What is a Cult? (Dec. 2007)

Check out this Fox News article: "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith."

Finally some media outlet did their homework and asked the lds church about these silly questions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html

Justin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry, I wasn't impressed with this. The only answer I liked was the one about Jesus being in the Western hemisphere because it's written in the BoM (Book of Mormon) so they had to say that (denying it wasn't an option). You also need to look at the definition of the word 'cult' and answer it that way, IMHO. You can't simply say, we don't like that word and no one should be labeled as it. It's a word in every dictionary, and there are cults, whether you like the definition or not. I see that they tried to save face and these were probably hard to answer, but they seemed more generic to me. Hopefully this doesn't offend you.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Webster Dictionary:

Cult:
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

How does the LDS church measure up? All but definition 4 apply to the Mormon church. How would we classify Jesus Christ and His followers? All but definition 4 match Jesus Christ's teachings and followers. I feel honored to be a member of an organization that matches so closely the church Jesus Christ established, even if it means both are insulted by the name "cult." Pay careful attention to number 3. Although Jesus Christ's teachings and the teachings of the LDS church are not spurious, both have been regarded as such by the orthodoxy of the day. Considering how unorthodox Jesus was in his day, maybe we should be a little cautious about fitting into the mainstream, yet you commonly tell me things like "most Christians would agree..." Wouldn't most Jews have agreed that Jesus was a heretic?

What is the definition of "cult" that you found to be appropriate for labeling the LDS church?

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


You know, I agree that all but number 4 apply to the Mormon church. I guess it would be better classified as ‘not Biblical Christianity’.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Darin, let's continue the comparison. You realize that Jesus's teachings would have been classified as non-Biblical. The Jews accused him of blasphemy. Although we agree that Jesus spoke with authority and His teachings actually are in harmony with the Old Testament, the orthodoxy at the time certainly didn't believe that, and the Jews still don't. What do you think about the fact that Jesus and His disciples meet those same definitions of "cult?" You see, words like "cult" are used to scare people, yet no one is specific about what they really mean by it. Now can you see why the church's response to that question was the only appropriate one and not just saving face? Why don't you be specific and tell me what you mean by "cult."

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul, I’ll go into the cult part later, but for now, please realize that Mormonism is not considered Biblical Christianity. Jesus’ teachings ARE all included in Biblical Christianity today, so I don’t understand your point there. Just because Jews don’t consider His teachings in harmony with the OT, doesn’t correlate in my mind with the fact that Mormonism has beliefs that differ immensely from Biblical Christianity.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


This is one reference about cults I looked at:

http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/cults.html

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Take a look at the defining points they use to classify cults. "How consistent are the group's beliefs with the basic tenets of the historic Christian faith?" " How are power, authority, and control exercised in the group?" Neither one of these is as scary as the word cult. That's why I say that the word "cult" is used to scare people. There is nothing wrong with breaking from the "historic Christian faith." Consider how important the protestant reformation was, and how revolutionary Jesus Christ's teachings were. Both of these examples were breaks from the historic faiths that originated from God's teachings. The second question about power, authority, and control is meant to imply that a group that has structured authority and power will exercise mind control. I find the implication extremely patronizing and insulting. You yourself had attended the church for many year, and I would be extremely surprised if you feel that you had your mind controlled by the church or its leaders. Don't be so convinced by so many outsiders making these speculative claims.

Now, about my analogy with Jesus Christ and His disciples. The Old Testament was given by God and was the foundation for Judaism. God had established a people, a covenant, and a doctrine. Over the years they thought they understood the doctrine all too well. They read into the law a certain way and could not believe that they might be wrong, particularly about the Messiah but also about many other points of doctrine. After all, they had the "Bible" (Old Testament) right in front of them, and scribes spent their lives studying it. They knew what everything meant, or so they thought. When Jesus taught things that were different from what they expected, their minds were shut to the possibility that he could be right. You see, the Old Testament, as long and informative as it was, did not explain everything in perfect clarity. Humility and a soft heart were still necessary.

You are telling me that Mormonism breaks from Biblical Christianity. I disagree. In the words of this website that you showed me, it's really "historic Christianity" that you are contrasting us with (I make the distinction because I believe our beliefs are Biblical, and you believe they aren't). Now do you see the similarity that I'm trying to point out? We're in a situation where the "Christians" feel like they know the correct way to read the Bible, and that the Mormon's (and others) are wrong because they don't believe the same tenets that the Christian scholars have decided are true. I don't think someone who reads the Bible without any other influence will believe the way you do.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with the mind control thing….

http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/cults.html

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't understand what you're saying (which mind control thing?).

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/test-mindcontrol.html


Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Ah.

I'd like to know more about what you agree with. Do you feel that you were subjected to mind control as a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I'll tell you my take on the webpage you just sent me after I hear back from you.

When you decided to leave the LDS church I was very saddened but thought that perhaps after building your faith in Jesus Christ through a variety of experiences you would eventually be reminded of the truthfulness and goodness of the church and what it teaches. As you've strengthened your faith and gotten back into the Bible I've always viewed this as progress in the right direction. I thought that although I was sad you were no longer a member of the church (actually, I thought you'd be a great missionary), you'd at least be able to speak the truth to the Christian world about what the Mormon church is really like. We're certainly not as scary as people like to make us sound. But I've been disappointed because it seems you're willing to completely disregard 17 years of experience and simply believe what others want to about the church. Stand up and tell people what you really experienced.


Here's why I think the Mormon church is sometimes labeled a cult. First, and most importantly, the level of devotion of the members. Quite frankly, it's scary to see people who are willing to give everything for their religion. The Mormon church was like that from the beginning. People sold their houses, packed up, and moved because they believed God wanted it. You always have to reserve a little bit of suspicion for groups like this, but you can't be too fearful of that attitude because certainly God wants us to be that willing and faithful. Even today Mormons sacrifice much of their time and money to do what "the Lord commands." Being a Mormon affects everyday lifestyle much more than other Christian denominations. And you'd be hard-pressed to get most 19-year-olds of any religion out devoting 2 years of their lives to preach (with extremely strict lifestyle requirements).

The second reason why the Mormon church is historically accused of being a cult is because it was such a despised religion 100 years ago. They didn't get along longterm in the Midwest because of a variety of reasons. One significant reason that the Mormons were not accepted in Missouri was because they were opposed to slavery. Also the Mormon church is/was seen as competition by other Christian churches. Certainly the Mormons did things at times that didn't help the situation, like act like they were so righteous and chosen by God. It was a young church with its share of problems. After the Mormons left to Utah, most people back East painted a picture of the Mormons as strange and evil, with rumors spreading wildly.

The last reason I can think of for fear of the Mormon church is the privacy associated with the temples. It's easy to be suspicious that the church keeps dark secrets when there are places they don't let you go. However, you should be one that can speak out about this. You've been inside the temple for baptisms. Even if the experience may not be a particularly sacred one to you, you at least know that we don't have any evil practices inside there. You should speak out about this. And privacy too is not such a foreign thing to Judeo-Christianity. The Jewish temples were equally exclusive.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul,

I feel like after being in the LDS church, they give people important callings and responsibilities, like a business, and that makes someone feel important. After leaving, some people wanted nothing to do with me, which makes me feel it is even more wrong, and like a gang or the mob, because honestly, that isn’t showing love. When someone leaves our church, we pray for them and make ourselves TOTALLY available for them. Please note that I am not saying I hold a grudge or any anger against the LDS church for this. I feel it is wrong, but I can separate what I think is wrong with the church, and my experience in leaving it. I was completely treated like a traitor at the computer place I worked at while I was first married, which incidentally was the same time that I had my name completely removed from the church records. Then I meet someone in my church around that time who also had their names removed, and their CLOSE friends wouldn’t even look at them in passing. You might rationalize by saying that’s the people’s fault and they shouldn’t have treated people like that, but it seems to be the majority. I realize we still talk, and you haven’t done that to me, and I appreciate it. Learning Christianity has taken a lot of unlearning my Mormon past, because I find that I’m doing things from my heart, such as praying, or taking communion, as opposed to a dead ritual which it was to me.

If you are concerned about me being a missionary for Jesus Christ, you can rest assured knowing that I share my faith in Him with as many people as I can, because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him, and Him only!

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for sharing Darin. I'm am really sorry to hear about your experience (how you were treated). I certainly hope that that's not the way it is in the majority of cases. In our elders quorum presidency (I am second counselor), we continually remind each other to keep our arms outreached for those who have lost their way and to pray for them. I completely agree that that is the only Christian way to deal with our fellow brothers and sisters.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Let me say one more thing to add a different perspective about human nature. I am familiar first-hand with countless cases of people who were cast out, even from their immediate families, for joining the Mormon church. I thought it was a unique persecution toward our church, but it's becoming apparent (by what you said) that this kind of behavior is more widespread than that.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


In my opinion, being cast out of a family for joining any church or religious organization isn’t a persecution towards the church or religious organization, as much as it is a persecution to the individual joining it!!! It ultimately impacts them in a very direct way, right? If my brother became a Muslim, we wouldn’t cast him out or not include him in anything. In other words, our behavior wouldn’t change at all in a negative way, and if anything, we would try to show him love in even more ways. If I’m a Christian and I follow the Bible’s teachings, this pretty much sums up my responsibility to anyone who believes different than I do, being a spiritual matter: Proverbs 25:21-23: 21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. 22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul,

I have asked you this before, Why do you defend your church? It seems that the mormons are more concerned about their church then about whether or not people know Jesus. I don't go out and preach my church to people, i preach a relationship with Jesus. You go out on missions and try to get people to join your church, not to accept Jesus. You sacrafice your time and money because your church tells you to, not to do what the "Lord Commands". Have you ever felt your leaders are wrong? Have you ever not done something asked of you by your leaders because you felt that isn't biblical? The LDS church has been changing it's mind on what God says for years. It seems to me that God is wrong alot. My church leaders are wrong sometimes so forget my Denomination. I follow Jesus not a religion, not a "prophet". I only care if a person knows and has a relationship with Jesus. Paul, Do you have a relationship with Jesus? Do you know that there is only one way to heaven, into the presence of God? The LDS church is a cult and has poisioned your heart and mind. Cults always look inviting and promising until it's too late. Read up on some other cults(Jim Jones's church, The reformed LDS church, etc) and compare them i guarantee you will find strong similarities.

Joel

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Joel, you spend a lot of time telling me about my church and yet you seem to know so little about it. I went ahead and read about Jim Jones's church, as you suggested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones). It bares no resemblance to the Mormon church. It was different in its founding (branching out of Disciples of Christ rather than by divine intervention according to Joseph Smith). It's founder was dramatically different than Joseph Smith who never claimed to by Jesus or God and never assumed titles such as "Father." Jim Jones used drugs, exercised homosexuality, etc. It's converts were a completely different profile than the Mormon church converts (70% of Jones's converts were impoverished). And it's deeds were completely different. Within 14 years they displayed their evil deeds. The Lord warned wisely about false prophets as recorded in Matthew 7:16: Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Please don't assume you know what I spent my mission doing. Our whole focus is on Jesus and following the Holy Ghost. In fact, the training that missionaries receive would not seem like training to most of the world. They're not told what to say (other than a discussion guide, which is actually quite basic) or how to answer specific questions and present counter arguments. Instead they're told to follow the Spirit, and listen and ask questions to get people to express what they think/feel/are concerned about. We're taught not to ask loaded questions and manipulate but to ask honest question and discuss. We teach people to pray to their Heavenly Father and develop a relationship with the Lord in order to receive guidance through the Holy Ghost. We encourage them to read scripture, including the Bible and Book of Mormon.

There is somewhat of a double standard being applied to what the Mormon missionaries should rightfully teach. I know that you've met with missionaries before, so you are familiar with their work a little. You'll recall that they talked about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon among other things. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ, but there is a foundation of faith building knowledge that should be acquired, which is why we all study the old testament even though it doesn't directly talk about Jesus. Darin criticized recently that the Mormon church advertises the Bible and builds on common beliefs when teaching instead of directly going in to the things that set our church apart. On the other hand, you are suggesting that missionaries need to stick with the central message of the Gospel. I agree with both. It's somewhat of a catch 22.

Your main question was why do I spend time defending my church. This particular discussion was brought on by Darin who implied that the church was a cult, which apparently means something bad. I feel like this is the Lord's church and authority, and it is right to stand up for it. It's an institution for nurturing of the Lord's disciples and carrying out the Lord's work. I'm proud of it. The church does come under attack a lot---I'm reminded of conversations with you during wrestling matches and others times in high school. I'll tell you one thing though. I have never heard anyone speak from the pulpit about any other church. It simply doesn't apply to the purpose of our church meetings. On the other hand, I believe the Mormon church does come up in many protestant church meetings.

I have never felt that a was taught something anti-Biblical (against the Bible teachings) by church leaders, accept minor things that a local level (for example, Sunday school teachers or even Bishops). I've certainly thought that people aren't necessarily doing things the best way, and I'm willing to believe that apostles and prophets even make mistakes. Look at Jonah; not exactly the role model prophet. In fact, there are some things in the writings of Paul the Apostle that I can't quite figure out (they don't seem to click with my understanding of God). Our church does not teach people not to question authority. They actively teach church members to gain their own testimony through prayer and study of the principles that they're taught. But you're right that it is a fine line in our church, since we are a very cooperation and obedience driven church.

If you won't follow a prophet then please remove the 62 books in the Bible that don't directly quote Jesus. Throughout the whole Bible we clearly see that God establishes order in his Kingdom on earth. The Old Testament is extremely orderly, with God's chosen people, the Law of Moses, judges, prophets, temples, ordinances, a priesthood, etc. In the New Testament Jesus restructures the Kingdom. He calls apostles into a group of 12 that reestablishes itself after the loss of a member; he sends them to baptize; he calls 70. All of the writings in the New Testament (pretty much) were correspondences between the church authorities and the local church congregations. God is a God of order. And there is a lot of work still to be done in these last days. In fact, isn't the whole Millennium about Jesus reigning over the Earth in peace. Yes, our personal relationships with Jesus are most important, but we can't be against establishments as a general rule.

Yes, I have a personal relationship with Jesus, but thanks to the encouragement and reminding from both of you, I realize I need to deepen that relationship. I'm grateful to Jesus for his unwavering love, example, and the gift He's given that allows me to repent and return to God clean from my sins, and be exalted as a "joint heir with Christ" (quote from Romans). I'd be interested to know what you do to nurture that relationship. And Darin, what made the difference in your experience taking communion now as opposed to the sacrament you took in the Mormon church?

Paul

Mormon and Christian Differences (April 2007)

I just found this site…I don’t know if you’ve seen it before:

http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r002a.html

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Darin,

Happy Easter.

The only fair way to evaluate Mormon beliefs is to read them in their own context and emphasis, not by reading them as they are pointed out by others as they try to poke holes. Please read the Book of Mormon or read the Ensign. Sometimes I send you emails with things to read or talks to listen to, but I don't know if you ever do.

This website brings up a few interesting points, but I can't help but be distracted by the flaws. First of all, a single quote from a member of the church (no matter his position in the church) does not make something a teaching of Mormonism. The first quote is by Milton Hunter. I don't even know who Milton Hunter is! Secondly, and more importantly, no reference are given to justify their interpretation of the Bible. The website presumptuously says, "The Bible says:..." Where does the Bible say that? It's funny that the word "Trinity" appears in the "Bible says" section (page about Jesus Christ). I know it doesn't say that. What they mean is, "I think the Bible teaches:..." Also, on the page about Man they say the Bible doesn't say anything in any form about existence (as a spirit) before our birth on Earth. Jeremiah 1:5 says: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. I think this indicates that Jeremiah was ordained as a spirit before his birth on this earth to become a prophet. You might decide that this really means that God simply knew before Jeremiah was born that he would ordain Jeremiah as prophet after he was born. But it's certainly unfair to interpret the Bible how they want and then use that to make claims about my beliefs being in opposition to that interpretation.

I am sad to see them try to misuse the quote by Parley P. Pratt on the second page (about Jesus Christ). Anyone who has read his writings knows that he had a deep understanding of Jesus Christ as the Savior. He certainly didn't believe that there is nothing in Jesus' life more than what is attainable by anyone else, as they falsely read into it. His quote simply states the opinion that all of us can show a bit of divinity in the way we live our lives when we choose to follow Christ. The way they use this statement is very deceptive. When he talks about the humanity of Jesus being ordinary, and that whatever happened to Him can happen to any of us, he is trying to make the point that Jesus came to this Earth and experienced a life like we all experience (in addition to much more).


I have a question that I really want an answer to. I've been asking several people, including those of other faiths, and I haven't found anything interesting yet. Here it is: Most Christians seem to be willing to make the following two claims:

1. All of their beliefs come strictly from the Bible.
2. There is no other word of God (scripture) other than the Bible.

Now, the way I see it, it is perfectly reasonable to make the first statement. After all, it is simply a statement about ones beliefs. It could be true. However, notice that the second statement is itself a very fundamental and important belief. If the first statement is true, then the belief that is explained in the second statement should also come from the Bible. Let me emphasize, not from a pastor, not from tradition, not even from personal revelation through the Holy Ghost. Because that's exactly what is said in the first statement, that all the person's beliefs come strictly from the Bible.

So if you agree with my reasoning above then the only way these two claims could both be true is if the Bible teaches that it is the only words of God. So where does it teach that? That's my question.

I'm serious about this. I'm looking for scriptures that are very specific about teaching that Bible is finished. Sure, I've read it several time, but I can't remember every verse, so I'm asking you to show me some verses that teach this. Since the word "Bible" isn't used in the Bible, it should be a verse that explains that revelation, or the word of God, or something, will cease to exist or cease to be necessary after the time the original apostles + 2 die. It's not good enough for example simply to find that the Bible teaches that the word of God is all we need because that doesn't tell us what we should consider to be the word of God.

Maybe we can go back and forth on this a little. I really do want to know any scriptures you might know of that help support your belief. If you bring up the well-known scripture in Revelation 22:18 then I'll have more to say about it. In fact, I'll tell you right now. Read Revelation chapter one carefully (particularly verse 11) and then see what you think about that.

Thanks Darin. I always enjoy discussing this with you.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul,

Thanks, hope you guys had a happy Easter as well. Our church service was held at the Rose Garden (first time ever), and many people were baptized so I am really happy about that.

This is easy to answer for me, and sorry if it isn’t interesting, but I believe your reasoning is actually hyper-analyzing it. No one can say that all their beliefs come from the Bible. I can say that all our doctrine beliefs come from the Bible, but if I use my cell phone or fly on a plane, etc…that is not mentioned in the Bible.

That’s all I have time for…full time school, two kids, wife, etc…!

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Replace what I said with "doctrine beliefs." Statement 2 should qualify as such. I still would like an answer when you have time.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh so it has been changed…there’s an element of faith needed, because the Bible doesn’t talk about certain things, BUT, Jesus did say “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

There is no way that God left mankind with no way of salvation for 2000 years after Jesus was on the earth (before that there were sacrifices), if you believe God is a just God.

Something I would add about the 2nd statement is that first, there is no other Word of God like the 66 books of our Canon, and 2nd, especially not if it disagrees with it. The Bible is the basis of truth, I think you would agree with that. If something contradicts the Bible, it is not truth.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry, I'm not understanding everything you wrote there. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of something with you. I'm not trying to interrogate you, so I hope it doesn't feel that way to you.

Let's start from scratch. Do you claim the following two things?
1. All of your religious beliefs come strictly from the Bible.

2. There is no other word of God (scripture) other than the Bible.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[One year later]


Paul,

I don’t remember what this was from exactly, but I had put together a reply in a word document to send you about the Bible. It is broken into two parts. Here it is below.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for taking the time to write this. I will forward the conversation that I think this stemmed from. Also, I'll insert some comments between your paragraphs.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Revelation 1:11 – that really has nothing to do with the conversation – except perhaps in the sense of Revelation 22:18 – For I personally believe that this is the book, the book of Revelation, that John was specifically writing of here in this statement – but we do not know for sure, and that is key. Although, many good Biblical scholars say that since this is the last accepted cannon of Scripture that it does have application to the rest of the Bible... So we can do with that as a bit of wisdom...

In the KJV, Revelations 1:11 uses the word "book" in the translation. John is commanded to write a book and send . My point was that that was the same book he said not to add to at the end. It sounds like we already agree on this though. I'm not sure what you mean by Revelations being the last accepted cannon. Maybe you can explain. In what sense is it last?

As for the premise of what you're saying, it is good and yet can become felonious as well... The word Bible does appear in the Bible – when you read "book" in our English, it is actually "biblia" or "biblios" in the Greek – which is Bible... This simply means book or books...

Good point.

We do not find many, many other terms throughout the Bible that we use today either... Trinity is one for example... Or Theology.... Yet, both of these terms are exemplified through the entire Scriptures... So we have used terms that help us as humans better understand the Word of God.

Now, I will also say that not every Christian is or believes what you say here – "Solo Scriptora" or Scripture Alone... As a matter of fact, Paul spoke a couple of times about following certain "traditions" that he had given... The point is that traditions in and of them selves may or may not be biblical – but they can still be okay according to Paul – but they can not be placed on the same plane as the Bible...

Paul made this very clear in 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." NKJV Not traditions or other writings – Scripture alone.

So here, we first come to that point where, Scripture is to be above all else... period. Paul says it, and that is good enough for me.

Then this brings us to the next point – what constitutes Scripture...? This is a more in-depth question... But simply put, it is God's breathed Word to mankind.

We believe, as Christians, that this canon of Scripture stopped with the Book of Revelation. We accept the Old Testament as the Jewish people do. The New Testament we believe was written by those who were there with Jesus, including interviews with these people, as in the case of Luke and Acts... When these people died, there have been no additions made - for almost two thousand years...

This is the question I'm asking. Why do you believe this (that scripture stopped with Revelation)? The Bible doesn't teach this, therefore it's not taught by anyone with authority, by your own claim that everything else is the teachings of man. And the Bible canon constitutes a fuzzy line anyway. Not all of the NT authors knew Jesus during His life (Paul in particular). And the OT is full of prophecies from people who didn't know Jesus in mortality, so why should we assume that after those who were from Christ's era died scripture must have stopped. I think your last statement says what's really going on here. For two thousand years the canon of scripture was largely unchallenged, so it's become traditionally accepted that it is finished.

Now, all of the books currently in the New Testament – they all line up with each other and with the Old Testament – this is one of the main reasons they are believed to be Scripture – and not the writings of man...

There has been nothing – and I say this again, nothing – that has been written since that claims to be "the word of God" that lines up with the Scripture – sixty six books, written by some 40 authors all lining up with each other – awesome!

Now, others have written things they say are from God – yet, when we hold them up to the other sixty six books, they don't line up – thus, we do not accept them...

The Bible is consistent and marvelous. But your statement is unfair because you have years and years of reasoning and tradition at your disposal to try to explain how they are consistent. I'm sure it wasn't so simple during the canonization process to decide which writing were consistent and which weren't. Each portion of the Bible is important because it brings new perspective, examples, and occasionally doctrine to the whole. My experience with the Book of Mormon is the same way. It's all in harmony with the message of the Bible, even when it introduces things that are not specified in the Bible.

It also doesn't make sense to say that nothing else has ever matched up with the Bible. How about this: "Jesus is the only way to salvation." Can't I say that that lines up with the Bible. I'm not just trying to be difficult. I'm being honest here. Why do you feel like you can make such a broad claim, especially since it's not a simple thing to decide what's consistent with the Bible and what's not? Most converts to our church are students of the Bible and cherish it during and after their conversion. They don't feel like they are rejecting it when they learn the things we teach.

And example of this is the Book of Mormon – it claims that we can all become gods of our own worlds (and many other teaching that go directly against the Scripture that we do have) – yet the Bible clearly states that there is only One God – period – and we are not Him... Over and over again....

The Book of Mormon doesn't teach this. I encourage you to read it again. Most of the Book of Mormon is examples of people living by faith and receiving blessings from God, and sermons of familiar Bible principles like faith and charity. Of the few things that the Book of Mormon teaches that you might consider new from the Bible, the significant ones that come to mind are:
- many people before Christ, even old testament prophets, knew more about Christ than the OT implies
- Jesus manifested himself to other people throughout the world
- baptism is an important commandment
- children are not accountable and should not be baptized until they are at least eight years old
- the new world (Americas) will be instrumental in the spread of the gospel before the last days.

Not to avoid the issue, it is true that I believe that God's plan for us it to become like God and have spirit children as He does. How does this reconcile with the Bible? First of all, Jesus is God and the Father is God. The Bible teaches that there is one God yet directly identifies two. My impression: We have one God to worship and pray to, our Father. I think that is what the God is trying to teach us when the Bible states that there are no other Gods.

No matter who or what it is that teaches anything – everything must be held up to the Scriptures we have – 2 Tim 3:16-17...

Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 makes it clear that what Paul wrote is Scripture – so we know that this Scripture here in 2 Timothy is true as well:

2 Peter 3:15-16

"15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." ESV

So, traditions, what a pastor teaches, what you and I say or write – are all to be held up to for testing to what we do know for sure is the truth – and if it lines up, great – if it does not, then we reject it...

A good in-depth book on this entire matter is "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Normal Geisler.... He goes way in-depth on this.

Our principle beliefs on right and wrong or just general morality come form the Bible.(and of course "bible" isn't used in the Bible. its just what we call all the things contained therein as a whole). we make our beliefs on things not mentioned in the Bible based on the wisdom of moral judgement we gain from the Bible. that's how the gift of discernment is used. Hebrews 5:14 says, "But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." this gift plays a heavy role in the question about the second statement. Galations 1:8-10 says, " 8But even though we or as angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so I say again now, If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you recieved, let him be accurrsed. 10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ." I wouldn't give this passage to stand on its own in this argument but would connect it to the scripture already mentioned in Hebrews. We as Christians judge and discern all things by the Bible and the "Bible" as we know it is shown to be complete by the fact that nothing else ever written is A) written by those who are qualified by God to write scripture(apostles). and B) matches up with the already exsiting scrtpture which all Christians(even Mormons) acknowlege to be God inspired. Why would add things to Bible that contradict the Bible? In Matthew 23:35, "That upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Able to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar". Jesus qualifies the begining and end of the Old Testament.(this is of course in chronological order, not the order they are placed in the Bible) which doesn't leave room for anything else as far as the Old Testament is concerned.

In his last statement he tries to seal the Old Testament. How presumptuous. You can't just give one interesting piece of insight and then claim that that seals the deal. I think that's outrageous that he would say that that "doesn't leave room for anything else as far as the Old Testament is concerned." The fact that Jesus referenced the OT in the Biblical order rather than chronological order makes me think he was making use of a something familiar to the people, the scriptures, in order to teach. He often did this. I can give you another great example involving the famous teachings of a Rabbi named Hillel if you remind me. So it's way out of place to make such claims that this means the OT contains everything important and righteous from the prophets, even though it is an interesting observation.

A Converts Story (Nov. 2007)

This blog (link below) records the experience of a convert-to-be in our ward. His wife is a member of the church. I had only seen him a few times and never talked to him until very recently. I think you'll really find it interesting. If the first entry is interesting, please continue to read on. His newer entries can all be found listed on the left-hand side:

http://gnp30.blogspot.com/2007/11/january-19-2008.html

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting story. As you know, what I do not believe is:

2a) Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith?
2b) Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God?

I do find it interesting that Mormons use CS Lewis as a source sometimes. He was very intelligent, but also, wasn't LDS. As I recall, he was Pentecostal, right?

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


I just looked C. S. Lewis up on Wikipedia. It says he joined the Church of England. I couldn't find anything else after that about his denomination (but I only skimmed, and I couldn't find Pentecostal on the page when I searched for it). It also said that he is quoted by a variety of denominations including Roman Catholic and Mormon. I thought that was interesting that they make note of what you noticed, that we quote C. S. Lewis a lot.

We're generally willing to accept good ideas from sources outside the church. Of course people are weak and imperfect, so it does happen that church members look down on religious things from outside the church because they think "if it is really what God wants it would have come from within the church." This is a misunderstanding. The apostles suffered the same misunderstanding when they thought they should stop someone from preaching and healing in the name of Christ Jesus, and the Lord corrected them and said there is not reason to fight against him. I'm sorry, I can't find the reference in the New Testament and I can't exactly remember the story (but I remember reading it).

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Logically Paul, to me, any church (or business for that matter) is going to use (quote, etc...) someone else who is widely accepted as a respected leader or great thinker. Businesses do it with John Maxwell because he's been a successful leader. Your church probably uses CS Lewis because most Christians accept him and his ideas, ESPECIALLY Mere Christianity. I don't know any fellow Christian who doesn't love that book. Of course, it would be really bold of your church to stop paralleling themselves with mainstream Christianity, and instead of giving away KJV Bibles on TV, give away the doctrinal books the best describe your core belief system, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


You must know that the book we give away the most is the Book of Mormon. That's the book the missionaries carry around extra copies of for example. I think it's important to let the world know that we don't disregard the Bible and we study it quite diligently.

Aside from many goals of ours that are unique among Christian, we still do have some common goals and beliefs. You'll notice that the second baptismal interview question mentioned by my friend the blogger was whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior of the World. His feeling at the time of writing was that he wasn't sure. This is essential for baptism and more importantly for salvation. We can agree on that. And the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price are priceless tools for that goal.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul, seriously, I understand what you are saying, but please don't try to ignore that on television, your church is giving away Bibles because they are widely accepted. A worldwide poll on what book is more accepted, I'm sure you would agree with me, would show that it is the Bible. Giving away more Book or Mormons has nothing to do with the fact that what is advertised on TV are Bibles. That is a separate thing altogether. Really, it's marketing. Can you agree with me on that? It would be like the Bible being some great toothpaste that everyone knows of and is really accepted, and the Book of Mormon being a toothbrush. Rather than your toothbrush company marketing the toothbrushes which you produce, you are marketing the toothpaste.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Darin, God produced both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. He can use them both however is most productive to bring souls into His Kingdom. The tooth paste analogy is terrible because it suggests what we obviously don't believe, which is that we are producing some supplementary material of questionable value. We aren't producing anything. We just try to accept what God gives us and use it according to His direction. The Book of Mormon is actually very efficient in bringing people to Christ, but isn't necessarily very well introduced in a 30-second TV ad.

I don't see many advertisements from my church, partly because we haven't had a TV until recently, so I'll have to take your word that the church is advertising free Bibles more than anything else. I think this is a pretty recent thing, and I know that they also tend to advertise other family values related things. I can agree on the marketing part. Most random people that see a TV ad have no idea what the Book of Mormon is but do know what the Bible is. It's a way of quickly finding God-minded people.

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Sounds like rationalizing it to me. It's called a bait and switch. It's what they do at a Used Car Dealership. It's like advertising a popular, yet inexpensive, red sports car with low miles, and after you get there they tell you the sports car is already sold and they try and convince you to buy a run down Hyndai that costs more instead. Of course the sports car never even existed. Is that a better analogy for you?

BTW: technically this is an illegal business practice.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


No, I don't think you're using very good analogies. I can hardly find any similarity at all. The bait (the Bible) actually does exist and is given for free. And no switch is ever made. The goal is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as we understand it).

Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


In this case it is a matter of perspective, in deciding if these are 'good' analogies or not. To us Pentecostal Christians, your church strays from the one and only true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and adds in doctrines no Christian would agree with at all. That's like saying, well our goal as Jehovah's Witnesses is to spread the Gospel. Sorry, there is no room for compromise, and your three books contradict what the 66 books of the Bible teach. I know you know I believe that. I don't want to go in circles, but it amazes me that even you are rationalizing why your church is giving away Bibles rather than your three books which ARE your core belief system...hence your baptisms for the dead, temple marriages, modern day prophets, etc...all of which are spoken of in your books and not the widely accepted Bible. In any Christian Supply bookstore, Pilgrim Books, Cafe Dvine, etc...the only doctrine of Mormonism is in the 'other religions' or 'cult' sections.

Darin

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Main stream Christianity doesn't define the truth.

Paul

"Saved" (Nov. 2006)

Darin,

On Halloween some Born-again Christians left booklets on people's patios on campus. They had comics in them. One of them told a story of a kid learning the scary fact that he will be responsible for everything bad that he has ever done, and he will be punished and suffer for it. Then they are told that the best part is that there is a way out; Jesus suffered for us so that we don't have to. Then they said, "just say this prayer with us so that you can be saved," followed by the words of the prayer that they want you to say.

What do you think of that? I only disagree with the italicized part. I think this is a naive understanding of the gospel and is more destructive than good. Being saved is a matter of following and accepting Christ, not a matter of lip-service.

See ya,
Paul

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Paul,

I don’t agree w/those people who left those flyers, either. You can’t string people along and water it down. In fact, here’s a good article (in my opinion):

Darin


To be saved, in Biblical terminology, means to be saved from sin and death and hell, and to be saved unto righteousness and heaven and everlasting life. Salvation has past, present, and future aspects: we are saved from the penalty of past sin though Christ’s atoning death on the cross, from the power of sin through the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives right now, and ultimately from the very presence of sin in Heaven.

This question was asked by the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30, and was forthrightly and simply answered by the Apostle Paul when he said: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." (Acts 16:31) Jesus himself said: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

Thus, personal faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the victorious Savior from sin and death is the means by which salvation is received. The substitutionary death of Christ for our sins is the basis on which God is justified in saving us through faith, and this is demonstrated and guaranteed in the victorious bodily resurrection of Christ from the grave.

But the natural man is proud and tends to resist the idea that there is nothing he can do to save himself and that he must trust in Christ to do it all. Accordingly, he has invented many substitutes for this simple way of salvation, and these substitutes have led multitudes down the road to eternal destruction. Biblical refutations of some of these false ideas are outlined below:

* One cannot be saved simply by believing and sincerely practicing any religion he chooses. “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
* We are not saved by keeping God’s laws, for no one can keep them perfectly. 10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Galatians 3:10) As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one (Romans 3:10)
* No one can be saved by doing good works. “he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5)
* Baptism is not the means of salvation. Paul said: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1st Cor. 1:17). The gospel, by definition, is the "good news" of Christ's atoning death and resurrection, and it is by believing the gospel, not by baptism, that men are saved. (1 Cor. 15:1-4) The thief on the cross was saved, but never baptized (Luke 23: 42,43)
* We are not saved by joining a church. There are multitudes of unsaved church members. To the members of the church in Laodicea, for example, Christ said: “16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16)

There are numerous other false ideas about salvation that are prevalent, but all of them, like the above, consist in man’s doing something which he feels will help earn his salvation. Thus, they all contribute to the upbuilding of human pride and the downgrading of God’s marvelous gift in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible says: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Darin,

I found that article very appropriate. Thanks.

Of the entire article, the only part I wish to comment on is the part about baptism (fourth thing in the list). The reference given (1st Cor. 1:17) is interesting, and I should study it further. I do recall that the original apostles were sent forth to baptise, however, so I feel like that places some important significance on it. The things listed, sincerity, obedience to God, good works, baptism, and joining God's church, do not in fact save us, but they might be required of us anyway. Salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and it is always grace that we don't in fact deserve that saves us. Yet I think God has given requirements for us to follow as well. My personal feeling is that God is training us and teaching us through the things He requires us to do in this life, and some of those things are very related to obedience and doing things we don't quite understand.

I also would like to have you consider that being "saved" may not be so binary. In other words, when this life is over, whether or not a person is saved might not be the only important thing about what went on in this life (although is certainly is the most important). It might also be important to know what state our heart is in and what we have learned (particularly pertaining to God and eternal things). It seems like God uses this life to train us for eternity. I know that you might be saying, "It doesn't matter what we learn now because we'll learn so much more in an instant when we get to Heaven." Although that's true, I can't help but think there's an important purpose for all the learning and struggling we go through now. Maybe just the act of learning and exercising patience and diligence will benefit us in the life to come.

Paul