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"
Mike,
I totally disagree with Mormon theology.
The bible says that “all our righteous deeds are filthy rags.”
The sort of ladder climbing/self improvement project that the LDS is on, leads one either to despair (if they are honest), or to pride ans self-righteousness.
Jesus’ parable of the scumbag tax collector and the Pharisee illustrate this very well.
“To one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. To one who does not work but trusts in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him as righteousness.” Romans 4: 4,5
This is very different than Mormonism.
I’ll stick with Paul, and not a bunch of made up eligious figures out of Joseph Smith’s head.
that’s ‘religious’
…of course
Steve,
If you’re going to reject the necessity of “do,” even as a manifestation of the acceptance of grace, you’re going to have to ignore much of the Bible. Most notably, James. You’re also going to have to ignore the words of Christ himself, who said, “keep my commandments.”
Steve, the Book of Mormon says that all religious deeds are insufficient as well.
In fact, one of the keynote speeches is in the Book of Mosiah by King Benjamin where he makes it clear that we are eternally indebted to God and “less than the dust.” As for good works, he points out that as soon as you do anything good, God rewards you for it immediately, are you are just as indebted to him as you were before – making no headway whatsoever.
So we actually have a pretty strong grace theology of our own. We view the various sacraments of our religious observance as tokens of an inner commitment. That is the prime meaning of them – whatever other mystical properties we may also ascribe to them.
I will put the book of James on the back burner. Paul’s writings, and the gospels are the one’s to concentrate on. There, God’s grace is front and center, and not the law (which St. Paul reminds us is the “ministry of death”)
You guys can have all the secret stuff, and the extrabiblical writing and the religious ladder climbing project and the crossless “churches”.
I’ll stick with Christ and His cross.
Thanks.
#95 Seth ~ Length.
[…] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/are-mormons-christians-19-glenn-beck-and-that-question… […]
Seth,
I’m not debating the book of Abraham, I simply stated my experience and conclusions. For me, the evidence is more than sufficient to prove it a fraud. That being the case, I believe the same applies to the BOA as does the BOM. Namely, if it is true, then JS was a prophet and the church is true. If not, JS was a fraud, and the church is false. Obviously, I concluded the latter is the most likely, based on the evidence. You are free to believe what you will.
Seth,
I just want to add that despite my conclusions, I still believe that Mormons are Christians in the most basic sense of the term. Any ill feelings I have for the Mormon church is directed towards the church leadership at the highest levels, as they are most likely the ones conspiring to continue the fraud. The average lay member is simply a victim of that fraud, though I don’t presume to judge the outcome of their salvation because of it. I leave that up to God.
I simply pray that you and those like you will be led out of the church to embrace the Gospel in it’s true form, as found in the Bible. There is life after Mormonism, I promise you that. You just have to value the truth more than anything, and have the courage to accept it, wherever it takes you.
Yes, everyone wants to offer pity for all the “victims” out there.
Evangelicals want to pity the victimized Mormons. Mormons pity the victimized and misguided Evangelicals. And the atheists pity the whole lot of us.
So congratulations to us all for being smarter than the other team.
Bob and Seth have both proven that the Bible is the word of God. It is the recounting of past Prophets, revelation, events and finally the ancient church of Christ as established by the Savior himself with his disciples… Apostles and Bishops.
A book, however, does not a church make. That takes Prophets, authority and revelation….otherwise all that Christianity would entail would be a great debate about the interpretation of past scripture and piecemeal theology. Without the Church itself we would have an endless number of Catholic Councils that were called to determine the truth by the debate of men and the count of hands. This is a precarious way to determine truth. Where was Christ during these crucial expressions of doctrine? By vote and debate, the vary nature of God was determined. Who inherited the endless debated doctrines? Protestants? The debate continues today. Look at the titles of Pen & Parchment blogs:
(the great trinity debate challenge)
(why women cannot be pastors)
the scandal of the evangelical mind)
(misconceptions of calvinism)
….just to list a few!
The Chaos continues while they exclude Prophets and revelation and new scripture and the very Savior of which they proclaim.
Gosh…why not give prayer a try?
Mike,
You can’t be serious that it is logical to assume the same incarnation for the Father? This is pure fictional fabrication by Joseph Smith. Is this the kind of prophet that the entire Mormon faith is hanging their hats on? A can’t imagine a serious prophet of God would ever seek to mischaracterize God this way. A false prophet might but not a prophet of God.
But the problem is worst than that isn’t it? Smith didn’t just make a erroneous conclusion, he went much further than that.
If you want to believe Smith that is your choice but all I am trying to point out is that Mormonism is based on blasphemous teaching by a false prophet as far as Christians are concerned.
Seth to the same question,
Again Seth is free to believe whatever he wishes but it is obvious that like many Mormon apostles and prophets, you are a polytheist or demigod polytheist. In any case, your Mormonism is antithetical to our monotheism.
Mike,
I will dispense with the exegesis of that verse in John 17 except just to say that it is a far cry from glory to becoming gods, isn’t it? I sense that you are hesitant to say that you yourself will become a god, but rather chose to say that you will be one with Christ and the father instead. Unfortunately your Mormon apostles and prophets are less timid and humble.
So once again Mormonism is blasphemous and anti-Christianity as far as Christians are concerned.
So your view is that you will not become a separate god but rather be part of the one god that you now worship. Nevertheless you will be god. From the time since the beginning of the abominable (according to Joseph Smith) Church, no Christians have ever believed that we would become gods in any way shape or form, because there is just no evidence of that in the Bible. So once again Mormonism is blasphemous and anti-Christianity as far as Christians are concerned.
Let me try to conclude but trying to bring this somewhat back to the OP. As the Mormon comments here have shown, no matter how close their terms are to orthodox Christianity, they mean completely different things. Therefore there should be no question that when Beck calls people to worship, it is based on a false religious belief as far as Christians are concerned. I am not trying to convince the Mormons here why they believe in a false religion, only God can do that. But my impression with Mormons is that while Christians are constantly trying to differentiate and distance us from Mormonism, the Mormons are constantly trying to show how similar they are with Christians. I would suggest Mormons should embrace the fact that they have a different religion than Christians and just declare that Christians are worshiping a false God and we need to repent and worship many gods and hope that we can become gods ourselves some day.
teleologist,
Did you read the article on theosis (written by an Eastern Orthodox author) that I linked to above?
The idea of men becoming like God is as old as Christianity itself, and well-supported in the New Testament.
As for your charge of polytheism – same to you guys.
You believe in three – count em – three beings. Which basically makes you just as polytheist as we are.
Yes, I’m aware that trinitarians use a lot of fancy theological footwork to get around this uncomfortable fact, but I just fail to see why the same logic cannot be equally used by Mormons.
Cheers.
Wow. Hot buttons on all sides. I have a good friend who recently tried to convince me that Muslims were the true Christians. And maybe the Jews are true Christians, since they await the coming of Christ and all the prophecies of His coming came through Jewish prophets.
Asking the question, “Are Mormons Christians” seems unfair to those on both sides of the issue. Good Mormons believe in Christ, trust in Him, teach about Him, and typify the attributes of a “good Christian.” At the same time, Mormon theological doctrine, especially as concerning the nature of God, Christ, and the purpose of life, is markedly different from Orthodox doctrine as established in 1st- through 5th-century post-apostolic councils. With only that information present, there will always be a way for either side to ‘prove’ themselves right – and the other wrong, without actually accomplishing anything.
And so, in order to answer the question fully, at least in my viewpoint, we follow the twofold counsel giving by Christ Himself – “By their fruits ye shall know them” and “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given Him.”
I know a lot of Mormons who are good people – and the actions of the Mormon church, especially as regards to standing up for basic moral principles as outlined in the Bible, is impressive whatever your belief system. Prop 8? As a whole, according to the research I’ve happened upon, Mormons live longer lives, are happy in their faith, suffer from a lower rate of divorce, and are excellent citizens. Even people who struggle with massive personal issues – like being attracted to the same sex – can find peace in the Mormon religion (www.gaymormonguy.blogspot.com).
On the other issue, the true source of who is and is not a “saved” Christian is Christ Himself. And so the only real way to know (interesting, since Mormon missionaries teach this) is to ask Him.
Seth,
I didn’t say I pitied you for being a victim of fraud, I said I’d pray for you, as all Christians should pray for one another, to find the truth.
Read my original post. I came here to say that in my experience, Mormons are Christians. Period. Do they have messed up ideas from the orthodox point of view? Sure. But not when it comes to Jesus being the Savior, and that was the question.
I didn’t come here to evangelize. I did enough of that in Japan and South Carolina on my mission. You and others evangelized ME, trying to convince me that the BOA is true. I didn’t seek you out.
What I see going on here is PRECISELY the reason I don’t try to evangelize other Christians. It ends up a big pissing contest over doctrine, one trying to prove he is smarter and more wise than the other, citing obscure references in some scholarly work.
Please.
If that is what it takes to prove the “truth”, then you are ALL way off in left field because the Bible should be enough, as God intended. Not to mention the fact that this is why there are so many Christian denominations to begin with. Satan must be laughing, watching us bicker amongst ourselves! Are we not brothers in Christ? Where does it say that we must have a perfect understanding of God in order to receive grace and forgiveness? I thought we just had to confess that Jesus is the Christ and to accept his gift of atonement? Isn’t that what He meant when He said that His yoke was easy and His burden light? Isn’t that what He meant when He said the truth will set you free?
Jeez, no wonder you people are so aggressive. You must be frustrated from playing “whack-a-mole”, trying to hit all the requirements you’ve built up for yourselves to attain salvation.
As I said before, I believe we have bigger fish to fry with the many people in the world who have not yet accepted Christ as their Savior. You can fight amongst yourselves if you wish. I’m sure Jesus is proud of you…
Out of curiosity Bob, what mission in Japan were you?
I was in the Japan Fukuoka Mission back in 1994.
Tokyo North, 90~92
Columbia, SC for a couple months at the end.
Ah. You just missed the “Ammon Project” then…
No clue what that is.
Seth,
You are correct, there has always been cults and heretics attempting to corrupt Christianity. But the Apostle Paul has already warned us about this, “7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” Gal 1:7-8
I don’t know what you are talking about. We have never tried to get around this. This is clearly stated in the Bible and unlike Mormons we don’t try to add to it or conjure something up like a million demigods in one godhead just so that it make sense to your mind. But it is not my intention to demonstrate the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity. It has been debated ad infinitum and if you don’t see it now you won’t unless the Holy Spirit opens your eyes.
No, what I am curious about is that you obviously know that Christians are monotheists and yet you constantly tried to tell us we are saying God is a polytheistic god. I don’t know about you but I actually know what I believe and what I am saying. So my point is this why don’t you just accept the fact that Mormonism like all other religions are separate and antithetical to Christianity? I don’t have a problem of saying the Christianity is antithetical to every other religion including Mormonism.
Frankly I would appreciate and respect the Mormons a bit more in your evangelism if you just tell people what you really believe i.e., they need to worship Jesus Christ as just one god among many. And if they do everything right according to the Mormon Church they might become gods themselves one day. When your missionaries go out proselytizing, just tell people what they are really believing. There must be a lot of people who would be happy to know that god was once a man like us who exalted into godhood and we can do the same. I think it is kind of important for people to know what sort of god they believe in, don’t you?
teleologst:
If I may…
Mormons believe that although there are other God’s out there, we are subject to only one God, which has the form of the trinity.
Basically, it’s a family thing. They believe that we are the physical incarnation of our God’s spirit children. We are and ever shall be subject to Him and Him alone.
Based on a few Bible scriptures and expounded on by JS, they came up with the idea that eventually, after a long process taking who knows how long, we can become like God, just as a child has the capacity to become like his father.
This is also how they explain God’s “Glory” and how it increases. Since God is perfect and knows everything, it is by creating spirit children and having them mature into full fledged Gods that God increases His glory, by virtue of an increase of righteous children. Which is also why no matter what, we can NEVER surpass God.
BTW, this was also Satan’s crime. He offered to be the Savior, but wanted the glory for himself. In other words, he wanted us to be subject to him instead of God. Needless to say, that didn’t go over so well, and the war in heaven ensued.
Bob, it was a project where the pattern of proselyting for missionaries in Japan was completely overhauled. Sort of an experimental pilot program.
teleologist,
We worship One God.
That makes us monotheists.
Simple enough.
Bob, I appreciate your desire to have some modicum of theological comity. I don’t like the denominational fractures we have either. However, in the case of Mormonism the line is clear.
Your version of Mormonism is not what is held by JS and many of their leaders. You’ve highlighted what might be the confusion within the Mormon ranks but are any of their views Biblical? You don’t need to consider any further than Seth, who is an unequivocal polytheist. And Mike who gives a similar view to yours about god that man can some day merge and be one with god if they submit their will. Is this some sort of Buddhist nirvana? Frankly I don’t even know what it means to worship Jesus or God in the Mormon context. Are you going to worship the one that you will one day become?
Look, as Augustine said we must have unity in the essentials. Who God is, is an essential. If Mormons want to believe in a quasi-polytheistic god that’s fine, but at least acknowledge the LDS Church and their apostles and prophets are all heretical false teachers, even to their own standards, because they fully believe that their god was once a man like they are, making them in a way equal with their god.
It has been simple for me from the beginning. As I have been saying Mormons use the same terms and words but mean different things.
Teleologist,
You seem to be getting increasingly acrimonious, and in the process increasingly misrepresenting what I and others have said. This unwillingness or inability to correctly characterize our posts diminishes my confidence in your ability to correctly characterize the Bible.
As far as I can tell, no Mormon in this discussion has yet tried to make Mormonism look more like your version of Christianity. We’ve been trying to honestly point out the differences as well as the similarities. But the real point of my posts at least is not to show conformity or dissonance with your version of Christianity, but to show that the Mormon doctrines you consider false or even blasphemous are consistent with the Bible, or at least a reasonable interpretation of it.
Steve, who I’m sure you would consider a Christian, wants to put James on the back “burner.” He keeps referring not to the Bible, but to Paul. Paul is where it’s at, he says. But the Bible is not the gospel of Paul. Paul must be reconciled with the rest of the Bible.
And the fact that man is fallen, and there is a gulf between us and God, must be reconciled with the Biblical doctrine that Christ has bridge this gap. Christ, not me or Buddha, has offered us oneness with him EVEN AS he is one with the Father. It is only the Trinitarian view that would make this seem like “merging” with God in essence. The Biblical view allows us as well as Christ to retain an individual being as well as personality, while conforming our will to the Father’s–thus becoming one in the sense of unity of will or purpose.
You protested that inheriting the same “glory” does not mean godhood, but what does it mean when Christ said, “ye are gods,” and Paul said, “ye are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,” and Christ himself invited those who overcome (not simply those who believe) to sit with him in his throne, EVEN AS he sits with the Father in his throne.
These are biblical, not uniquely…
Teleologist (cont.),
Joseph Smith is accused of blasphemy for suggesting that the Father experienced mortality in a similar manner as Christ, and for accepting the Biblical doctrine that we are in fact formed in the image and likeness of God.
Christ was accused of blasphemy for saying that he was the Son of God, and did only the things he had seen his Father do. He defended the claim by reminding his accusers that their own scriptures call them gods (OT: elohim, NT: theoi) and children of God.
I make a similar defense of the same Biblical doctrines, as they can rationally and reasonably be understood, and you make a similar accusation of blasphemy.
Take care that you’re not kicking against the pricks.
Teleologist:
What I’ve tried to is clarify the basic doctrine for you as someone who taught it as a missionary and attended the temple. This is the doctrine as understood by the average member. Seth and Mike have done a VERY poor job of explaining it from that perspective, IMHO. They’ve gone straight to calculus when they haven’t even explained fractions!
Honestly, you seem to be so hell bent on finding differences, that you aren’t hearing what their actual beliefs are. Believe me when I say that you do not understand them in the slightest. You aren’t even in the ballpark!!! You are hearing what YOU want to hear, not what they are actually saying. Part of that can be blamed on the medium, part on their explanations, and part on your preconceived notions. You seem to assume the worst, and miss out many places where you are actually in agreement. Almost to the point where you are telling THEM what they believe, and refusing to believe them when they say they don’t believe that.
If you really understood them, I don’t think they would freak you out so much. I’m not saying you would accept them, but I think you might at least see how they took a scripture from the Bible, and ran with it.
When you fully understand their doctrine, it actually makes a lot of sense and is very logical. It answers so many questions that most people wonder about. If it was true, it would be quite wonderful.
Sadly, they were the rantings of an opportunist and con man.
Part of the problem is that the Evangelical movement at large has allowed a highly marginalized fringe faction of Evangelicals to monopolize all communication with Mormons.
Usually the types of Evangelical who even bother to notice Mormonism at all exhibit the following:
1. a heavy degree of biblical literalness (according to their own agenda, of course) – six day creationists, die hard versions of the inerrancy doctrine – far more so than the majority of Evangelicals in the United States
2. the vast majority are die-hard Five Point Calivinists, and
3. you also get ex-Mormons – usually much more bitter and angry than Bob (who has behaved himself relatively well in my experience) – they allow their own personal resentments to poison every thought they have about Mormonism.
These comprise most of the people involved in the Evangelical counter-cult faction. And the way you hear them talk – you’d think they were the only valid form of Christianity around (in fact, many of them do think they are the only “real” Christians – with Catholics, Anglicans, Open Theists, and even Arminians all being part of “false Christianity”).
It is truly unfortunate that such a fringe, radical, minority group has been allowed to hog the dialogue with Mormonism. I’ve found that generally speaking, Arminians, Open Theists, Social Trinitarians, mainline Evangelicals, and even Catholics yield much more civil conversations. Much more productive – but usually sabotaged by these wild-eyed zealots emerging from the darkest, and most morally repulsive corners of the Calvinist tradition.
It almost tempts me to suggest that Evangelicals enact a rule that Five Point Calvinists are no longer allowed to talk to Mormons, and that all further contact be handled primarily by the Arminian branch.
It would probably advance the dialogue light-years, if you could ever enforce it, of course…
Mike,
If it makes you feel superior playing the victim by characterizing my comments this way, go for it.
Really? Can you give me an example of how I was unwilling to correctly characterize your posts?
My version of Christianity? What is my version of Christianity? The last time I checked I do not have my own version of Christianity. JS has his version of Christianity, it is called Mormonism. But let me clarify what I said. I said it was my impression, and I chose this word carefully, the Mormons are constantly trying to show how similar they are with Christians. Why did I say that? It is my experience with Mormons including the ones here that claim your view of grace is the same as ours. Your god is the same as ours except your view of him is different because of how you interpret the scriptures. It is no different than when Protestants and Catholics disagree on some interpretations. Mormons also claim that they can believe the same gospel as evangelicals. I am at least honest enough to say that Christians and Mormons believe in a different God. Are you willing to say the same?
This is precisely the problem. While you are trying to find some sort of synergy between Mormon doctrines to Biblbical Christianity, I’ve been trying to tell you that they are utterly incompatible and I suggest Mormons face that fact, it has not and never will be compatible with Biblical Christianity. We are radically different on the essentials of who God is. And your doctrine of salvation is a form of grace and universalism light. And because we radically differ on the essentials then everything else is irrelevant. You also accept wolves as your apostles and prophets who blaspheme against God. I know you tried to watered-down the quotes I shown of their blaspheming but I don’t see any unbiased person reading those words from your prophets and apostles would see it as anything other than blaspheming God.
If this is a response to my comment about your view of oneness like that of nirvana, let me remind you what you said.
This was your response to my second question about your apostles and prophets saying they can become gods. Your response was to explain what they meant about god and how they would become gods. You then explained Mormons are “invited into the same oneness EVEN AS he is one with the Father.”
Now are you saying this oneness is not the same as being god? If that is true then you are saying your apostles and teachers are heretics. If you are saying this oneness is the same as being god then you are also a heretic as far as Christianity is concerned. If you are saying this oneness is not the same as god then you are also saying that Jesus Christ is not God. You are again a heretic as far as Christianity is concerned. I am only using your words and your apostles and prophets words.
Frankly, I can’t even discuss the finer points of exegesis with you because I do not believe you are saved and believe in the same God that I do. Beyond that, what is the purpose of you bringing this point up? Is it not to explain why your apostles and prophets think that god was once a man like them and was exalted to godhood and some day they will be exalted to the same status as the god you now worship? Isn’t it true you are bringing this up to justify that your apostles and prophets don’t really mean god in the everlasting, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent sense. Fortunately we can read exactly what your apostles and prophets said and they mean god in the same sense as the god they were worshiping. If they mean what you want them to mean don’t you think they would have said so?
So I don’t need you to tell me what your apostles and prophets mean because can read what they said. In your case, I can understand why you might want to change what they said because if they actually meant what they said, the LDS Church is wrong and you are believing a lie.
Really Bob? Maybe you can explain to me how this quote can possibly compatible with Biblical Christianity.
Bob,
Really? Maybe you explain where Mike seems to fail at how their apostles and prophets can debase God and exalt themselves to God’s level.
Seth, are you a science fiction fan, because that was a pretty fringe piece of fiction you wrote.
Let’s see now. You admit to not listening or watching Beck. All you know is apparently what you read and hear from others. That indicates to me that you appear to be passing judgment on Beck. I’d be careful doing that as it illustrates the real problem today and that is to many are judging someone based on others word. Are we are followers of Jesus Christ taught not to judge? Isn’t God the only one who will judge? Don’t fall into the trap set by naysayers who are bent on destroying God’s church in America. You are biting the hand of the messenger who is delivering the message to millions each day. How many people do you reach on a daily basis? Far fewer than Beck I am sure. Do you not believe that having someone on national radio talking about the Gospel to millions and bringing hearts and minds together for Jesus to be a wonderful thing? Could it be God has chosen one like Beck to spread His word? I do not hear Mormon doctrin being discussed I hear God’s word being spread. So why shoot the messenger? As for Russell; I read his piece in the Baptist Messenger and it disgusted me. His pompous arrogant attitude is the problem today not the solution. I too don’t he knows anything about Beck other than what he has read or heard yet he sits in judgement of Becks heart because Beck is/was an Mormon. Even the Mormon Church is angry with him! That to me is A good sign. I’d suggest we embrace his call to faith in Jesus Christ. If he brings just one heart to Christ, allows one person to be saved then I’d say he has done great work. The mere fact that the third largest audience in talk radio is hearing God’s word and how it can change our lives is amazing. In fact it is spreading. Yesterday evening San Franciso talk show host Michael Savage talked about a guardian angel sent from God to rescue him from an altercation on the city streets. Savage admitted that while he has times when he wonders of God’ existence he truly believed that God sent this angel to save him…
teleologist
I’ve done my best to try to clarify what Mormon doctrine actually is for you. You simply don’t want to hear it. You retort with other statements and writings that only confuse the issue, not clarify it. In many cases, JS was speaking in hyperbole, but you take it literally.
As I said, you are too busy trying to tell them what THEY believe based on YOUR interpretation, without actually hearing the TRUE interpretation from their standpoint. This serves no purpose. I can only conclude that you are not interested in actually understanding them, but only in proving that they are not Christian. To what end? Are you trying to convince them they are wrong (by twisting their beliefs) so they will abandon their beliefs (as interpreted by you)? If so, I say, Good luck!
Most of their beliefs ARE based on Biblical scripture. It becomes a matter of interpretation. It’s one thing to say that their interpretation is wrong, and quite another to say that it’s not Biblical. It IS Biblical, according to their interpretation of it.
“Else Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead not rise at all” – their basis for proxy baptism for the dead.
“Be perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect” – In their interpretation, God gives no commandment without providing a way to achieve it. God is perfect. If God is perfect and we are commanded to be perfect, then that equates to being LIKE GOD. How do you take away any of His attributes and have Him still remain perfect/God?
“One with the father” – they interpret this to mean ONE IN PURPOSE! God the Father, Jesus and the HG ALL have to same PURPOSE – ie- to bring to pass the eternal life of man. The goal is for us to eventually become “like god”, and to do what they believe He is doing: ie- have spirit children and help them work out their own salvation for their own eternal life.
You may not agree with their interpretation of these Biblical passages, but that IS where they…
Mike (in regard to comment #58),
It seems to me that it is LDS doctrine that the Bible was corrupted, and not merely by omission (though that is often emphasized) but also by other alterations. President Benson stated:
“Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation.”—Ezra Taft Benson, “The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign (CR), Nov. 1986, 4.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains the LDS view of the Bible as follows (107):
“In addition to difficulties associated with translating from ancient to modern languages, other scriptures also declare that some parts of the original biblical text have been lost or corrupted (e.g., 1 Ne. 13:28-29; D&C 6:26-27; 93:6-18). Joseph Smith commented on the Bible’s incompleteness: ‘It was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled’ (TPJS, pp. 10-11). He later said, ‘Much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now…. We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain’ (TPJS, p. 61). The Prophet Joseph further stated, ‘I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors’ (TPJS, p. 327). Thus, the elements of mistranslation, incompleteness, and other errors weaken the Bible; but the spirit of its messages still reveals enough of God’s word to fulfill his appointed purposes. Joseph Smith summarized thus: ‘Through the kind providence of our Father a portion of His word which He delivered to His ancient saints, has fallen into our hands [and] is presented to us with a promise of a reward if obeyed, and with a penalty if disobeyed’ (TPJS, p. 61). Latter-day Saints have continued to trust in the general accuracy of the biblical texts even though they know that that text may not always be correct. Thus, they study and revere the Bible, especially in the context of other scriptures and modern revelation, which have much to say about the Bible and how it is to be interpreted, and as they study they ponder and pray that they may receive inspiration from God and come to understand the Bible’s messages as they need to be applied in their lives (cf. Moro. 10:3-5).”
The above discussion emphasizes omissions but acknowledges that from the LDS perspective there are also “elements of mistranslation…and other errors.” The assertion that Mormons “trust in the general accuracy of the biblical texts even though they know that that text may not always be correct” is a bit like saying “we trust that this water is in general drinkable although we know that it is sometimes poisoned.” The point appears to be something like this: “We wish to be known as affirming the reliability of what the Bible says, but we reserve the right to appeal to possible corruptions wherever the biblical text seems to conflict with LDS doctrine.” How often a Mormon will appeal to possible mistranslations or other corruptions will depend on the individual Mormon.
If we accept the traditional view that the Joseph Smith Translation was largely a project of restoring the original text of the Bible, we have in the JST a guide from Joseph himself as to what was wrong with the Bible. Robert Millet once wrote:
“On 2 July 1833 the Prophet wrote to the leaders of the Church in Missouri and indicated that he and his scribe had just completed their translation of the Bible.1 In fact, Joseph worked with the text for the next eleven years of his life, editing, correcting, refining that which had come to him by revelation. In total, over 3,410 verses from the KJV were altered through corrections, additions, and an occasional deletion. There is no question in my mind but that in many cases these changes represent a restoration of ancient texts that had been corrupted or lost before the compilation of the Bible.” Selected Writings of Robert L. Millet: Gospel Scholar Series, 122.
Ironically, while Mormons sometimes argue that they view the text of the (surviving) portions of the Bible as reliable, many Mormons argue that the Bible was subjected to a massive alteration by a conspiracy of “Deuteronomists” who rewrote the Bible to reflect a monotheistic ideology in place of a more primitive Israelite polytheism. One thing is for sure: you can’t have it both ways!
Seth R. (in regard to comment #81),
Could you please cite one LDS general authority or LDS Church publication that affirms your suggestion that the heavenly parents “adopted” their preexistent spirit children? Or is this the personal theological construct of Seth R.?
Seth (in regard to comment #82),
I have no problem with tradition per se. I agree that Jesus was criticizing false tradition, not all tradition. But that’s my point: some tradition is false. That is not something Jesus would ever have said about Scripture, and in fact he affirmed the truth of all Scripture (e.g., Matt. 5:17-18; 22:29; John 10:35). Hence, Scripture has a quality of truth-reliability that tradition does not have.
Although you assert that “the tradition IS scriptural,” I have no idea what tradition you mean. I am unaware of any LDS doctrine of a tradition that is “scriptural” other than what is found in the scriptures themselves.
Seth (in regard to comments #86 and #89),
The lexical source you cited (http://biblelexicon.org/isaiah/44-24.htm) is an amateurish website that simply provides information from the Hebrew dictionary at the back of Strong’s concordance. That dictionary is not a reliable source of lexical information; it typically gives “root meanings” or etymological information, which may be helpful but does not amount to a reliable guide to the actual meanings of words in contexts.
The expressions “by myself” and “alone” in Isaiah 44:24 clearly mean that Jehovah was the sole maker of the universe. I didn’t claim that he was “alone” in the sense of not having any other beings in existence at the time he made the physical world; the language allows for that idea (which is all that Heiser, for example, is saying, in regard to the meaning of such language in other texts). I asserted that he was the sole maker of the universe. In addition to the statement in Isaiah 44:24, there is the fact that the Bible repeatedly attributes creation to Jehovah, the LORD God, and never attributes the creation of the world to anyone else.
The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. 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.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Joseph Smith
“8. 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.”
Note that it says of the Bible, “as far as it is translated correctly”, but no such disclaimer exists for the Book of Mormon. This is because they believe the Book of Mormon has only been translated once, and that was by Joseph Smith himself, by the power of God. So it is a “perfect” record, if you will.
Ironically, there were quite a few revisions to the Book of Mormon after it was first published, some of which were significant. Most of these are blamed on the type setter, but that argument fails when one looks at the actual written manuscripts provided to the printer. In fact, when you look at the hand written manuscripts, it becomes more evident that JS modified the story as he went along.
Like you said Rob, you can’t have it both ways.
Actually Bob, the Book of Mormon contains its own disclaimers for those who are paying close enough attention.
Ether 12:23-27
Here the prophet Moroni expresses dismay to the Lord at human limitations in writing the book of Ether. He mourns that he and his people are so weak in writing, and how their written words are utterly incapable of expressing the true power of their spoken words. He fears that the Gentiles will mock at the words he has written, because of their weakness.
At this point the voice of God declares those who mock “fools” and states his grace is sufficient that those who are truly humble and teachable will take no advantage of Moroni’s weakness.
1 Nephi 19:5-7
Here the prophet Nephi outlines different records he created to document the history of his people. The larger plates for the political, religious and social history, and the smaller plates to contain only that which is of spiritual worth. The key passages are in verses 6 and 7:
6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.
7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.
So we have a pretty clear admission from Nephi himself right here of possible errors in the text. And again the same warning to everyone here not to take advantage of these errors and find yourself mocking the things of God.
Finally, we get the last words of the prophet Mormon himself – the one who compiled the record now known as the “Book of Mormon.” Mormon 9:30-34:
30 Behold, I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words.
31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.
32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.
Taken together, from these passages, it is clear that Mormonism has no doctrine of inerrancy – not for the Bible, and not for the Book of Mormon either.
But we do have repeated stern warnings not to blow off the words of God merely for the weakness of the instruments he chooses for his divine purposes.
Rob, in your comment 136, I might have more to say on the subject, but for now I’ll just note that Heiser was making the argument that “alone” can just as easily mark distinctiveness and incomparability – not necessarily that Jehovah was the only being with a hand in creation.
If you want to say that Jehovah had an incomparable and unsurpassed role in the creation, sure – Mormons are definitely on board with that.
Rob in Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus is talking about the original uncorrupted version of the Law (or “scripture” as you infer). He is not automatically making a statement about your present canonized Bible, nor was he making a categorical statement about the scriptures as the Jews of his day had them either. To assert such is to merely engage in question-begging.
Matthew 22:29 is no help at all in this debate. Because it leaves entirely open the question of WHY the Jews knew not the scriptures.
Could it be because they had a corrupted version of the scriptures?
Quite possibly.
John 10:35 is no help to you either because it merely speaks of a specific passage (and incidentally, a problematic passage for Evangelicals in debating with Mormons), not the entire modern canon.
Sure there are various instances of Jesus approvingly quoting Old Testament passages. But this does not even come close to being a convincing argument for inerrancy of the whole Old Testament. Or the New Testament.
Bob, with all due respect you have not explained any of the essential questions that I’ve raise against Mormonism. Maybe the Mormon teaching is more ingrained in you than you think, which explain why you think Mormons holding to their beliefs can still be Christians.
I would ask you again where have you explain the problems that I’ve raised up against Mormon doctrines? Did I raised any questions on baptizing of the dead or about be perfect? As a matter of fact I think I explicitly said that there is no point in discussing any exegesis with a Mormon because I do not believe that they are saved.
The basic problem is that until they get the God issue right there is no salvation. You can say until your face turn blue the you believe in Jesus Christ alone for you salvation, but if you meant Jesus Christ as a space alien from Alpha Centauri then no I don’t think you can be saved. Your best effort at clarifying the Mormon doctrine of god was to tell me that JS is speaking in a hyperbole? Am I am just suppose to take your word for it. Obviously it is just my biased interpretation right? Because I was never a Mormon so I can’t possible understand anything that I read from them. I should just turn my brain off an accept anything you tell me? Well, maybe I need a little bit more then just you saying those words from JS were just a hyperbole. Hermeneutically how is it a hyperbole? Can you explain that in the context of what he was writing? What about the other apostles and prophets that follow after him saying the same thing, are they also hyperboles?
Did you even tried to explain Seth’s statement that he believe that the one god can be made up of 3 million gods? If you think I am not listening to what they are saying, maybe you are so busy trying to defend you past that you are not listening to what I am saying.
Prove? I am not trying to prove anything? All I’ve been doing was to state the God that I believe in is completely different than the god that the Mormons believe in, that is all. My sense is they don’t want to admit that and now you seem to be saying the same thing as the Mormons that we believe in the same God. Again you and the Mormons have not shown an iota of evidence, given what they have said, how the Mormon god is the same God that we believe in the Bible.
.
This is very short and worth the read:
http://utah-lutheran.blogspot.com/2010/10/salvation-by-works-in-book-of-mormon.html
.
Funny Steve, it’s possible to read that passage in Alma as declaring righteous works to be the natural result of the work of Christ’s grace, but your author here seems to miss that option.
Just another Evangelical seeing only what he WANTS to see in a scriptural passage. Not news at all.
Seth,
I’m not referring to error within the BOM itself, I’m referring to the errors of translation by JS, or, God Himself, since that is who’s power it was translated by according to JS. I’m not even going to bother trying to explain them here. A Google search for “Book of Mormon revisions” will bring up PLENTY of references dealing with this issue. Over 3000 “revisions” since the original publication have been documented.
Maybe you were in a cult too long so you still can’t change your mindset the words mean different things in a cult. Do you think there is any significance to what they mean when they use a certain word?
Mormon Definitions
God, the Eternal Father
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”
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens…I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man….it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see….and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
“He [God] …was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being…It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God was once been a finite being” (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.333); “The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself” (Journal of Discourses, vol.3, p.93).
“there are more gods than there are particles of matter” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.345).
His Son, Jesus Christ
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and Sinner! When our Father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel, THE ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken—he is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later…. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family [Adam]; and when he took a tabernacle [body], it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.
Now remember from this time forth, and forever that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost…. “If the son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties.” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (Salt Lake City, UT: np., 1967), vol. 1, pp. 50-51
teleologist,
How many times are you going to change the subject here?
Because it seems like your standard operating procedure is to change the subject to a new criticism of Mormonism every time you are losing the argument.
Which of course, is nothing new. I encounter the same tactics on a lot of fundie Evangelical blogs whenever Mormonism is a topic.