote, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” He added in verse 22 that “Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

Just when all hope looked lost, Easter took place on the third day! To a person who grasps the events of Good Friday, the ultimate celebration (“He is not here, He is risen”–Matthew 28:6) is a glorious moment!

While today’s LDS leaders are very careful to include discussion of the cross in their discussion of the “Atonement”—for example, see the April 2014 Ensign article titled “Special Witnesses Testify of the Living Christ”— they have typically minimized the death on the cross and rather  stressed the event taking place in the Garden of Gethsemane. Although not a general authority, BYU professor Robert J. Matthews best sums up the LDS perspective:

“It was in Gethsemane, on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, that Jesus made his perfect atonement by the shedding of his blood–more so than on the cross.” (A Bible! A Bible! p. 282)

Thirteenth president Ezra Taft Benson would have agreed with such an assessment:

“It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him.” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.14)

Showing he had no clue about the importance of what took place on the cross, fifteenth president Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

“But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of a Living Christ.” (“The Symbol of Our Faith,” Ensign, April 2005, p. 3)

No New Testament author claimed that the blood spilled in the Garden of Gethsemane should be considered efficacious for even a partial atonement for sins. Rather, as the saying goes, the “devil is in the details.” It is the death of Jesus, not His perspiration, that is stressed in the biblical record. (See Bill McKeever’s article “Why Not Gethsemane?” for more details.) As the writer of the book of Hebrews put it, “a will is in force only when somebody has died.” (See Heb. 9:16-22.) I therefore maintain that it is impossible to fully celebrate Easter without first having a proper perspective of the brutality and seeming finality of Good Friday. Understanding that He died in our place so that we could live in His place is a vital concept for those hoping to celebrate Resurrection Day.

If this is understood, the refrain of the old Isaac Watts hymn “At the Cross” will play ever true even the week after Easter:

At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 40 Comments

For the Sake of Love

Posted on April 20, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Could this be…my Savior?

Posted on April 17, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Being nice to Mormons — let’s just all get along

Posted on April 14, 2014 by Sharon Lindbloom

Blogger Matt Walsh has been taking some heat these days. Or, to be more accurate, Matt takes heat every day. Matt stands strong on important issues, and Matt does not mince words. In response to the sorts of comments he gets on his blog, he has written a provocatively-titled article: “Jesus didn’t care about being nice or tolerant, and neither should you.” He begins,

“There is no shortage of heresies these days.

“If you want to adopt some blasphemous, perverted, fun house mirror reflection of Christianity, you will find a veritable buffet of options. You can sift through all the variants and build your own little pet version of the Faith. It’s Ice Cream Social Christianity: make your own sundae! (Or Sunday, as it were.)

“And, of all the heretical choices, probably the most common — and possibly the most damaging — is what I’ve come to call the Nice Doctrine.

“The propagators of the Nice Doctrine can be seen and heard from anytime any Christian takes any bold stance on any cultural issue, or uses harsh language of any kind, or condemns any sinful act, or fights against evil with any force or conviction at all. As soon as he or she stands and says ‘This is wrong, and I will not compromise,’ the heretics swoop in with their trusty mantras.

JesusCleansingTemple“They insist that Jesus was a nice man, and that He never would have done anything to upset people. They say that He came down from Heaven to preach tolerance and acceptance, and He wouldn’t have used words that might lead to hurt feelings. They confidently sermonize about a meek and mild Messiah who was born into this Earthly realm on a mission to spark a constructive dialogue.

“The believers in Nice Jesus are usually ignorant of Scripture, but they do know that He was ‘friends with prostitutes,’ and once said something about how, like, we shouldn’t get too ticked off about stuff, or whatever. In their minds, he’s essentially a supernatural Cheech Marin.”

While The Matt Walsh Blog and Mormon Coffee differ significantly on topics discussed, we share common exposure to propagators of the Nice Doctrine. That’s why I think Matt’s comments in this particular article would be of interest to the Mormon Coffee community. That, and the fact that later this week Christians all over the world remember and contemplate the crucifixion of Jesus, which was preceded by some of His less-than-nice behavior.

Matt Walsh writes about the Jesus he finds in the Bible:

“I read of a strong, manly, stern, and bold Savior. Compassionate, yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But not particularly nice.

“He condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order.

“On one occasion — or at least one recorded occasion — He used violence. This Jesus saw the money changers in the temple and how did He respond? He wasn’t polite about it. I’d even say He was downright intolerant. He fashioned a whip (this is what the lawyers would call ‘premeditation’) and physically drove the merchants away. He turned over tables and shouted. He caused a scene. [John 2:15]

“Assault with a deadly weapon. Vandalism. Disturbing the peace. Worse still, intolerance.

“In two words: not nice…

“Jesus deliberately did and said things that He knew would upset people. He stirred up division and controversy. He provoked. He didn’t have to break from established customs, but He did. He didn’t have to heal that man’s hand on the Sabbath, knowing how it would disturb others and cause them immense irritation, but He did, and He did so with ‘anger’ [Mark 3:5]. He could have gone with the flow a little bit. He could have chilled out and let bygones be bygones, but He didn’t. He could have been diplomatic, but He wasn’t.

“He could have told everyone to relax, but instead He made them uncomfortable. He could have put them at ease, but He chose to put them on edge.”

And by putting them on edge, He made enemies. Yet He didn’t flinch, even though He knew His enemies would put Him to death. Death on a cross. For them. For the sake of – and because of love for — His enemies.

Now, as Matt Walsh notes, Jesus is God and we are not. Jesus has more street cred than we do. So shouldn’t we be nicer than Jesus was? Shouldn’t we avoid confrontation and dispute, and be willing to just agree to disagree? In Matt’s words,

“[W]e are called to be like Christ, which begs the question: what is Christ like?

“Well, He is, among other things, uncompromising. He is intolerant of evil. He is disruptive. He is sometimes harsh. He is sometimes impolite. He is sometimes angry.

“He is always loving.”

So must we be always loving.

Love has many faces. It is loving to comfort; it is also loving to challenge. It is loving to encourage; and it is loving to pull the rug out from under someone who is complacently living a lie while heading for a Christ-less eternity.

Jesus’ love compelled Him to both tenderness and aggressive confrontation. So too, as the Bible says, Christ’s love compels us (2 Corinthians 5:14), His people:

“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20)

Why? Because the day of God’s wrath is coming. We’ve seen Jesus angry, and we’ve seen the earth quake at His death; but honestly, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

GodsWrathWhen Jesus returns He will have a sickle in His hand to reap grapes of wrath. A sharp sword will proceed out of His mouth to strike the nations. And when the winepress of the wrath of God is trampled, blood will flow from it for miles. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire (see Revelation chapters 14, 19 and 20).

When Jesus returns, He’s not going to be nice.

Does it offend you, Mormon friends, to be shown that you are following a false prophet? Does it upset you when we demonstrate that your church is not the kingdom of God on earth as it claims? Does it hurt your feelings when we point out that the Bible says all your so-called works of righteousness are but filthy rags before our holy God? Or when we warn you that the Christ of Mormonism is a “different Jesus”? Or when we proclaim that your only eternal hope is to trust in the true Christ, and to trust in Him alone? So be it. It may not sound especially nice, but we implore you on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God.

Posted in Christianity, Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , | 81 Comments

Capstone Conference Today

Posted on April 12, 2014 by Aaron Shafovaloff

There is a pretty amazing 1-2-3 punch today of Sandra Tanner, Bill McKeever, and Rob Bowman. Come after lunch to Calvary Chapel Salt Lake City and hear them all at the Capstone Conference.

2:00-2:45pm Sandra Tanner – “Apostasy in Sweden: An Example of a Larger Crisis”

3:00-3:45pm Bill McKeever – “The new ‘Gospel Topics’ essays: When transparency is, at best, opaque.”

4:00-4:45pm Rob Bowman – “From Mormonism to Skepticism: Answers for Mormons Who Are Losing Their Faith”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment