Mormon.org’s Plan of Salvation

Posted on December 30, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Mormon.org includes a section titled, “God’s Plan of Salvation.” This section systematically presents Mormon beliefs related to eternal life. It goes like this (my summarization of each point in parentheses):

  • “God’s Plan for You”Council-Heaven-Mormon
    (To choose good and become more like Heavenly Father)
  • “Receiving Our Physical Body”
    (God created you and gave you a body of flesh and bone in the likeness of His own body)
  • “Adam and Eve Gave Us the Gift of Choice”
    (Choosing what God wants results in lasting happiness and progression)
  • “The Secret of Happiness”
    (True happiness comes from knowing God’s plan and following it)
  • “When Bad Things Happen”
    (Endure faithfully and be rewarded)
  • “God’s Plan – What Jesus Christ Did for Us”
    (Jesus voluntarily suffered and paid for our sins by atoning for them Himself. We make His atonement effective in our lives by faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost and following His teachings throughout our lives)
  • “What Happens When I Die?”
    (Body and spirit are reunited: resurrection)
  • “Immortality – One of God’s Greatest Gifts”
    (Everyone, “even wicked people,” live forever)

The Mormon plan of salvation is presented with broad strokes, consistent with an Internet environment. The reader gets glimpses of distinctive Mormon doctrine (e.g., God has a body), but does not learn enough of the details to expose Mormonism’s incompatibility with the biblical plan of salvation. That is, not until the very end. As a subheading under the last point on Immortality, the presentation teaches,

“’Will I Go to Heaven?’
“Yes! God will judge all men fairly and reward them appropriately with a place within His kingdom.”

The idea that everyone goes to Heaven is negated in the Bible. As MRM’s web article on Heaven and Hell explains, “The Bible teaches that there is only one of two possible destinations awaiting mankind after death: eternal punishment or eternal life. To those who have been justified by faith and received the righteousness of Christ applied to their account, there awaits a glorious eternity in heaven. To the rest who willfully reject God’s gift of salvation or who attempt to appease God’s demand for perfection by some other way than trusting in the righteousness of Christ, there awaits the terrors of hell” (see also “Will God Save Everyone?”). Though they may not know the specifics of biblical soteriology, most people understand that the Bible says some will go to Heaven and some will go to Hell.

When the Mormon Church tells everyone that they will go to Heaven, it implies that there is no Hell to fear. Thus the Church plays the role that the Book of Mormon ascribes to the devil (see 2 Nephi 28:22).

Furthermore, in addition to being dangerous to the souls of men and women, the Church’s blanket promise is misleading at best. On the Church’s own websites it consistently defines “Heaven” as having two meanings: The expanse around the earth; and “the place where God lives and the future home of the Saints” (or “the faithful”; see here, here and here).

“Heaven” in the context of the afterlife, has definite boundaries imposed by the Mormon definition. It is “the place where God lives” and the place where “the Saints” or “the faithful” will live in the future. The definition does not lend itself to the inclusion of the unfaithful or the Mormon concept of the lower “kingdoms of glory” where God the Father does not live — or even visit.

Pastor Kevin DeYoung (in another context) wrote about the dangers of comforting people with a denial of the biblical teachings on the reality of Hell and God’s wrath:

“Instead of summoning sinners to the cross that they might flee the wrath to come and know the satisfaction of so great a salvation, [it] assures people that everyone’s eternity ends up as heaven eventually. …What if Jesus says on the day of judgment, “Depart from me, I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23)? What if at the end of the age the wicked and unbelieving cry out, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb’ (Rev. 6:16)? What if outside the walls of the New Jerusalem ‘are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood’ (Rev. 22:15)? What if there really is only one name ‘under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12)? And what if the wrath of God really remains on those who do not believe in the Son (John 3:18, 36)?”

While the Mormon Plan of Salvation might soothe itching ears (1 Timothy 4:3-4), it will not help anyone escape the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10). Everyone will not go to Heaven. But Jesus is calling you to be reconciled to God through Him – to “have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” and to be “saved by him from the wrath of God” (Romans 5). Will you respond to His call?

Posted in Afterlife, Salvation | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments

Five reasons not to “shut down”

Posted on December 26, 2013 by Aaron Shafovaloff

Five reasons not to “shut down” when someone wants to show you evidence that purportedly contradicts what/who you believe:

1. Curiosity. Curiosity is virtuous and healthy, and the only faith worth having is a curious faith. Faith seeks understanding. Faith should increase curiosity, not squelch it.

2. Humility. Humility implies a posture of, “I don’t know all of what I don’t know, I don’t know all of what I need to know, and I should be open to learning things people think I need to know.”

3. Faith that honors. To honor something as trustworthy, you don’t endlessly protect it in the dark — you let it demonstrate its trustworthiness in the light of scrutiny. Honor what/who you trust by letting it “come outside” and endure the examination.

4. Love for neighbor. The love-ethic of Jesus (“love your neighbor as yourself”) requires that we be interested in understanding and knowing and empathizing with our neighbor, even when — especially when — our neighbor disagrees with us.

5. Love for the one you trust. “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.” (C.S. Lewis)

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

He is Alpha and Omega

Posted on December 23, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Of the Father’s Love Begotten

Words by Aurelius Prudentius Clemens 348-circa 405

Merry Christmas!

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Teaching Mormon Children:
Jesus is God’s Only Begotten Son — In the Flesh

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Madonna-and-ChildThe December (2013) Visiting Teaching Message found in Ensign magazine focuses on Jesus Christ as God’s only begotten Son. The message begins,

“Our Savior, Jesus Christ, is called the Only Begotten Son because He is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father…Modern prophets have testified: [Jesus Christ] was…the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.” (“The Divine Mission of Jesus Christ: The Only Begotten Son,” Ensign, 7)

The Ensign article also states,

“As we come to understand more fully what it means for Jesus to be the Only Begotten Son of the Father, our faith in Christ will increase.”

Therefore, in an effort to more fully understand what this Mormon doctrine is, consider a lesson titled, “Whom Say Ye That I Am?” that was provided by the Church in an older edition of its Family Home Evening manual:

This home evening is to help you and your children understand that Jesus is God’s Only Begotten Son…

In What Way is Jesus God’s Only Son?

Read or tell the following story.

JENNY’S QUESTION

The Markham family had been to Sunday School and was driving home…When Jenny was asked what she had learned, she replied, “Daddy, I’m confused. The teacher talked about Jesus’ being God’s only son. I thought all of us were God’s children.”

Ask, Have you ever wondered about this question? How would you answer Jenny? Discuss this with your family, letting each have a chance to express himself.

Now read to the family how a modern prophet answered Jenny’s question.

A MODERN PROPHET’S ANSWER

…I want the little folks to hear what I am going to tell you. I am going to tell you a simple truth, yet it is one of the greatest truths and one of the most simple facts ever revealed to the children of men.

You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers – you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father. The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this: Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men, who are subject unto death: but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven…

We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal man, was his mother. God by her begot His son Jesus Christ…

Now, my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you talk to your parents about it, that God, the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ. (Joseph F. Smith [6th Prophet and President of the Mormon Church], Box Elder Stake Conference Dec. 20, 1914 as quoted in Brigham City Box Elder News, 28 Jan. 1915, pp. 1-2)

An Illustration and Discussion to Help Further Answer Jenny’s Question:

At this point, discuss in your own words how Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. You might do this by using the following illustration on a chalkboard or piece of paper.

1972FHE126

All boys and girls have a mother and father on earth. Your mother and father, of course, are mother and I. Jesus is the only person ever born on this earth that is different. Jesus had a mother on earth. What was her name? (Mary.) But who was his real father? (Heavenly Father.) So you see, Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body. (Family Home Evening manual, 1972, 125-126)

 There you have it. To learn more about this Mormon doctrine, check out Bill and Aaron’s article at mrm.org, “Redefining the Virgin Birth: Mormonism on the Natural Conception of Jesus.”

Posted in Jesus Christ, Virgin birth | Tagged , , , , | 14 Comments

Mormonism: A Religion Only Understood by Its Own?

Posted on December 16, 2013 by Eric Johnson

I was speaking to somebody recently about ministry in Utah. This man, a professional clergy member who recently moved to Utah, told me proudly, “Our church will never host any class teaching about Mormonism. After all, it not only could be offensive, but what right would I have to teach on this subject? Only a former Mormon could really understand Mormonism.”

His analysis fits right into the teaching of former President Gordon B. Hinckley who, in the Ensign honoring the bicentennial of Joseph Smith’s birthday, said the following:

“Once while riding in a plane, I engaged in conversation with a young man who was seated beside me. We moved from one subject to another and then came to the matter of religion. He said that he had read considerably about the Latter-day Saints, that he had found much to admire in their practices, but that he had a definite prejudice concerning the story of the origin of the Church and particularly Joseph Smith. He was an active member of another organization, and when I asked where he had acquired his information, he indicated that it had come from publications of his church. I asked what company he worked for. He proudly replied that he was a sales representative for an international computer company. I then asked whether he would think it fair for his customers to learn of the qualities of its products from a representative of its leading competitor. He replied with a smile, ‘I think I get the point of what you’re trying to say’” (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Joseph Smith, Jr.: Prophet of God, Mighty Servant,” Ensign, December 2005, p. 2).

rose-colored-glassesThere are three major problems with this mindset. First of all, while everyone has presuppositions—you can even call it bias—this should not automatically discount their views. In the scenario described by Hinckley, both he and the young man processed information through different worldview lenses. Even the media—when I majored in journalism at San Diego State, the professors drilled into me that “objectivity” was the goal—approaches issues with a unique set of rose-colored glasses.

Fortunately, there are venues for a person to receive information that will be most beneficial in making a decision. For instance, the magazine Consumer Reports tests products, analyzing them to determine which car, toaster, or cell phone is rated superior based on a battery of tests. Besides consulting this magazine when intending to make a purchase, the shrewd consumer will also consider the information found on multiple Internet websites. If a product has poor workmanship, shouldn’t this information be processed before wasting time and effort purchasing the wrong version of the product? To say that those writing in Consumer Reports or a variety of Internet sites are ineligible to make a comment just because they never owned those particular products, past or present, is nothing less than silly. Weighing a variety of opinions makes perfect sense.

Second, if it’s necessary for somebody to belong to a certain group (as Hinckley made it appear) or at least once belonged to the group at one time (as the pastor seemed to suggest), then must I be an abortion doctor or have had an abortion in the past to speak authoritatively on the issue of abortion? Could I honestly critique a Democratic proposal in Congress if I am not (and never was) a part of this political party? And can I honestly say cocaine and heroin are harmful drugs if I’ve never experienced them for myself? If the answer to these questions is “no,” then why is it necessary for a person to be (or have been) a Latter-day Saint to have the ability to critique its teachings?

Third, Hinckley seems to suggest that a competing computer company is only going to mislead about its competitor’s product. But turn this around. If Ford decides to advertise its Tundra, will it produce a commercial explaining how their vehicle is much worse than what Toyota is producing? Of course not! Given the chance, a company’s own vehicle will win every survey/test/comparison. Corporations such as Ford and Toyota have vested interests, just as Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness leaders do.

For example, you will never hear a Mormon leader giving a general conference message this way: “Wow, it’s amazing how Joseph Smith was able to manage 33 wives, including 11 of whom were married to other men!” These leaders never talk about Smith’s polygamous ways! In the same way, they won’t spend much time focusing on the many problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon or pontificate on how the Mormon view of God contradicts the teachings of the Bible.

Pepsi_ChallengeWhere can a person hear the other side? Maybe from the competition! I remember the “Pepsi Challenge” surveys at county fairs, allowing consumers to drink unidentified sample cups of Coke and Pepsi products. Many people were surprised that the cup they chose as the best was not the same as what they normally drank.  What is wrong with having the other side present its case? Test what is being said. Don’t begrudge the information merely because it came from a source you might not like. Those who show such bias and succumb to the genetic fallacy are bound to make wrong decisions, whether it involves a truck, a soda, or a religion.

Brigham Young said,

“Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may; no difference, not a particle. Just as soon receive the Gospel from Joseph Smith as from Peter, who lived in the days of Jesus. Receive it from one man as soon as another. If God has called an individual and sent him to preach the Gospel that is enough for me to know; it is no matter who it is, all I want is to know the truth” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, p. 16).

I also agree with President John Taylor, who said,

“If any person in the religious world, or the political world, or the scientific world, will present to me a principle that is true, I am prepared to receive it, no matter where it comes from” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor, p. 215).

I hope my attitude is the same. Let’s eliminate any fallacious thinking on this issue. The next time someone says that you don’t have a right to analyze an opposing viewpoint because you don’t belong to that religion/political party/etc., ask them if they should have a right to make such a philosophical statement if they are not a philosopher!

Posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , | 24 Comments

Early Mormon Prophet Led the Church Astray

Posted on December 12, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Brigham YoungThe Mormon Church very recently posted a new statement on “Race and the Priesthood” at LDS.org in which the blame for the Church’s historic racism is laid squarely at the feet of Brigham Young. According to the statement, the idea to deny Blacks the priesthood and Mormon temple blessings didn’t come from God. Rather, the whole doctrine (called a “policy” in the statement) was but a product of the racial discrimination that abounded all across America during the time of Brigham Young’s tenure as Mormonism’s second prophet and president. According to the Church’s statement,

“In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

“The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black ‘servitude’ in the Territory of Utah.According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s ‘curse’ on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained…

“The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.”

The Church’s statement points out that even after the death of Brigham Young

“subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”

And just so there will be no misunderstanding, the Church’s statement proclaims:

“…the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

This is all so very interesting. The Church unequivocally condemns all racism, including past racism. This is good and commendable, even though the Church statement does not overtly admit that the Church’s attitude toward and treatment of Blacks was racist.

The Church “disavows” the various theories embraced by Mormons over the years to explain the restrictions on Black members. This is at least partially good and commendable; however, disavowing merely means that the Church denies any responsibility or support for these various theories. It is a distancing of the Church from what the institution believed and taught in the past.

But here’s the thing. Mormonism’s leaders have long insisted that the prophets, seers and revelators of the Church cannot and will not lead the Church astray. Yet the Church lived by Brigham Young’s false teachings for over 125 years. Ten Mormon prophets perpetuated Brigham Young’s errors on race, believing his restrictions on Blacks represented the will of God. And now the Church says it was all due to “a highly contentious racial culture” that Brigham Young mistook for God’s leading.

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff, 199)

“Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray” (Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Reports, October 1966, 123).

“As we look to the prophets for guidance, we can be confident that they will not lead us astray” (L. Aldin Porter, “Search the Prophets,” Ensign, April 2002, 31).

“Those who listen to and follow the counsel of living prophets and apostles will not go astray. The teachings of living prophets provide an anchor of eternal truth in a world of shifting values and help avoid misery and sorrow” (Preach My Gospel, 2004, 75).

“You can always trust the living prophets” (True to the Faith, 2004, 129).

“What time, since the organization of the Church, have any of the brethren exercising the Spirit of the Lord, ever taught this people that which was false? When have they ever said unto you that you should do that which was not right; that which would not make you better citizens and better members of the kingdom of God? You cannot, nor can any man, in righteousness, point to the time when any of them have wilfully stated anything that was contrary to the principles of righteousness, or that did not tend to make the people better in every way, that did not build them up in their salvation, temporally as well as spiritually….” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:297).

“Having in mind that this Church of ours is a practical Church, that it deals with temporal as well as with spiritual affairs, I submit that whatever comes from the voices of those who hold that authority is scripture, no matter of what they may speak. That conclusion to me is inevitable” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Reports, April 1944, 112).

“Third, continuing revelation and leadership for the Church come through the President of the Church, and he will never mislead the Saints” (James Faust, “The Prophetic Voice,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1996, 7).

“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray” (Boyd K. Packer, “To Be Learned Is Good If …”, Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1992, 73).

What does all this mean? The united voices of Mormon prophets, seers and revelators throughout the history of the Church say the prophet cannot lead the Church astray. Did Brigham Young (and subsequent prophets) lead the Church astray? Or was the LDS restriction on Blacks God’s desire for the Church after all?

This statement from the Church raises even more questions for me, such as:

• If the Church “disavows” all of the so-called theories “of the past” that black skin is a sign of God’s disfavor or a divine curse, what does it do with the Book of Mormon where these “theories” are taught? (See 2 Nephi 5:21 and Alma 3:6-9.)

• If the Church “condemns all racism” in any form, what does it do with the authoritative teachings of so many past Church leaders that advanced these racist theories?

• If placing a restriction on Black members as pertaining to the priesthood was culturally driven and not done by God’s direction, why is the doctrine found in Mormon scripture? (See Abraham 1:26.)

• If Mormon Prophet David O. McKay misunderstood Abraham 1:26 when he indicated that it represented a “scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negros,” what other Mormon scriptures might LDS prophets have misinterpreted over the years?

• If President McKay’s interpretation of Abraham 1:26 was wrong, why did the Pearl of Great Price Student Manual (Religion 327) tie that passage to the Church’s 1978 lifting of the priesthood ban against Blacks?

• If the restrictions against Blacks began with Brigham Young, why did LDS Apostle and member of the First Presidency George Q. Cannon say at an 1895 meeting of General Authorities that the doctrine did not originate with Brigham Young but instead was taught by Joseph Smith?

Friends, this doesn’t add up. If Brigham Young taught false doctrine that was embraced by the Church for 125 years of its 183-year history, he led the Church astray. If the Mormon prophet led the Church astray, all of the subsequent leaders who claimed that that couldn’t happen were wrong – including members of today’s highest Church leadership. If Mormon prophets can indeed lead the Church astray, if they can misinterpret Mormon scripture, if they can misunderstand the voice of God, the so-called “continuing revelation” in the Mormon Church is worse than worthless – it is dangerous. Which is the very thing Christians have been warning Mormons about for the past 183 years.

Mormons, this is your Church. This is the organization you are trusting to get you safely to the celestial kingdom and into the eternal presence of God.

Run.

Run to Jesus.

More information on Racism in the Mormon Church:
A doctrine that was to always be (MRM.org)
Mormons to celebrate the 35th Anniversary of the “Priesthood Revelation” (MRM.org)
Curse of Cain? Racism in the Mormon Church (UTLM.org)

Posted in Authority and Doctrine, Book of Abraham, Brigham Young, Early Mormonism, LDS Church, Mormon History, Mormon Leaders, Mormon Scripture, Mormon Temple, Pearl of Great Price, Prophets | Tagged , , , , , , , | 44 Comments

Troubled by Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

Posted on December 9, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

In this video, a returned Mormon missionary explains how personal revelation helped him on his mission. It seems an investigator was struggling with accepting the LDS Church due to troubling historical information she had learned about Joseph Smith and polygamy.

Watch the video to get the background and the greater context of the story. But here cutting to the chase, based on his personal revelation, the elder confronted the investigator:

“You have problems with Joseph Smith and polygamy. I know this is gonna sound crazy but you have had relationships in the past where there’s been infidelity, where there’s been adultery and stuff like that, and that is why you feel so opposed to just the idea of one man ever, ever associating with more than one woman. Correct?”

Apparently, he was correct. The woman was shocked and asked how he knew. The elder replied, “The Lord has told me this.”

Eventually, continuing to struggle with Joseph Smith’s polygamy, the woman asked the elder, “What can I do to overcome those feelings?” The video explains what happened next:

“She committed to kneel down that night and to ask God for forgiveness for those grudge and that feelings and to herself forgive those wrongs that had been committed against her. And she did… From that point on she was ready.”

And soon she was baptized.

As far as is evident from the elder’s recounting of the story on the video, this woman’s “problem” with Joseph Smith’s polygamy stemmed from past iniquity and adultery “that had been committed against her.” Thus, she had apparently committed no sin of adultery herself, but for concerns about polygamy, she needed to repent. For holding a “grudge” against the idea of one man “associating with more than one woman,” she needed to repent. For having troubled feelings related to the Prophet and polygamy, she needed to repent. Then she could overcome her negativity toward Joseph Smith and his 30-plus wives.

It’s interesting that the investigator needed to repent, but Joseph Smith — a man who flagrantly broke the anti-bigamy laws of Illinois, a man who wed women behind his legal wife’s back, a man who married other men’s wives, a man who publicly denied the very existence of dozens of his plural wives, a man who manipulated young women with promises of spiritual security for themselves or their families if they accepted plural marriage proposals (and vice versa) – Joseph Smith got off scot-free. Not only does the Prophet have nothing to repent of (according to Mormonism), but the poor investigator that had trouble swallowing his bad behavior is found to be in the wrong.

This is Mormonism. I say no more.

Posted in Joseph Smith, Mormon Missionaries, Nauvoo, Polygamy | Tagged , , , , | 25 Comments

Rejecting the Book of Mormon

Posted on December 5, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Early Mormon apostle Orson Pratt sometimes found himself in trouble with leaders of the LDS Church because of things he had written. Mr. Pratt was a prolific writer, and freely expounded on Mormon doctrine, as he understood it. The First Presidency of the Mormon Church issued a Proclamation in 1865 wherein the Latter-day Saints were warned to accept Pratt’s writings with caution. The Proclamation said in part,

“Whenever brother Orson Pratt has written upon that which he knows, and has confined himself to doctrines which he understands, his arguments are convincing and unanswerable; but, when he has indulged in hypotheses and theories, he has launched forth on an endless sea of speculation to which there is no horizon.”

Nevertheless, Orson Pratt’s writings are valuable in that they at least give insight into what an early Mormon apostle firmly believed – and taught. Consider a few excerpts from Mr. Pratt’s “Questions and Answers on Doctrine” from his periodical, The Seer, dated February 1854. Here he discusses the Book of Mormon, how it compares to the Bible, and the importance of the Book of Mormon to mankind.

After explaining that the doctrines and prophecies contained in the Book of Mormon are “very definite, pointed, and plain,” the question is asked, “But is not the Jewish Record or the Bible equally as plain?” Mormon Apostle Pratt answers,

A. No: it no doubt was once just as plain and definite as the sacred Scriptures given in Ancient America. But the Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike… The first thing, therefore, necessary to the re-establishment of the kingdom of Christ on the earth was to reveal in perfect plainness the exact and precise principles of the gospel in all their fullness; this was accomplished in the remarkable discovery and translation of the sacred records of Ancient America.

michelangelo-last-judgmentTherefore, when Mr. Pratt is asked, “What does the Lord require of the people of the United States?” the Bible does not figure into God’s requirements in any way. Mr. Pratt’s answer centers on repentance, embracing the message found in the Book of Mormon, and baptism into the LDS Church. The Q and A continues with a pronouncement of dire consequences for those who reject the Book of Mormon — not for those who reject the message, but for those who reject the divine authenticity of the book itself (for the Bible, even in its alleged corrupted and mutilated state, clearly contains the specific message that Mr. Pratt defines: a call to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit — see Acts 2:38).

Q. What will be the consequence if they do not embrace the Book of Mormon as a divine revelation?

A. They will be destroyed from the land and sent down to hell, like all other generations who have rejected a divine message.

Q. In what way will the Lord destroy this nation if they reject the Book of Mormon?

A. By a succession of the most terrible judgments. Plague will follow plague in rapid succession, desolating populous cities and destroying hundreds of thousands. The rains of heaven will be staid, and the earth will not yield forth her wonted harvests, and thousands will pine away with hunger and perish. The bonds of the Union which now hold together the States of this Republic, will be severed, and a fearful, desolating, civil war will rage between the South and the North. The people then will no longer dwell upon their farms, and in their villages, and cities with security, but they will flee from city to city, and from State to State before the face of their enemies, and fear and terror will be upon them by day and night. The laws of the land will then be powerless, and the people will no longer be under their wholesome influence; bands of robbers and murderers will wander over the land unrestrained, and thus will the whole nation mourn and waste away and perish, unless they will hearken unto the great message which God has in mercy sent to them. There is no other alternative; they must either embrace the Book of Mormon as a divine revelation, or be cut off by judgments from the land, for it is the sure and certain decree of heaven. God is not to be mocked, neither can a message be rejected from Him with impunity. Now is the day of mercy; now peace dwells within your borders; now the proclamation is repent and come forth with humble hearts and contrite spirits and be baptized for the remission of sins, that you may receive the Holy Ghost. If this proclamation is unheeded, the sword of justice, which is already unsheathed, will fall heavily upon you.

MichelangeloLastJudgmentSo it’s not the call to repent that must be heeded, for if it was, the Book of Mormon wouldn’t be necessary since the call to repent is definitely, pointedly, and plainly presented in the Bible. Yet in his own “very definite, pointed, and plain” language, Mr. Pratt tells his readers that “there is no other alternative” than to embrace the Book of Mormon as divine revelation. This is the only way (or perhaps he meant it is the only way to begin) to escape God’s “fierce judgment” against this nation collectively, and its people individually.

As is often the case with the teachings of Mormon leaders, this doctrine does not square with the Bible. The Bible that Orson Pratt dismissed as corrupt and untrustworthy says this: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 10:12). There is nothing here about the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Book of Mormon isn’t mentioned in the Bible at all.

On this subject of escaping God’s judgment, would today’s Mormonism say that Latter-day Apostle Orson Pratt engaged in teaching “doctrines which he understands”? Or had he imprudently “launched forth on an endless sea of speculation”? I don’t think Mr. Pratt’s teaching would raise many eyebrows in today’s Mormonism – although the LDS Church would probably rather not say so in such “definite, pointed, and plain” language.

Posted in Book of Mormon, Early Mormonism | Tagged , , , , , , | 61 Comments

Mormons and Evangelicals Talk of Christ

Posted on December 2, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

On November 15 (2013), evangelical author (and seminary president emeritus) Richard Mouw addressed 2,000 young Mormons at Utah Valley University. As reported in the Deseret News’ “Evangelical leader says commonality with Mormons deeper than differences,” Dr. Mouw emphasized his discovery that between Mormons and evangelicals, “there’s more commonality than we realized in the way we talk about Jesus and his atoning work.”

mormon-jesusIn support of this idea, Dr. Mouw suggested, “when you stop and read [the Book of Mormon], a lot of the doctrine looks and sounds like our doctrine, with language that sounds like the kinds of things we say.” According to Deseret News, “Mormons and evangelical Christians… ‘say the same things’ about Jesus Christ.”

I submit that even more important than what one says, is what one means by what one says. Mormons have used traditional Christian terminology for as long as I can remember. Christian ministries to Mormons have always emphasized the need for those engaged in evangelical/Mormon dialog to define their terms. Why? Because we often say the same things – we use the same terminology – but we don’t mean the same things.

For example, according to Deseret News, Dr. Mouw

“…read from the Book of Mormon some of the prophet Alma’s language about the life, ministry and Atonement of Jesus Christ, and how people need to ‘repent and be born again … (and) have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness’ (Alma 7:14).

“’Those are words of the gospel of Jesus Christ that I affirm as an evangelical Christian,’ Mouw said.”

Looking, then, at Alma 7:14, it begins, “Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again.” This sounds like something evangelical Christians could affirm, however, the Mormon Church teaching manual, Gospel Principles (2009) explains the Mormon doctrine of repentance in greater detail. It says,

“To make our repentance complete we must keep the commandments of the Lord (see D&C 1:32). We are not fully repentant if we do not pay tithes or keep the Sabbath day holy or obey the Word of Wisdom. We are not repentant if we do not sustain the authorities of the [LDS] Church and do not love the Lord and our fellowmen. If we do not pray and are unkind to others, we are surely not repentant. When we repent, our life changes.

“President Kimball said: ‘First one repents. Having gained that ground he then must live the commandments of the Lord to retain his vantage point. This is necessary to secure complete forgiveness’ (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball, 43).” (111-112)

Mormon Church manual The Life and Teachings of Jesus and his Apostles, Instructor’s Guide Religion 211–112 (2000) explains “born again” like this:

“1. As Joseph Smith said, to be born again one must first ‘see’ the kingdom of God, or gain a testimony.

“2. Once one ‘sees’ the kingdom, he then can be born into the kingdom through obedience to the commandments.”

These things don’t sound like anything an evangelical Christian would say. (Read evangelical perspectives on repentance, forgiveness, and new life in Christ.)

Looking again at Alma 7:14, it says, “be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins.” The Church manual, Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (2004), explains,

“Jesus taught that we must be baptized by immersion for the remission, or forgiveness, of our sins. Baptism is an essential ordinance of salvation. No person can enter the kingdom of God without being baptized…When we are baptized we begin the process of being born again…”

Evangelicals don’t say things like this. (Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson address this unbiblical doctrine here.)

73780766fb07b13809e83eb3baaf99e2Alma 7:14 also says, “…the Lamb of God,…who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness.” Evangelicals could punctuate these words with a hearty “Amen!” But consider how the man who became the 10th President of the Mormon Church, Joseph Fielding Smith, understood Jesus’ cleansing power:

“Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that ‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man’…And men for certain crimes…have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:135-136 [1988]. Emphasis in original).

Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 confirms this teaching:

“And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.”

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual (2002) makes it clear that the biblical king David lost his hope of eternal life with God due to David’s unforgivable sin of murder:

“David’s story is one of tragedy and a lesson to all of God’s children, because he went from the height of favor with God to the depth of wickedness. He had all that this life could offer, but through sin he lost exaltation and the right to be eternally with his Father in Heaven.

“’… the Prophet [Joseph] says: “A murderer, for instance, one that sheds innocent blood, cannot have forgiveness. David sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with tears, for the murder of Uriah; but he could only get it through hell; he got a promise that his soul should not be left in hell.”’” (“Section 132 Marriage: An Eternal Covenant”)

This sounds nothing like things evangelical Christians say – or believe. (Bill McKeever contrasts this Mormon teaching with biblical teaching here.)

Dr. Mouw is right that Mormons and evangelical Christians sometimes sound alike – sometimes we say the same things. But we don’t mean the same things at all. There is no commonality in what Mormons and evangelicals mean when we talk about Jesus and His atoning work. Mormons (if they conform to the official teachings of their church) and evangelicals (if they conform to the teachings of the Bible) do not believe the same things, no matter how alike we may sound. Dr. Mouw needs to understand this. In fact, Dr. Mouw needs to read the manuals.

Posted in Baptism, Book of Mormon, Forgiveness, Jesus Christ, Repentance | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 44 Comments

Undeserved Riches

Posted on November 28, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

empty_handedWe came into this world empty-handed. But few of us are empty-handed today. Everything we have—all things material and immaterial—must inspire us to offer profound thanksgiving to our gracious and benevolent God. We deserve none of the gifts He has given. We deserve nothing. But God’s grace is surprising and amazing. Read on, and give Him thanks.

Deserving Nothing
by Sinclair Ferguson

Religious people are always profoundly disturbed when they discover that they are not, and never have been, true Christians. Does all of their religion count for nothing? Those hours in church, hours spent doing good things, hours involved in religious activity—do they not count for something in the presence of God? Do they not enable me to say: “Look at what I have done. Don’t I deserve heaven?”

Sadly, thinking that I deserve heaven is a sure sign I have no understanding of the gospel.

Jesus unmasked the terrible truth about His contemporaries. They resisted His teaching and refused to receive His Word because they were sinners—and slaves to sin.

Some years ago, the British media reported that a Presbyterian denomination had pulled fifty thousand printed copies of an edition of its monthly magazine. The report indicated that the author of an article had referred to a prominent member of the British royal family as a “miserable sinner.”

PrayerIntriguingly, the member of the royal family, as a member of the Church of England, must have regularly used the words of the Anglican prayer book’s “Prayer of General Confession,” which includes a request for the forgiveness of the sins of “miserable offenders.” Why, then, were the magazines pulled? The official comment: “We don’t want to give the impression that the doctrines of the Christian faith cause people emotional trauma.”

But sometimes the doctrines of the Christian faith do exactly that—and necessarily so.

Or should we say instead: “How cruel Jesus was to these poor Jews! Fancy Jesus speaking to them in this way!”?

Jesus did say, “You are miserable sinners.” He unmasked sinners and drove His point home: “You have no room for my word” (John 8:37, NIV). They had heard, but resisted it. Later, He described the result: “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say” (John 8:43, NIV).

Jesus had already patiently explained this to Nicodemus: “Unless God’s Spirit opens your eyes, you cannot see the kingdom of God. Unless God sets you free from the bondage of sin, you will never enter the kingdom of God” (see John 3:3, 5). “The truth is,” Jesus said later, “you do not hear what I am saying because you are not really the children of God” (see John 8:41, 44). They were, to use Paul’s language, spiritually “dead” (Eph. 2:1).

Some time ago, while relaxing on vacation on a wonderful summer day in the Scottish Highlands, I sat outside enjoying a morning coffee. A few feet away I saw a beautiful little red robin. I admired its feathers, its lovely red breast, its sharp and clean beak, its simple beauty. I found myself instinctively talking to it. But there was no response, no movement. Everything was intact, but little robin red-breast was dead. The most skilled veterinarian in the world could do absolutely nothing for him.

So are we, spiritually. Despite appearances, in my natural state I am dead toward God. There is no spiritual life in me.

Only when I see this will I begin to see why God’s grace is surprising and amazing. For it is to spiritually dead people that the grace of God comes to give life and release.

(Posted on the Ligonier Ministries blog, excerpted from By Grace Alone.)

Posted in Christianity, Forgiveness, Jesus Christ, Salvation, Worthiness | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments