There is an amusing scene in the 1990 film Back to the Future III in which time-traveler Marty McFly, exploring his home town in the year 2015, encounters a holographic projection of a shark as part of the marquee at a theater showing Jaws 19. At first taken by surprise, Marty recovers and comments, “The shark still looks fake.”
I must confess that I have a similar reaction to the latest “sequel” in the long-running debate over whether Mormons are or can be Christians, prompted this time around by the conservative TV talk-show host Glenn Beck. Do we really need to discuss this question again? Apparently we do, given the lack of clarity that continues to characterize much of what is said on the subject.
The Christian blogosphere recently lit up following the comments of World Magazine online columnist Andrée Seu in which she spoke of Beck not just as a Christian, but as “a new creation in Christ” who is “red hot” toward God. “I can say without hesitation that I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.” Seu acknowledged that Beck is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and admitted that Mormon doctrine is problematic, but described Beck as a latter-day Apollos who needs a Priscilla and Aquila to help him with his theology.
Never Mind!
Evangelical bloggers were quick to contradict Seu. Justin Taylor, one of the most insightful Christians blogging today, commented on “Andrée Seu’s Tragic Mistake on the Gospel of Glenn Beck.” Taylor warned: “It is easy to be moved by talk of having faith in Jesus, without asking who the person understands Jesus to be…. Despite what mainline evangelicalism has taught for years, the gospel is not ‘I trusted in Jesus and he changed my life.’” Russell Moore, an astute Southern Baptist theologian, argued that evangelical enthusiasm for Beck’s religious rhetoric is a sign that American evangelicals have largely traded the gospel for American civil religion:
“It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined ‘revival’ and ‘turning America back to God’ that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.”
World Magazine acknowledged Taylor’s blog and offered a retraction, stating, “Our website editing system failed in regard to Andrée’s post about Glenn Beck.” In a separate article, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky, echoed Moore’s assessment: “Beck is syncretizing Mormon and Christian understanding in the service of a civil religion, but that’s a radically unequal yoking for reasons WORLD has pointed out before.”
One thing that seems to have been overlooked up to now is that Taylor and Moore offer two fundamentally different—and possibly incompatible—diagnoses of the problem. Both argue that evangelical enthusiasm for Beck reveals a lack of discernment and a shallow understanding of the gospel among American evangelicals. Taylor worries that Beck’s evangelical supporters are under the mistaken impression that anyone who claims that Jesus changed his life has accepted the gospel. Moore contends that those same evangelicals have mistaken American civil religion for the gospel. So which is it? Does Beck represent a personal-transformation gospel focused on Jesus as life-changer or a civil-religion gospel focused on a generic theism as the foundation for a stable society? I suppose it is possible to mix the two messages, and perhaps there are elements of both in Beck, but they don’t mesh naturally.
Mormon doctrine in two minutes
The main objection to viewing Beck as an advocate for the gospel is that the theology of the LDS Church, of which Beck is a member, is radically incompatible with the biblical gospel. The divide between biblical teaching and Mormon doctrine is so wide that from an evangelical perspective Mormonism falls outside the circle of acceptable, authentic expressions of the Christian faith. The crucial problems with LDS doctrine that impinge directly on one’s view of Jesus Christ and the gospel include the following unbiblical claims:
- All human beings preexisted in heaven, where they were the offspring of heavenly parents (God the Father and a “heavenly mother”), before their natural conception here on earth.
- Our Heavenly Father was a man who became a God—proving that we, too, can become gods.
- Jesus Christ is the “firstborn” of God’s billions of spirit children and the first of those children to become a God.
- As such, Christ is one of three Gods in the “Godhead,” as is the Holy Spirit, another of God’s spirit sons.
- Christ is the “Only Begotten,” which means that he is the only human being whom God the Father literally begat in the flesh. God is Jesus’ literal father in the flesh (allowing Jesus to “inherit” some divine powers other humans do not have) and Mary is his literal mother.
- Christ’s atonement guarantees immortal life in some heavenly kingdom to virtually all human beings, including those who willfully reject Christ.
- Christ (and God the Father) appeared to Joseph Smith to tell him to join none of the churches because all of them were wrong and their creeds were an abomination.
- Through Joseph Smith, God restored lost scriptures (e.g., the Book of Mormon) and inspired new ones (Doctrine & Covenants), from which Mormons learn the doctrines that set them apart from the rest of Christianity.
- Christ organized the only true Church in these latter days with a hierarchical system of “priesthood authority” required to teach or baptize others.
- Full forgiveness of sins and entrance into the highest heavenly kingdom, where God and Christ live, come to those who become members of the LDS Church, follow its teachings, and participate in its temple rituals, notably baptisms and other rites performed on behalf of the dead.
- The ultimate goal of the gospel and of LDS religion is to become gods, with the same powers and potential as the Heavenly Father.
You can find full documentation and discussion of these doctrinal problems in the LDS faith on the website of the Institute for Religious Research (IRR), where I am the director of research. In particular, we provide a thorough analysis of the doctrine taught in the LDS Church’s basic manual on doctrine, called Gospel Principles. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming that the LDS understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ is radically different from that of the Bible.
“Mormons are not Christians”: Do they hear what we hear?
As I have already observed, these differences deal with such basic elements of Christianity that from an evangelical perspective we must conclude that Mormonism falls outside the boundaries of doctrinally authentic, theologically viable Christian faith. The usual shorthand way of making this point is to say that Mormons are not Christians. Unfortunately, what such a statement achieves in simplicity and rhetorical punch it loses in clarity and comprehension. What people hear when they are told that Mormons are not Christians may be any of the following:
1. “Mormons are not nice people.”
2. “Mormons are really part of another religion altogether, such as Hinduism.”
3. “Mormons are another entirely different religion by themselves.”
4. “Mormons are not saved from eternal condemnation.”
All four of these meanings are problematic.
(1) Many Mormons are very nice people indeed, so this statement is also objectively false, even assuming that it is ever appropriate to use the term Christian to mean a nice person.
(2) It is objectively false to classify Mormonism as part of another world religion, such as Hinduism. Regrettably, some Christians have actually tried to make the case that Mormonism is Hindu. Dave Hunt and Ed Decker, in their notorious book The God Makers (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984), argued as much:
“Although it uses Christian language to disguise its paganism, Mormonism is less Christian than it is Hindu. The basic dilemma faced by every Mormon is a direct result of its Hindu roots” (60).
The claim that Mormonism has “Hindu roots” is historically false. Mormonism historically arose as a Christian heresy—a religious offshoot of Christianity that still retains a focus on Christ as its central religious figure, albeit reinterpreted in a thoroughly unbiblical way. The LDS religion has no historical or religious connection to Hinduism and rejects basic Hindu concepts (e.g., Mormonism rejects the worship of idols, pantheism, reincarnation, and karma). There are similarities between Hinduism and Mormonism (as there are between any two religions), such as a belief in a plurality of gods, but such comparisons are superficial because the similar-sounding affirmations have completely different meanings in the contexts of the two religious traditions.
(3) Others have argued that Mormonism is sui generis, that is, in a class by itself, sufficiently distinct from Christianity to be classified as a new world religion. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, suggests that instead of viewing Mormonism as a “Christian faith” we should classify it charitably as “the fourth Abrahamic faith.” That is, Land proposes that we view Mormonism as a religion stemming from the Abrahamic tradition alongside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This way of classifying Mormonism simply will not hold up. There is no more reason to classify Mormonism as a new Abrahamic faith than there is to so classify the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian heresy as large or larger and as diffused throughout the world as Mormonism. Indeed, there are numerous sects of Christianity that distance themselves theologically and religiously from orthodox Christianity while insisting that theirs is the true Christian church; Mormonism is simply one among many such sects. Historical, religious, and theological comparisons demonstrate that the Mormon tradition (including both the LDS Church and its hundred-plus splinter sects) belong in the broader category of “restorationist” Christian movements that view themselves as the instrument of true Christianity today. These include Adventism and its offshoots, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphianism and other forms of so-called Biblical Unitarianism, Oneness Pentecostalism, the Sacred Name groups, The Way International and its offshoots, and the LDS Church and its offshoots, among others.
(4) It may well be argued that LDS doctrine and religion are so far removed from the biblical gospel that most Mormons will not believe the true gospel as long as they remain committed to LDS doctrine. However, this leaves plenty of room for a small fraction of LDS Church members to believe the biblical gospel in defiance or ignorance of their religion’s teachings. In any religion, there are always people who still consider themselves members but who are rethinking their beliefs or who are transitioning out of the religion. Many evangelicals who have come out of the LDS Church found saving faith in Christ before they removed themselves from the LDS membership rolls. Indeed, some retain their LDS membership, hoping eventually to bring their families and friends out with them. One could argue that such individuals are Mormons in name only, but again, there are people along a spectrum of situations from true-blue Mormons through pick-and-choose Mormons to Mormons in name only. The point is that unqualified generalizations about all Mormons are difficult to justify. And of course, we are not competent to judge the souls of other people, although we can make educated guesses as to their faith based on what we can observe.
A more nuanced statement of point (4) would be to say that we should presume that Mormons who accept and follow the LDS understanding of the gospel will be lost unless they repent and accept the biblical gospel (Eph. 2:1-10; Titus 3:4-7). Putting the matter this way recognizes the spiritually destructive effects of the false teachings of the LDS Church, while allowing for the fact that sometimes it is difficult to tell whether or to what extent a particular Mormon actually accepts (or understands) LDS doctrine. If this is the position that evangelicals should take—and I think it is—it becomes problematic to make the generalized, unqualified statement that Mormons are not Christians. That is, it is unlikely that anyone hearing “Mormons are not Christians” will understand this to carry the nuanced meaning “Mormons who follow the LDS understanding of the gospel are presumed lost.” If we want people to hear what we really mean, we must try to articulate our view more accurately, even if it loses some punch.
One might suppose that the problem can be avoided by saying that Mormonism is not Christian—that is, by punting on the question of whether Mormons are Christians and instead asserting only that the religion of Mormonism is itself not Christian. This may be something of an improvement, but the same sorts of problems remain. If Mormonism is not Christian, what is it? It is not part of another religion, nor is it a completely different religion.
Of course, from an evangelical theological perspective it can be even more misleading to say, without qualification, that Mormons are Christians, or that Mormonism is Christian. Such statements would seem erroneously to concede that the LDS Church is a legitimate denomination of Christianity, standing alongside those denominations and independent church bodies that affirm the essentials of the biblical gospel. I’m all for stating matters as generously as we can, but not at the expense of the truth of the gospel.
Considerations such as those just discussed are the reason why, for several years now, I have argued that we should view the question “Are Mormons Christians?” as unproductive at best and misleading at worst. The question assumes that we should give it an unqualified “Yes” or “No” answer, neither of which is fully satisfactory. About three years ago on this very blog I addressed this question at some length, arguing that the answer depends on how one defines the term Christian. (That blog post was lost due to technical issues, so I re-posted it about two years ago with some revisions at IRR’s blog, The Religious Researcher.) If by “Christians” one means all members of all of the religious groups that belong to the world-religions classification of Christianity, then of course in that generic sense Mormons are Christians, along with everyone else who claims to be. If one uses the term to denote persons who have been saved from eternal condemnation through their faith in Jesus Christ, then the best answer we can give is that most Mormons evidently are not Christians in that sense although some may be. Evangelicals would also have to hedge their answer if they were asked “Are Southern Baptists Christians?” or even “Are evangelicals Christians?” since not all Southern Baptists or evangelicals have genuinely come to saving faith in Christ. After all, basic to evangelical doctrine is the conviction that merely accepting evangelical doctrine, or associating oneself with an evangelical denomination, will not save anyone, since it is through personal faith or trust in Christ, not merely doctrinal correctness or the right religious affiliation, that God saves us.
To avoid overreaching, I have proposed that we make qualified statements that are defensible as objective statements of fact concerning the LDS faith. For example, we can state that Mormons are not orthodox Christians, or that LDS theology is heretical. Mormons will, of course, dispute our understanding of what is orthodox and what is heretical, but we can define these terms to convey an objective meaning. For example, we can stipulate that orthodox means in agreement with the major Christian doctrines articulated in the creeds from the first through the fifth centuries, while heretical means deviating from those doctrinal standards. We should, in short, make clear that while we acknowledge that Mormons sincerely regard themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ, we are convinced that the LDS religious tradition is at odds with the essentials of the Christian faith as taught in the Bible.
Back to Beck
The need for a more flexible and nuanced approach to the subject of whether Mormons are Christians is well illustrated with the example of Glenn Beck. Let me state categorically that I have absolutely no inkling or opinion as to the state of Beck’s soul or the genuineness of his faith in Christ. I have never met him, do not follow his program, and do not have enough information on which to base a conclusion. The fact that Beck is LDS is, of course, of great concern and creates a general presumption that he is in need of the biblical gospel of salvation. On the other hand, there does seem to be some evidence that Beck’s personal understanding of the gospel is at least far closer to the evangelical message than one would expect of a typical Mormon. Consider, for example, the assessment of Beck’s soteriology (doctrine of salvation) offered just a few weeks ago by Bill McKeever. McKeever is the director of Mormonism Research Ministry, an evangelical parachurch organization based in the Salt Lake City area, right in the heart of the Mormon culture. McKeever and his associates at MRM are far from “soft” on Mormonism. They regard it as a heretical distortion of Christianity, and they actively seek to help Christians share the true gospel with Mormons. McKeever recently wrote an article for his website on “The Not-So Mormon Soteriology of Glenn Beck” in which he quoted the following remarks made by Beck on his television program on July 13, 2010:
“You cannot earn your way into heaven. You can’t! There is no deed, no random act of kindness, no amount of money to spread around to others that earns you a trip to heaven. It can’t happen. It’s earned by God’s grace alone, by believing that Jesus died on the cross for you. This is what Christians believe…. I also am wise enough to know that people will say, yeah, but Glenn Beck is a Mormon, he’s not even a real Christian. You can believe what you want. I will tell you that I am a man who needed the atonement more than most people do. I appreciate the atonement. I accept Jesus as my Savior. I know that I am alive today because I did give all of it to Him because I couldn’t carry it anymore.”
McKeever, who wonders aloud if Beck’s “close relationships with several evangelical Christians are not having a positive effect,” concludes that “it seems apparent that Beck does not agree with traditional Mormon soteriology…. Whether or not he knows he is out of harmony with his church, I cannot say, but if I understand the above correctly, he most certainly is.” McKeever admits that Beck might mean something different from what his words mean to evangelicals, but he finds no reason to suspect that Beck is anything but sincere and straightforward.
The point, again, is not to argue that Beck is or is not a Christian in the sense of someone genuinely redeemed from sin through authentic faith in Jesus Christ. He may be, we may and should hope that he is or will be, and those of us who have opportunity to engage him or other Mormons like him should caringly present the biblical gospel without compromise. The point, rather, is that in the real world people’s beliefs and affiliations are not always consistent or cut-and-dried. Most people’s thinking reflects a mix of religious, philosophical, and cultural beliefs, values, and assumptions. Making blanket statements about whether the members of a particular group are or are not Christians mistakenly assumes a uniformity of belief within the group that in most cases is simply not there. Avoiding such statements will enhance our credibility with those whom we are seeking to reach with biblical truth. It will help to foster mutual respect and constructive dialogue with those who need to know what true Christianity really means.
238 replies to "ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS 19: Glenn Beck and that Question Again"
Only after they have been thrust down to hell and suffer for their sins.
Mormons believe that people will suffer proportionately for their unrepented sins. They just don’t believe that this suffering will last for eternity. It could be up to 1000 years of suffering. Which in my view is probably more than enough for most bad things people do in this life.
Mike,
Keep in mind that my “bullet-point” summary was just that, a summary. Had I wanted to argue the point, I would have written a very different post.
I’m curious to know if you think one could ever assert that a particular belief system that professes to be Christian was “unbiblical.” Can you give me an example of such a belief system, if you don’t think Mormonism qualifies? What exactly would it take? Or is it your view that any professing Christian belief system is just as biblical as any other?
Let’s consider a hypothetical situation. Religious Group A regards the Bible as a totally reliable and sufficient guide to Christian doctrine; they attempt to base their doctrine on the Bible alone. Religious Group B regards the Bible as textually and/or canonically corrupted in some ways (perhaps omissions, perhaps even alterations). It accepts several other collections of writings as scripture, views them in general as less troubled by alleged corruption, and regards theology as a fluid process subject to the pronouncements of its living prophets. Which of these two groups, hypothetically speaking, is more likely to adhere more closely to a theology consistent with the Bible?
Jared C,
You are correct in stating that people will have to suffer before making it into the telestial kingdom. The fact remains, they get immortal life in a glorious heavenly kingdom after rejecting Christ–TWICE! That puts into quite a different perspective the LDS Church’s claim to teach that people need to believe in Christ for salvation. It turns out that is true only if “salvation” is redefined to mean exaltation to godhood.
A clarification is in order here. Mormons don’t believe that people who never accept Christ will get into any sort of heaven. We simply accept the following Biblical premises: 1. Christ is Lord of both the living and the dead (Romans 14:9), 2. Every knee shall bow to the Lord and every tongue confess to God (Romans 14:11), 3. “Let us not therefore judge one another anymore” (Romans 14:13), 4. Salvation has also been offered to the dead who once disbelieved (1 Peter 3:19-20; 4:5-6), 5. In heaven there are many mansions, and a place is prepared for each who enter there (John 14:2), 6. There’s such a thing as a better resurrection (Heb. 11:35), 7. There are at least three heavens (2 Cor. 12:2).
The main point of LDS doctrine is that no one enters into God’s presence until they fully accept Jesus Christ, but that there must be a place prepared for those who have yet to accept him, but who will accept him when either finally given the chance, or after finally recognizing the need. We also recognize that there may be degrees of acceptance. There are those who believe enough to accept his grace, and those who believe enough to not only accept him, but also to follow his commandments.
But according to the Book of Mormon, even the act of following Christ’s commandments–doing the works he has commanded us to do (for example, going into the world and declaring his name)–is enabled by grace. The Book of Mormon teaches that we neither breathe, nor believe, choose, nor act without being enabled to do so by Christ’s atonement (grace). But refusing to work when not only commanded but enabled to do so is a rejection of grace just as is refusing to choose, or refusing to believe. It represents a lesser degree of acceptance, belief, or faith.
The inhabitants of the telestial kingdom reject Christ in this life AND in the next life, but they still get immortality in a glorious heavenly realm!
On this point again, I think your view of LDS afterlife is a bit limited or simplistic. “reject Christ” here is not an accurate term. LDS believe that every knee shall bow and “every toungue will confess that Jesus is the Christ” including all those who are “thrust down to hell.” Just as when the sun is out, nobody denies that it exists, LDS believe that after the second coming, or at least at judgment, nobody will reject Christ, however some may not receive all he has to offer them.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/70#70
If you want to be accurate in an understanding of LDS view of hell and the afterlife, this is a must read.
Those who inherit the telestial kingdom (the lowest kingdom of heaven) are :”they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.”
They will “suffer the wrath of God” and they will be as”innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore.”
Specifically they will
1. Suffer for their sins in hell.
2. Accept the salvation of Jesus.
3. Then receive a degree of glory according to God’s grace and the atonement of Jesus.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/88/#33
It is not Mormon doctrine that the Bible is corrupt. The only claim is that some things that were once taught plainly are either not included in the Bible in its present form, or at least are not as plainly taught and understood. The Catholics, through whom the Bible passed for generations, might say a similar thing of Protestant versions of the Bible, which are missing some of the books included in the Catholic Bible.
This is not to say that the Protestant Bible is not true, or even that it is missing truths that ought to have been revealed in a public written form, but simply that not all truths manifest therein are as plainly understood as they may have been in other contexts. The Bible itself supports this idea (see e.g. Isaiah 6:9-10; Matt. 13:13-17; Mark 4:11-12; Luke 8:9-10; 2 Peter 3:16).
On the other hand, the idea of a closed canon is indeed “unbiblical,” as is the idea of an infallible Bible. So ironically, these claims themselves go beyond the text, and in that sense represent non-adherence, in a strict sense, to the text.
The development of the Bible itself depended on the notion of an open canon. The New Testament would not exist without that assumption, nor would each of the added apostolic letters, which followed and clarified even the words of Christ himself. So no, I don’t think that one who accepts the possibility of an open canon is necessarily more likely to go astray of the Bible than one who rejects that possibility. I believe, in fact, that it is ongoing revelation that keeps us in line with the revealed word of times past, and prevents us from wresting or distorting it. Just as Peter corrected early misunderstandings of Paul’s words (2 Pet. 3:16), so living apostles may correct misunderstandings of the words of the apostles of old. Indeed, the Bible suggests that many people would go astray in the latter days (e.g. Tim. 4:1-3), but that in the last days, prophecy would return, and even young men would see visions (Acts…
Mark, did not mean to imply Beck did not thoroughly consider his choice. Only reporting the statements made by him and his wife in that particular interview. I’m not particularly interested in Beck–he’s just another talking TV and radio personality, and I pretty much ignore all of them regardless of their political or religious affiliations!
[…] In the wake of the whole Glenn Beck thing, Parchment and Pen dusts off the classic question, Are Mormons Christians? […]
Seth,
I’d love to respond to your series of posts, but time limitations will probably keep me from getting to all of them. The articles on the IRR website (http://www.irr.org), especially in my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, will offer biblical arguments in support of my criticisms of LDS theology.
I had written:
* All human beings preexisted in heaven, where they were the offspring of heavenly parents (God the Father and a “heavenly mother”), before their natural conception here on earth.
You replied:
<< This is not a counter-biblical notion, and I’d argue that even calling in un-biblical is misleading (since most people tend to equate “un-biblical” with “anti-biblical”). Certainly, this Mormon teaching is not anti-biblical, though it is probably extra-biblical. >>
The fact that the Bible doesn’t say “There is no such person as heavenly mother” does not make the affirmation of a heavenly mother biblical. The Bible does say that the LORD (Jehovah) is the only God, that he created the world by himself (e.g., Isaiah 44:24), and many other things that implicitly preclude the notion that God has a consort. A number of LDS apologists admit this but contend that the “Deuteronomists” imposed a monotheistic ideology on the Bible and purged it of most or all traces of ancient Israelite polytheism. What does that tell you? What it tells me is that the Bible, as it stands, is incompatible with the LDS belief in a plurality of Gods (and at least one Goddess).
You wrote:
<< Always keep in mind the LDS position – we don’t care if something is explicitly stated in the Bible or not. >>
Well stated. That is the LDS view. Not all Mormons are as frank about it.
You wrote:
<< Since we believe in additional scripture and ongoing revelation, we already operate from the assumption that more will be said than is contained in the Bible. We also (like the Catholics) reject the notion of Biblical sufficiency (which ironically, is itself an extra-biblical notion). >>
Not really. See, for example, Mark 7:9-13 (tradition does not have authority equal to Scripture); 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Scripture teaches what we need to know to be adequately equipped to do all the good things God expects of us). Big subject, not enough time at the moment.
You wrote:
<< Thus the Mormon only cares whether his arguments are anti-biblical or not. He is supremely indifferent to whether his arguments are extra-biblical or not. We maintain the Bible as part of our canon, and therefore are concerned with the prospect of that book directly contradicting something we believe, but we are not shy at all about filling in the blanks via continuing revelation where the Bible is silent. >>
There are plenty of examples of LDS teachings that directly contradict the Bible. I have already mentioned that the Bible explicitly affirms that Jehovah alone created the universe, whereas Mormonism teaches that a plurality of Gods made the world.
You wrote:
<< Also, I would like to clarify what exactly you mean by the word “offspring.” Because Mormon theology allows a wide latitude here. >>
I wasn’t more precise in part because Mormon theology isn’t precise or specific about what was involved in our heavenly parents producing us as their “offspring.” The word is accurate, though, in expressing the LDS view, isn’t it?
Jared,
What you seem to be saying is that the wicked who suffer in hell will AFTER that suffering accept the gospel of Christ. That doesn’t negate my point, which is that they will do so after having rejected Christ in the spirit world. See Gospel Principles (2009 ed.), 272.
There are some mistakes in the authors (and among many of the reponses here) understanding of Mormon doctrine, but I would agree with terming much of it as “heresy”. But I still must say that Mormons ARE Christians. The reason I say this is because they believe:
God the Father is supreme (no one will EVER be greater in glory or dominion)
Jesus Christ is His only son
Jehovah of the old testament is Jesus of the new (John chapter 1)
That only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus can you be saved, and even then only by baptism by immersion and through grace (though they do have a hybrid legalistic view that “faith without works is dead”, or as they say it, “We are saved through grace, after all we can do.”)
To really understand Mormons and why they believe what they do, you have to first realize that they believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, just as Paul was a prophet. A prophets teachings today trump the teachings of old, even if the teachings are in conflict with what’s in the Bible. God can and has changed his mind! And in the case of Mormon doctrine, it is almost always presented as a “higher law” or truth, adding “precept upon precept”, perfecting our understanding of the “truth”.
For most Mormons, the irony of that is lost on them!
Unfortunately, they were/are led by a false prophet. Thus their heretical teachings. But in fairness, if Paul were a false prophet, would we still be considered “Christians” given the doctrines we get from his writings/teachings (eating of pork comes to mind)? None of their teachings discount the fact that Jesus is the Savior in any way. Isn’t that the core requirement of being a “Christian”?
BTW, after 13 years, I left the Mormons upon learning that the Book of Abraham had been found (something they neglected to tell me), and that the translation provided by Joseph Smith was pure BS. That proved to me that ALL of their “scripture” was BS. The truth set me free.
Bob, the Book of Abraham was NOT “found.”
The book was destroyed in a fire in Chicago. What was “found” was a few tiny scraps of parchment remaining from the 17 foot long scroll Joseph used. These scraps contain some of the pictures contained in the Facsimiles (pictoral illustrations). But that’s it. From the 17 foot long scroll of Joseph Smith, we have only a few scraps of parchment no larger than your hand.
I’d hardly call that “finding” the “Book of Abraham.”
It would seem that someone here has been making up their own facts.
Rob, this is merely an instance of Evangelical eisegesis of scripture.
For instance, Isaiah 44:24
“Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,”
I fail to see how this is a statement of ontology. First off, “made” does not automatically mean ex nihilo creation. It does not mean that there was God, and he brought absolutely everything else into being out of nothing – so that argument for your lone “god” doesn’t work. Also God “forming us from the womb” doesn’t mean anything either. I “formed” my daughter from the womb too. That doesn’t mean no one else was involved.
Furthermore, “Eloheim” has both singular and plural connotations in the Old Testament – as is affirmed by countless biblical scholars.
I’m not sure what Mark 7:9-13 has to do with sola biblia, so maybe you can flesh this idea out some more. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reads:
“16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Yes, all scripture is breathed out by God – including the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, etc. Good for all the aforementioned stuff too. Again, I don’t see how this works in favor of sola biblia.
You seem to be making eisegesical leaps of logic here to make these verses much more prohibitive than they actually are.
You asked for clarification on “offspring.” I think LDS theology is totally consistent with us being either offspring through some birthing process, or offspring through some voluntary adoptive process. In fact, I think the adoption model is much better supported in LDS theology.
Edit: Incidentally Michael, it’s really cool that your blog automatically links to any scripture we type in the comments. Nice.
Seth,
What was found was not only the papyrus, but Joseph Smith’s “primer” on hieroglyphics as well as portions of the BOA “translated” in his own hand, side by side with the specific characters as their source, the order of which matches portions of the papyrus. So in my view, I believe we have the relevant portions he used.
Also, the figures on the papyrus were incomplete, though they are now understood to be average specimens from the period since we have found more intact specimens. But JS incorrectly “completed” them, making many mistakes in the process.
Now, we have his supposed “translations” of entire paragraphs from single characters, translations that no other expert on hieroglyphics will support. In fact, NONE of his “translations” are even remotely close to the actual translations. Remember, at the time JS had them, the Rosetta Stone (which I have seen and touched myself in the British Museum) had not yet been discovered.
I was told that it was perhaps a different dialect, that there was more than one way to translate it, yada yada. I just couldn’t buy that explanation.
Why did the missionaries, indeed everyone I’ve encountered in the church, not mention that they were not lost in the fire, that they had been rediscovered (even partially intact would be news worthy IMHO). No, the story was always that they were lost. Period. That seemed like a sin of omission at the least, or a cover up at worst, to me.
Why has every “prophet” since refused to demonstrate their ability to re-translate those papyrus if they have that ability? If the portions discovered are NOT the portions that Joseph Smith translated as you claim, wouldn’t the church be anxious to translate the re-discovered, heretofore untranslated, portions from the Book of Abraham? Imagine the doctrines that could be revealed!
And why would God use pagan funeral documents to reveal His truth?
I simply couldn’t believe it. Maybe you can.
Actually recent LDS scholarship has dealt a serious blow to the idea that Joseph Smith used the “primer” in the way you describe. Work has been done dating the document such that it cannot have been used the way you are asserting.
This is brand-new stuff though, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you haven’t heard of it.
I didn’t know this post has turned into a discussion of Mormonism and Christian doctrines. If Rob doesn’t mind I guess I have some questions for Mike.
”The Bible has been corrupted by errors of translation and transmission, as well as by deliberate action. (WMT; CJS; 1 Nephi 13:26-29, BOM)”
It sounds like you’ve just phrased it more euphemistically, but in essence the authorities of the LDS church believe the Bible is corrupt. But there is something that I don’t understand. If the Bible is corrupt, or even euphemistically as you’ve claimed, why are you quoting from the Bible? How do you know what you are quoting is not the part that has been corrupted?
WMT: What the Mormons Think of Christ, pamphlet published by the LDS church, July 1976
CJC: The Church as Organized by Christ, pamphlet published by the LDS church, April 1976
I think you misunderstand what evangelicals mean by inerrancy. But I am more interested to know what do you think of the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price? Are these texts infallible? Was there anything that was once taught plainly and things not included?
I would also like to ask all the Mormons who are commenting here a few questions.
1. Do you believe that God was once a man who became God?
2. Did any Mormon apostles and prophets claim that God was once a man who became God and we can also become Gods?
3. Do you believe there is only one God or many gods?
4. Do you believe in an eternal hell?
5. Do you believe in some sort of Mormon purgatory?
If you believe the church’s explanations, well, what can I say? I don’t.
So many things have to be wrong (and conveniently in their favor) in order for them to be right. It just stretches their credibility beyond reason. It took them 50 YEARS to come up with an explanation regarding the primer and it’s inaccuracy? Are you serious? You would rather accept that explanation rather than the obvious truth that JS made it up? That the translations he came up with were pure fantasy? Worse, that he used them to further his own goals? Honestly, what is more likely?
If you read my initial post, you will see that I am not here to condemn you. In fact, I defended your status as that of a Christian. Truth be told, I really enjoyed my time in the Mormon church. I think the organization of the church and it’s supporting programs is top notch. The missionary effort to foreign nations, Relief Society, disaster aid, etc. I believe Mormons do a great job of “walking the walk”.
That said, there is religion and there is truth. Religion is the twisting of the truth found in the Bible to create a new way to reach God. Joseph Smith took that to a whole new level when he introduced his “scriptures”. In so doing, he became like the Pharisees and Saddeucees that Jesus condemned, teaching false doctrines and confusing the righteous seekers of truth.
I won’t lie, it was scary to leave the Mormon church. I did OK for a while but then I got lost. But I finally found my way back to the truth as found in the Bible. Sure, it doesn’t have all that “behind the scenes” allure of the Mormon doctrine, but all that extra crap is really superfluous and unnecessary. As it turns out, the Gospel is quite beautiful and comprehensive in it’s own simplicity. In it’s simplest form:
Love God
Love your neighbor
Jesus is the Christ
As Christians, we can argue about the rest, but don’t we have bigger fish to fry? Ie- Like a billion Muslims that want us DEAD!
teleologist:
What you are looking for comes from the “King Follet Discourse” as delivered by Joseph Smith. King Follet (King was his name, not his title) was a friend of Joesph Smiths and I believe he gave this lecture as part of his eulegy at his funeral, though I could be mistaken.
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/kingfolletsermon.htm
Hope this answers you questions without it causing your head to pop off in disbelief!! 😉
Bob,
You apparently have only read one-sided sources on the Book of Abraham. I don’t believe the fragments are even part of the long scroll that was described by non-Mormon contemporaries of Joseph and destroyed in the Museum fire. Why? Because Joseph possessed fragments from the beginning that were not part of the large scroll. He described these as containing “epitaphs, etc.” The fragments discovered are indeed, as Joseph described originally, funeral documents (i.e. epitaphs). Thus they only support the idea that Joseph actually could read Egyptian.
That they contain similar drawings is no surprise, since such drawings are common on Egyptian documents, and most of them vary. That they were used in attempting to learn or practice an Egyptian alphabet is also not surprising. Joseph received his translations by inspiration, but also naturally developed an interest in learning ancient languages for himself. He and his friends undoubtedly practiced or tried to figure out characters for their own interest and learning. They likely wouldn’t have used the long scroll for this practice, since the interpretation (but not necessarily the meaning of the individual characters) was known by revelation. They might have tried to figure out the fragments, however, since there was no revelation given on the meaning of those.
You might also take some time to look at some of the positive evidence for the Pearl of Great Price. Here are a couple of examples:
The Book of Abraham describes a vision in which God shows Abraham his creations. This account is not in the Bible, but is verified in the Apocolypse of Abraham, a Jewish document from shortly after the time of Christ. This document wasn’t available in English until long after Joseph Smith’s death. The apocolypse also verifies the BoA account of Abraham witnessing children being sacrificed to idols.
“He described these as containing “epitaphs, etc.” The fragments discovered are indeed, as Joseph described originally, funeral documents (i.e. epitaphs). Thus they only support the idea that Joseph actually could read Egyptian. ”
Hello? They came with a mummy!!!!! What else would they be???? Yeah, he REALLY went out on a limb with that one, didn’t he????
I’m sorry, there are SO MANY holes in the credibility of Mormon history that it is simply foolish, IMHO, to believe it. One or 2 points can be explained away and left to faith, fair enough. But there is a mountain of evidence that must be explained away and those explanations taken on faith alone, in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary.
His failure to prove that he can translate hieroglyphics correctly as demonstrated by his primer
His various version of the “First Vision” story
Revisions to the BOM (I have a copy of the first edition, and it IS different)
Incorrect use of “Old English” in his translations (And why was the BOM and other “scriptures” translated into Old English to begin with, if not to make them sound the same as accepted scripture?)
Using words before they were historically in use
And on and on…
Seriously, there is a LOT out there that, thanks to the Internet, is readily available for review. Arrest records, his “magic trinkets”, Solomon Spaulding and the BOM manuscript, his dealings with the Masons, the changing of the Temple Ceremony (I’ve participated in the before and after versions, so I know what’s changed), the change in treatment of blacks, etc, etc.
There’s just too much to explain away. Don’t you ever feel like Vera Hart trying to defend President Obama? Exhausted from defending the indefensible???? Sooner or later, isn’t it just obvious that you are being expected to take too much on faith, to believe things in the face of real substantial evidence to the contrary?
I just couldn’t do it anymore.
Bob,
In all cases your “evidences” and your interpretations of them are one-sided. As a former Mormon, who apparently wrestled with your decision to leave the Church, you seem surprisingly unaware of the commonsense answers to these accusations. Either that, or you seem unwilling to acknowledge them.
Teleologist,
The pamphlets you cited are not necessarily Mormon doctrine, they are not canonized and it is telling that they appear to be long out of print. Nevertheless, I’m not just phrasing this more euphemistically, rather, you seem to be playing with two different definitions of the word “corrupt.” Some might say that anything that is no long in its original form has been “corrupted” in some sense, as in a language that is modified over time. This doesn’t necessarily mean loss of truth, any more than American English has hampered our ability to communicate with the chaps across the pond. In a few cases we (and they) have embarrassing misunderstandings, but for the most part we understand one another.
That said, I wouldn’t endorse that description because in my own experience the Bible is true. I haven’t found a fault with it that can’t be reasonably explained, except that parts of it are so difficult to understand (by its own admission) that you either need 1. additional revelation, or 2. the likes of Rob, doing complex exegeses in order to understand it.
So I’m not really interested in challenging the veracity of the Bible, although I am open to the possibility that some translations better represent the original meaning than others. This should be a non-controversial point and is the meaning behind Article of Faith 8.
“I would also like to ask all the Mormons who are commenting here a few questions.
1. Do you believe that God was once a man who became God?
2. Did any Mormon apostles and prophets claim that God was once a man who became God and we can also become Gods?
3. Do you believe there is only one God or many gods?
4. Do you believe in an eternal hell?
5. Do you believe in some sort of Mormon purgatory?”
Well, God’s past is not a clear cut issue within Mormonism. A variety of viewpoints are possible under Mormon scripture. This blog post does a good job of outlining them:
http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/lds-views-of-gods-past/
If you want my own personal opinions – I’m a bit of a fan of the infinite chain of gods idea. I don’t really see this view as biblically problematic. As far as I’m concerned, if Lutherans can make “One God” out of three beings, then I can make “One God” out of 300 or 3 million. Same logic works in this instance. In this sense, I believe there is “One God” in whom many lower-case “gods” participate.
I am agnostic on whether there is an eternal hell or not. The Mormon concept of “Outer Darkness” seems to be the closest candidate – but I am agnostic on whether that state is eternal or not. I believe in a version of “purgatory” – meaning a temporary place of suffering prior to final judgment.
Those are my own views. In other comments, I’ve tried to allow for a range of Mormon viewpoints.
Bob, I don’t think it’s necessarily appropriate to turn this thread into a full blown debate about the Book of Abraham. You’ve been polite enough, and I don’t really want to pick a fight with you.
I will just say that FAIR (www.fairlds.org) has done a lot of work in addressing the concerns you bring up and their material is worth checking out if anyone is interested.
Sorry, one last Book of Abraham point:
One thing that has always struck me about this debate is how critics always attempt to keep the focus on how we got the book, or on the character of the man who provided it.
The focus is rarely on the actual content of the book.
For myself, I frankly don’t care if the Book of Abraham came from a drunk garbage collector who wrote it on the back of a bar napkin Friday night.
What I care about is the theological content, and how much it enlightens us on the existing Abraham literature.
On these grounds, the book is a runaway success – no matter how you think we got it.
Just something to keep in mind.
Teleologist (continued),
As for the Book of Mormon, it does not challenge the veracity of the Bible, but only claims that some very plain parts of the original text would be lost or removed, which would make the rest more difficult to understand. Rather than undermining the Bible, the Book of Mormon testifies of the truth of the Bible, and is written for the purpose of turning its readers back to the Bible. It came at a time when, historically, the secularization of the Christian world was in full swing. This secularization has been linked to the “religious wars” of the Reformation, which resulted in part from disagreements about meaning and content of the Bible, and which in turn resulted in a loss of confidence in a unified Christianity. The Reformations (both Protestant and Catholic) were no doubt necessary, but that they had this secularizing effect is a matter of history.
Enter the Book of Mormon, which reiterates that the Bible is in fact true, although disagreements of interpretation are understandable because of the loss of some plain teachings from the original text. That the Book of Mormon indeed succeeds in its mission to turn its readers to the Bible is supported by this recent poll,
http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
in which Mormons outperformed all other groups in knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. Which is sort of ironic for those who claim we aren’t Christians.
As for your other questions…
Seth,
You wrote:
“Rob, this is merely an instance of Evangelical eisegesis of scripture.”
We shall see. You continued:
“For instance, Isaiah 44:24 ‘Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,’ I fail to see how this is a statement of ontology. First off, “made” does not automatically mean ex nihilo creation. It does not mean that there was God, and he brought absolutely everything else into being out of nothing – so that argument for your lone “god” doesn’t work.”
Huh? I didn’t bring up creation ex nihilo. All I said was that Jehovah did all the creating, whatever was involved in that activity. That point isn’t affected by the issue of whether creation was ex nihilo or ex materia. In Isaiah 44:24, Jehovah explicitly claims that he made the heavens and the earth by himself. How is simply repeating that statement in slightly different words “evangelical eisegesis”?
You wrote:
“Also God ‘forming us from the womb’ doesn’t mean anything either. I ‘formed’ my daughter from the womb too. That doesn’t mean no one else was involved.”
But you don’t deny that anyone else was involved. Jehovah expressly denies that anyone else was involved.
You wrote:
“Furthermore, ‘Eloheim’ has both singular and plural connotations in the Old Testament – as is affirmed by countless biblical scholars.”
Virtually all biblical scholars agree on this issue against the amateur exegesis (or, to use your term, eisegesis) of Joseph Smith. ELOHIM is a plural *form* but always has a singular *meaning* when used with singular verbs, adjectives, or pronouns. For example, in Genesis 1:1, the subject noun ELOHIM has a singular verb BARA’ (third person masculine singular), so that ELOHIM must be translated “God,” not “gods.” Again, virtually everyone who has any sort of claim whatsoever to be a Hebrew scholar will agree on this point. But Joseph claimed, erroneously, that ELOHIM in Genesis 1 should be translated “Gods” throughout. Oops.
In any case, I was referring to Isaiah 44:24, which uses the name Jehovah (YHWH), so the meaning of ELOHIM is irrelevant to the point I made from that text.
You wrote:
“I’m not sure what Mark 7:9-13 has to do with sola biblia, so maybe you can flesh this idea out some more.”
I’m sure I explained it. Jesus there subordinates tradition to Scripture. That isn’t the entirety of the case for sola scriptura, but it’s a key element of it. And it was sola scriptura, not “sola biblia,” that I was defending. I do happen to think that the Bible is the only true Scripture, but that’s a different question.
You wrote:
“You asked for clarification on ‘offspring.'”
No, actually, I didn’t. All I asked for is an answer to whether you consider the term “offspring” accurate or not. You commented:
“I think LDS theology is totally consistent with us being either offspring through some birthing process, or offspring through some voluntary adoptive process. In fact, I think the adoption model is much better supported in LDS theology.”
Sorry, but I can’t agree. LDS theology affirms that all human beings are the “literal” offspring of those heavenly parents, “begotten” by them. “All men and women are LITERALLY the sons and daughters of God. ‘Man, as a spirit, was BEGOTTEN and BORN of heavenly parents….” (Gospel Principles [2009], quoting Joseph F. Smith, 9, my emphasis). I know of no basis whatsoever in LDS theology for an adoption model.
Teleologist (continued):
1. Do you believe that God was once a man who became God?
The Bible teaches that the Creator of heaven and earth became a man, and grew in wisdom and stature as a man, albeit a perfect one, and then returned to Heaven to share his Father’s throne (Revelation 3:21). This teaching was considered controversial, even blasphemous by other theists of the time.
But we have the Creator (Jesus Christ) referring to a Father who gave him his glory in the beginning (John 17), and whom he called “my Father and your Father, my God and your God (John 20:17). And Because the Bible also teaches that Christ only did what he had seen the Father do (John 5:19), Joseph Smith drew the logical conclusion that the Father had similarly descended and experienced mortality in like manner. This teaching, though well accepted among Mormons, is not considered canonical.
But it is a far cry from suggesting that God popped into existence first as a man and then grew to Godhood. No, this view simply takes the experience of Christ as pre-mortal God who descended to earth to experience mortality, and ultimately become a resurrected, embodied God, and extends this pattern to the One that Christ calls Father, and whom he claimed was his model in every respect.
2. Did any Mormon apostles and prophets claim that God was once a man who became God and we can also become Gods?
The Bible teaches that Christ gives to his followers the same glory given him of the Father (John 17), and that they are thus invited into the same oneness EVEN AS he is one with the Father. Those who overcome are also invited to share a throne with the Son and the Father (Revelation 3:21). Mormon prophets have affirmed this Biblical teaching, but none have equated us with either the Son or the Father in perfection and glory. There is a gulf between us and the Father, created by our sinfulness, which can only be bridged by Christ. We are and always will be dependent on Christ for our oneness with Him and the…
Teleologist (continued),
…Father.
3. Do you believe there is only one God or many gods?
Trinitarians believe (if I’m not mistaken) that there is one God with three personalities. Or three persons in the Godhead who share one “being” (whatever that means).
Mormons also believe that there are three persons (personalities) in the Godhead that (by choice) share a will, or purpose, rather than a “being.” These three are one God in the sense of oneness described by Christ in John 17. Christ also invites us into that same oneness and glory, which implies that as we submit our will to him, we can share in his godliness–which in my view makes one God of many, rather than many gods of one (as our doctrine is too often misinterpreted to mean by both Mormons and non-Mormons).
4. Do you believe in an eternal hell?
Yes, but what exactly that means I do not claim to know. Does it mean that an individual will suffer forever, if through either ignorance or rebellion he once rejected (or never found) Christ in this brief mortal existence? (I think not, or the justice of God, as well as his mercy, could be called into question). Or does it mean that hell is eternally fixed in opposition to heaven? And/or does it mean that so long as salvation is rejected–even to eternity–those who reject salvation will remain in hell?
I say adoption because it is the only thing consistent with LDS notions of both free will and the eternal existence of human beings. Especially in light of Joseph Smith’s notion that spirit bodies are eternal, and not just “intelligences” as many LDS believe. It also meshes well with the adoptive language contained in the New Testament.
Note, I said consistent with SCRIPTURE – not the current Gospel Principles manual. There’s quite a difference in my mind. I view the manual as a useful study aid – not an independent source of binding doctrine.
In any case, I don’t consider an adoptive process to be inconsistent with being the “literal” sons and daughters of God anyway.
If I were to go out and adopt a child today, she would “LITERALLY” be my child.
Problem solved.
As for the word “begotten” or “born” – Jesus uses the same language when speaking to Nicodemus. It is obviously not talking about some sort of biological birth in this context. Evangelicals use the terms “begotten” and “born” in a figurative sense all the time – so this situation of an Evangelical scholar taking a Mormon to task over not taking those words more biologically seems just a bit odd to me.
Mormons speak of being “born of water” or “born of the spirit” all the time. We speak of the act of conversion as being “begotten” of God. This is hardly something new for us.
Mike,
So WMT and CJS are not canonized but who published it? Did the publisher have the sanction of the officials of the Church? Did the Mormon President and apostles denounce the errors in these pamphlets? Does your current President and apostles denounce the past leaders for allowing this erroneous teaching to be printed?
I am not an expert at playing with redefining words. But I assume you accept the BOM as canon right? In 1 Nephi 13:26-29
Maybe it is just me but the plain and straight forward understanding of that description seems to define the word corrupt. It is possible that I might have a problem with understanding the word corrupt but let’s look at a few dictionary definitions.
1. alter from the original
2. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation
3. to alter from the original or correct form or version
4. to make alterations, usu. errors, in the original or correct version of (a text, language, or the like)
5. To change the original form of (a text, for example)
True, and some might even call it abominable. I personally don’t think there is such a thing as abominable truth, do you?
So you disagree with the BOM and Joseph Smith.
Which brings me back to my original questions, which books do you consider as canon, the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price? Are these texts infallible?
I would also like to hear your comments on these questions.
1. Do you believe that God was once a man who became God?
2. Did any Mormon apostles and prophets claim that God was once a man who became God and we can also become Gods?
3. Do you believe there is only one God or many gods?
4. Do you believe in an eternal hell?
5. Do you believe in some sort of Mormon purgatory?
As for Mark 7:9-13, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that verse is talking about some categorical subordination of tradition to the Bible. First off, what Jesus is rejecting here is the FALSE traditions the Pharisees ADDED to the law as given to Moses. So really all he is putting down here is false tradition – not tradition in general.
Secondly, your argument here merely begs the question. For Mormons (and Catholics, I think) the tradition IS scriptural. It IS from God. So you are left arguing a distinction without a difference at least in a Mormon context (I could be getting the Catholic position wrong).
Sorry for misunderstanding your argument on Isaiah 44:24. I’ll get back to you on that later.
Mormons believe that God was once just a man.
And that they too, can work their way up to become a god.
That was (is) the essence of sin. Becoming a god unto yourself.
I think Mormonism is utterly ridiculous and of the devil. It is responsible for leading people away from the work of the Living God on the cross (notice there are NO crosses on their buildings)…and into a religious project of self-justification.
St. Paul warned the likes of Joseph Smith, et al…”If an angel of light appears to you with another gospel, let him be damned.”
Steve the quote from LDS prophet Lorenzo Snow goes thus:
“As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.”
Nothing in there requires that God was ever “just” a man. Like I said, many Mormon scholars believe that God experienced mortality in the same way Jesus did – as a perfect and divine person.
As for becoming like God, read this article and then get back to me on whether this desire is still sinful in your book:
http://www.antiochian.org/node/16916
Seth,
Thanks for the link.
Being conformed to Christ is not our work. It is Christ’s work. he does it ALL.
That is what is so un-Christian about the whole Mormon religious, ladder climbing/perfection project thing.
The focus is backwards. The focus ought be on what Christ has done, is doing, and will yet do…for us. And not on what we do.
What WE DO was the problem from the begining.
When Christ Jesus said, “It is finished” from the cross, He meant it.
But people just love ‘religion’ (that which we do to elevate ourselves, or get right with God).
Mormonism is just another man-made religion that emphasizes the self and what WE DO.
Yes, Christ Jesus has done it ALL. He would like for us to trust in that fact, and then live.
Rob, I checked out the Biblelexicon website on Isaiah 44:24. You can see for yourself here:
http://biblelexicon.org/isaiah/44-24.htm
I paid particular attention to the words “by Myself” and “alone.” Neither one seems to have quite the exclusive force in Hebrew that you give to them here.
In the case of “by myself” the Hebrew word “badad” is defined as “to be separate” “isolated” – which simply doesn’t have the same sort of absolute sense to it as you are arguing.
In the case of “alone” the definition is simply stated “from”, explained here:
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/4480.htm
Again, I’m not really seeing the exclusive force here. Your argument seems to proceed more from colloquial English usage than the original Hebrew intent of the text.
Steve, obviously you would like me to DO something differently than what I am already doing right now – if I wish to be saved.
So wouldn’t that make you just as focused on DOING something on the human end as I am?
No…actually I do not want you to do anything.
The fact is that no one can do anything to be saved.
In fact, in the doing process, a lot of people can get themselves unsaved (St. Paul to the Galatians)
That IS the problem.
Rob, Michael Heiser has also tackled the meaning of the word “alone” that you highlight in Isaiah 44:24. He doesn’t feel it has the exclusive sense that you give it either:
“Second, מִלְבַדּֽוֹ and other related forms ( לְבַד ,לְבַדּוֹ ) need not mean “alone” in some exclusive sense. That is, a single person in a group could be highlighted or focused upon. 1 Kgs 18:1-6 is an example. The passage deals with the end of the three-year drought and famine during the career of Elijah. After meeting with Elijah, Ahab calls Obadiah, the steward of his house, and together they set upon a course of action to find grass to save their remaining horses and mules. Verse 6a) then reads: ׃ אַחְאָב הָלַךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד לְבַדּוֹ וְעֹבַדְיָהוּ הָלַךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ־אֶחָד לְבַדּוֹ (“Ahab went one way by himself [ לְבַדּוֹ ], and Obadiah went another way by himself [ .(”[לְבַדּוֹ While it may be possible to suggest that Obadiah literally went through the land completely unaccompanied in his search, it is preposterous to say that the king of Israel went completely alone to look for grass—without bodyguards or servants. The point is that לְבַדּוֹ (and by extension מִלְבַדּֽוֹ ) need not refer to complete isolation or solitary presence. Another example is Psalm 51:4 [Hebrew, v. 6], which reads in part: לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ חָטָאתִי (“against you, you alone, I have sinned”). God was not the only person against whom David had sinned. He had sinned against his wife and certainly Uriah. This is obviously heightened rhetoric designed to highlight the One who had been primarily offended. It was God against whom David’s offense was incomparable.”
You can read the full article here:
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf
Then why are you even talking to me Steve?
If I don’t have to DO anything to be saved, then I guess I’ve got nothing to worry about, right?
I can just keep attending LDS Sacrament Meeting, continue attending the LDS temple, and keep on doing just like I have been, and Jesus will take care of it.
Right?
The day that Mormons teach and preach that Mormons do NOT have to do anything to get to Heaven, but rely on the finished work of Christ…will be a great day.
If you believe that now, you are the 1st Mormon of many (over a hundred) that I have spoken with, that believes as much.
It’s all about the cross…not us.
Concerning the length of the Book of Abraham scroll: Chris Carroll Smith and Andrew W. Cook have an article coming out in the Winter 2010 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought arguing that there can be no more than 56 cm of papyrus missing from the Scroll of Hôr. That article has been pre-released here. From their conclusion:
“In recognition of the unlikelihood that there ever was a Book of Abraham source text on the inner section of the Hôr scroll, various alternative theories have been put forth to the effect that: (a) the Document of Breathing served as a mnemonic device for the Book of Abraham, (b) the Breathing text served as a catalyst (rather than source text) for the Book of Abraham, (c) the Document of Breathing is a corrupted version of the Book of Abraham, which Smith restored to its pristine state, or (d) the Book of Abraham is simply an imaginative mistranslation of the hieratic script. The ultimate success of any existing or future theory will depend on its ability to account for all of the evidence, including the fact that there was simply no room on the papyrus for anything besides the Breathing text.”
Chris notes on his blog that there are at least two other papers by LDS scholars in the works right now addressing arguments on the length of the Scroll of Hôr; I don’t believe they’ve been released yet.
“The day that Mormons teach and preach”
In short, the day that Mormons start DOING something different than what they are DOING now, they can be saved.
Got it Steve.
I never said anybody was or wasn’t saved. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m saying that the focus on the self, and ascending to different levels of righteousness, or whatever…is not Christian. it is just run of the mill religion which you can find all over the place.
Teleologist,
I’ve already answered four of your five questions. As for the last one (do you believe in purgatory), I’m not sure what you mean, except that we do accept the Biblical notion that salvation is offered even to the dead (1 Pet. 3:18-20; 1 Pet. 4:6; 1 Cor. 15:29).
You wrote: Did the Mormon President and apostles denounce the errors in these pamphlets? Does your current President and apostles denounce the past leaders for allowing this erroneous teaching to be printed?
My response: Denunciation is not necessary since the problem is in the possibility of a misinterpretation of the word “corrupt” by the reader, and not in an erroneous use of the word itself.
Why do you focus on these obscure pamphlets and not on the doctrinal sources I’ve described. As I noted above, Joseph Smith (Article of Faith 8) did not suggest that the Bible was corrupt. On the contrary, he said, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
At the time, there were many versions of the Bible, in many languages, but only one version of the Book of Mormon. JS was simply suggesting the possibility that all versions of the Bible might not be equal, not that the Bible itself was corrupt.
Today, with many translations of the Book of Mormon and other LDS works, the same caveat could apply. For example, a Muslim friend of mine took a look at an Arabic Book of Mormon and her opinion was that the translation might be improved to better convey the meaning. Perhaps she is right.
As for the Book of Mormon, I noted above that it does not question the veracity of the Bible in its current form. It only claims that the gospel, or the book containing the gospel (the Bible), was more understandable in its earlier form, prior to passing through uninspired hands.
Similarly, Reformers claimed that the gospel had been misunderstood, and even argued about what did or did not belong.
Jack, is that 56cm of length, or of thickness? You can fit and awful lot of parchment in 56cm of thickness.
Steve, that religion which has no interface with the self can have no real human meaning.
In any case, we place the focus on Jesus as well in our teachings. We simply define our acceptance of him in terms of covenant performance.
See also the “New Perspective on Paul.”
Steve,
Apparently you missed a post I left above. I’ll paste the relevant paragraph here:
According to the Book of Mormon, even the act of following Christ’s commandments–doing the works he has commanded us to do (for example, going into the world and declaring his name)–is enabled by grace. The Book of Mormon teaches that we neither breathe, nor believe, choose, nor act without being enabled to do so by Christ’s atonement (grace). But refusing to work when not only commanded but enabled to do so is a rejection of grace just as is refusing to choose, or refusing to believe. It represents a lesser degree of acceptance, belief, or faith.
Christianity says ‘done’, religion says ‘do’.
Sure, we do good works (who doesn’t), but not as any benchmark of our faith or obedience. That is for the religionists.
I’ve always found the secret ceremonies, and different levels of church membership (in LDS) very troubling.
Christianity ought not be like that.
I think I’ll stick to the ‘old perspective on Paul’, in which he is recognized as the greatest apostle. God took a great religionist (Pharisee) and man him into a man of faith, not trusting in anything at all that he does, but rather in the Word of God (Christ crucified). There it is again…the cross.
I believe other sources estimate that we have at best from 1/5 to 1/3 of the material Joseph originally had in parchments. In my opinion it is impossible to know what he originally had. But non-Mormon witnesses verified the existence of a long, beautifully preserved scroll along with several fragments.
BTW Bob, I didn’t say that Joseph’s interpretation of the fragments as epitaphs proved that he could read Egyptian, only that it lent support to the notion. You asked what else he might claim they were, accompanying mummies as they did? Well, the Book of Abraham of course.
The main point is that he didn’t claim that the fragments were the Book of Abraham, as modern critics claim. Rather, he said they were epitaphs, which they are.