Are Anti-Mormons Christians?

FAIR ^ | Russell McGregor

[Paragon Defender]

One of the popular themes used by critics is to pose the question, "Are Mormons Christian?" and to come up with the answer "no". This theme has appeared, without substantial variation, in a number of anti-Mormon publications over the years.

The approach has been trivially simple: to create a set of false dichotomies consisting of assertions to the effect that Christians (i.e. the critic's preferred flavor of Christians) believe X, while Mormons are (usually inaccurately) portrayed as believing Y, which X and Y are assumed (and not demonstrated) to be incompatible. Hence, Mormons cannot be Christian.

A number of responses have been made to this argument. Some have turned the critics' argument on its head; since LDS Christians believe A, and a given critic believes B, then that critic is not a Christian. This approach exposes the fallacy of the argument and pokes fun at it at the same time. An alternative approach, of interest to serious students of the scriptures, is to show the biblical support for the genuine LDS beliefs that the critics both misrepresent and dismiss.

This essay uses a third approach. It has always been the stance of the Latter-day Saints to live by the Golden Rule, as part of the teachings of Jesus, extending to others the same courtesy that they would like them to extend to us. Thus, we do not generally question the genuineness of another's Christian belief. However, the question "Are Mormons Christian?" is invariably based on the assumption that the questioner is a Christian (which we have generally not disputed) and that his or her Christianity is definitive. It is the first assumption that we shall question here, with the intent of restoring some balance into the debate. As we shall see, it is not the LDS Christians, but their critics, who need to be concerned about their Christian credentials.

This may seem, at first glance, to be a rather odd thing to say; the anti-Mormon movement has defined the debate in such a way that their Christianity is not open to question. Many of them are (or profess to be) clergymen, while most of them are conservative Evangelical Protestants of one sort or another. And yet the question remains and continues to be asked: is anti-Mormonism truly a Christian activity? The answer, both in the general case and in the particulars, is a clear and resounding no.

Let us consider the general case first. Before we do, it would be useful to define our terms, instead of relying (as our opponents frequently do) upon assumed meanings (which they too-often shift in mid-sentence). The word Christian I take to mean what the dictionary says that it means, namely, a follower of Jesus Christ. I explicitly repudiate the frequent anti-Mormon assertion, which parallels Parson Thwackum, that "Christian" means "historical Christian," i.e. one who agrees with the doctrines promulgated by the ecumenical councils. I rely upon the clearly understood definition that seems to be accepted for all purposes except religious polemic. As a noun, Christian means a disciple of Christ. As an adjective, Christian is an exact synonym of Christ-like.

The term anti-Mormon is herein used to describe any person or organization that is directly and actively opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, policies and programs. It is not, as critics sometimes mischievously try to claim, a catchall term for anyone who does not accept or believe in the Church, but is applied only to those who actively campaign against it. As an adjective, it applies to those specific activities that may with reasonable accuracy be described as attacks upon the Church.

The general case can best be discovered by investigating what the New Testament has to say about such activities. The New Testament is the logical choice because it is held to be authoritative by almost all Christians, regardless of their differences. And in examining it we find little that gives aid and comfort to the anti-Mormon cause, while there is considerable material that weakens their position.

For example, Mark 9:38-40 tells how the apostles saw someone casting out devils in the name of Jesus and so they forbade him, because he did not follow them. Jesus explicitly told them to "forbid him not," adding, "for he that is not against us is on our part." When Paul went to Rome he met with the leaders of the Jews in that city, and told them why he was there. They told him that they hadn't heard anything about him, but they wanted to hear what he had to say about the Church, "for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against." (Acts 28:22.) Paul (in Gal. 5:19-23) and James (in Jas.3:14-18) both contrast the peaceful, non-controversial Christian way of doing things with contentious and strife-ridden world. Paul calls it the "fruit of the spirit" versus the "fruit of the flesh" while James talks about the "wisdom from above" and the "wisdom from below." In both cases it is the inferior, uninspired article that produces contention.

Notwithstanding the hollow and insincere protestations of "Christian love" with which anti-Mormons frequently window-dress their attacks on our beliefs, their activities are nothing if not contentious.

A number of examples of religious controversy are described in the New Testament. Perhaps the most revealing is the account of the "Diana incident" in Ephesus (Acts 19:24-41). The following is a summary of that incident. Note the parallels to the activities of anti-Mormons in our day.

A group of anti's identify the Church as a threat to their livelihood (24-25) and interpret the Church's teachings as an attack on their religion (26-27) despite the fact that the missionaries had not actually said anything derogatory (37). The anti's chanted religious slogans (28) and set about creating a riot (29-32) in the course of which two of the missionaries were dragged into court (29). The members protected the visiting General Authority (30-31) and put forward a spokesman to make a defense (33). However the anti's silenced him by chanting their religious slogan for two hours(!) (34). Things could have turned out very badly (as they have, all too often in this dispensation) but for the intervention of a wise and fair-minded public official who pointed out that the missionaries had neither done nor said anything wrong (37) and that there was no cause for such an uproar (40). (Isn't it just as well that the town clerk was not a first-century Governor Ford!)

The parallel is exact. Anti-Mormons today are the legitimate heirs of Demetrius the Silversmith, while the ancient saints behave strikingly like the modern ones.

The one passage that critics sometimes cite to justify their position is found in 1 Peter 3:15. But if this verse is the best they can do, then they are in trouble, because it is pretty weak. It tells Christians to be ready to answer questions about their beliefs, not to attack those who believe differently. In other words, it says that if someone approaches a Christian and asks, "what do you believe, and why?" then Christian needs to be ready to answer in terms of his or her own beliefs. Anti-Mormons who use this passage as a proof-text would presumably answer with, "I believe them Mormons is out to lunch because?" That is not what Peter is telling us. The New Testament gives the anti-Mormon cause no help; the generalities of the case are all against them.

The particulars of the case are not any more helpful. In practice, anti-Mormons exhibit various degrees of hypocrisy in their work. Consider the following statement, found on a Web site maintained by Jason R. Smith:

While we are not LDS we are not "Anti's," either, as some would like to label us. We are, however, interested in the Restoration Movement, in all of it's [sic] facets. I myself spend a lot of time studying the works of the LDS and RLDS churches in hopes of coming to a clearer understanding and focus of their beliefs.

This would seem to be saying that Jason is interested in learning about the LDS Church and gaining an understanding of its teachings. It seems a little odd to establish a Web site for this purpose, since Web sites are far more effective at disseminating information than gathering it. However, he immediately lets the cat out of the bag in the very next paragraph, thus:

Why do I do this? Because I consider such ideas as the Doctrine of the Apostasy and the First Vision attacks against the Christian Faith.

The hypocrisy of Jason's position is so utterly transparent as to be obvious to all but the most dedicated anti-Mormon. An exact parallel would be for a LDS to say, "I'm not an anti-Baptist; I just spend all my free time maintaining a Web site finding fault with the Baptist Church because I believe that Baptist ideas about cheap-grace solafidianism are attacks against the Christian Faith." In reality, to characterize the beliefs of any group of sincere Christians as "attacks against the Christian Faith" is about as "anti" that group as it is possible to get.

Many anti-Mormons take Jason's position, claiming that they are actually "defending" something called "the Christian Faith" against the Latter-day Saints, whom they see as attacking it. Never mind that there is no book or pamphlet published by the Church that attacks, denigrates, undermines or belittles the beliefs of any other church; we are attacking them simply by believing such "ideas" as the First Vision.

The flaw in this reasoning should be obvious from the outset: not only does every church have beliefs that are in some way inimical to the truth claims of other churches, but the mere existence of each church is an implicit vote of no confidence in all of the others. The choice to belong to a church that baptizes by immersion is at least an expression of a preference not to belong to a church that sprinkles.

If everyone agreed that all was well in Rome, there would have been no reformation, and hence no Protestants, while the huge number of Protestant sects is testimony to the dim view which the reformers take of each other's work. Every church believes-or at very least, once believed-explicitly or otherwise, that it is in some way better than all others; in other words, that all others are inferior to it.

Does that mean that every Christian is automatically "attacking" everyone not of his or her sect? Of course it does not, but that is the absurd rationale that anti-Mormons adopt when they say that believing in the First Vision is an attack on the "Christian Faith." Actually, since Latter-day Saints are Christian, it follows that LDS doctrines, including the Apostasy and the First Vision, are part of their Christian Faith and therefore not an attack on it at all. In fact those doctrines teach not that there is anything wrong with the Christian Faith, but simply that those who profess to hold it have lost track of parts of it. It takes no great genius to realize that a restoration of the gospel can only be proclaimed by those who think that the gospel is a rather important thing.

Anti-Mormons consider it "Christian" to do things that, if the tables were turned, they would consider completely unChristian. And they would be right, too. "Be sure to get the facts from the true Christians picketing outside the temple" screamed an Internet buffoon recently, referring to the Preston (U.K.) Temple open house. Let us pause for a moment and reflect; can anyone imagine a group of Latter-day Saints picketing, say, a Methodist Church? Of course not. That would be an utterly unChristian thing to do, and since we are Christians, we don't do such things. Let us consider again the incident from Acts 19, discussed earlier. Can anyone imagine Paul and the other missionaries picketing the temple of Diana? It is pretty clear that they did no such thing. Turn it around; can we visualize the "antis" of that time picketing Christian places of worship? Yes, very easily. Anti- Mormons do such things, because anti-Mormonism is not Christian. There are, in fact, no "true Christians" picketing outside any LDS Temples, since that is not what true Christians do.

At this juncture, it is altogether apropos to consider the terrible consequences of anti-religious polemic in general. In the past it has led to such historical highlights as the feeding of Christians to the lions for public amusement, the burning of heretics, the crusades and the Seven Years' War, while it is at least partly responsible for the Nazi death camps. The epithet of "Christ-killers" applied to Jews is nothing if not religious polemic, while ghettos and yellow stars of David were conscious borrowings from medieval Catholic anti-Semitism. Anti- Mormon polemic in particular has led to the Boggs extermination order, the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the expulsion from Nauvoo, Johnston's army and the Edmunds-Tucker act. When we see the anti-Mormon fraternity loudly repeating the very same charges that led to those nineteenth-century atrocities, we cannot but wonder if some (if not most ) of them secretly yearn for a return to the glory days when their fulminations caused lynchings, mass murder, wholesale rape, and the crushing of women's voting rights.

The use of false accusations by anti-Mormons has been discussed in some detail by others. The Satanic nature of this activity (Satan means "accuser" or "slanderer") needs no commentary; but what is really interesting is the way that anti-Mormons quite clearly (and it may be argued, deliberately) transfer their misdeeds to us. For example: "Mormons don't know their own doctrines." This common anti-Mormon claim is a cover-up for the fact that the critics don't know our doctrines; at least, they very consistently get them wrong. "Mormons misrepresent their own beliefs." This is quite a blatant reversal of the truth; actually the critics misrepresent our beliefs.

"Mormons are racist." This is truly ironic. We remember that the Saints were driven out of Missouri because they were mostly Northern and therefore opposed to slavery, while the Baptists, Episcopalians and others in the South supported that institution. Actually the very frequent playing of the race card by the Church's critics is a pretty clear indication that they have very few valid criticisms to make.

Perhaps more significant is the fact that anti- Mormonism is almost exclusively a white mens' club; the few exceptions are white women. When we connect this with the fact that the geographical home of anti-Mormonism is KKK country, there may be an explanation ready at hand. In times past it was a popular joke in some quarters that the Procol Harum song "A Whiter Shade of Pale" was the South African national anthem. That nation is no longer eligible to use that song, but maybe the anti- Mormons could make use of it.

"Mormons repress women." Utah territory was the first place in the U.S. where women voted. The antipolygamy "crusaders," the anti-Mormons of just a few generations ago, managed to get women's suffrage suppressed in Utah because Utah women supported plural marriage.

Anti-Mormons frequently dismiss LDS testimonies as mere rote repetition. "This testimony is normally repeated as if by memory, with little inflection or emotion," says Michael H. Reynolds in Sharing the Faith with Your Mormon Friends, p. 18. In what FARMS reviewer Daniel C. Peterson calls "a richly ironic touch," that "little falsehood is followed almost immediately" by an earnest recommendation that "Christians" (i.e. anti-Mormon proselytizers) should memorize and practice reciting their testimonies. Rote repetition is clearly acceptable for anti-Mormons to use, but not for Latter-day Saints.

"The Mormon Church is money-hungry." And so we ask, when we see these televangelists with their multi-million-dollar incomes, their corporate jets and their mistresses, why are none of them LDS? Why are all of them Evangelical Protestants of some shade or another?

"The LDS church's missionary program is one of proselytizing, rather than evangelism. Its goal is not to lead lost sinners to faith in Jesus, but to detach people from their churches and attach them to the LDS church." So says Robert McKay. And what, may we ask, is the famous SBC missionary effort in Utah about, if not to detach people from the LDS Church and attach them to the Baptist church?

"The Mormon Church's leaders are crooks and charlatans." Walter Martin, Dee Jay Nelson and Ed Decker, to name just a few examples, are/were liars and charlatans. Mark W. Hofmann is a crook; the very pseudo-scholarly Tanners are charlatans. Criminality and charlatanry are firmly at home in the anti-Mormon camp, having been firmly rebuffed by the Latter-day Saints.

A variation on the above statement is the oft-proclaimed opinion that "The Mormon Church's leaders must know that the whole thing is a fake." What a world of smugness and arrogance is encapsulated in that single sentence! The anti-Mormon has reached a conclusion that "the whole thing is a fake," and so naturally no well-informed person could possibly hold a contrary opinion; and nobody is better informed on this subject than the Church's leaders. Therefore, when they tell the rest of us poor deluded souls that they actually believe in the Church to which they have devoted the better part of their lives, they are lying to us. The utterly astonishing conclusion to which this leads is that not one of the Church's general authorities has ever been an honest man, or even a decent human being.

"The Mormon Church teaches salvation by works." Real Christians, we are told, need only the grace of God through Christ. Very well, so what is all this anti-Mormon activity about? Can't Latter-day Saints be saved by grace through faith in Christ? Well, apparently not. As Peterson so cogently writes, And it is clear, frankly, that there is one work, one human action, that our Baptist critics do regard, however inconsistently, as essential for our salvation: "If for some reason you should trust a Jesus other than the one who is revealed in the New Testament," says Michael Reynolds, "then your trust is in vain, even if by some chance the rest of your theology is intact. ... [T]here is no hope for those who trust in this different Jesus."

Obviously, in Reynolds's view, theological error is the one unforgivable sin. And theological rectitude is the one indispensable work. That is to say, in the anti-Mormon's eyes, in order for Latter-day Saints to be saved by grace, we have to first do a work, which is to renounce our belief in Mormonism.

This becomes extremely significant, for of the major doctrinal differences between Latter-day Saints and "mainstream" Christians, differences on the matter of salvation would have to rank among the first three. And the cacophony that is the anti- Mormon chorus reaches a near unanimity when the critics insist that all real Christians believe in salvation by grace alone, and that we will be damned unless we give up our "heretical" beliefs. And yet the second statement expressly contradicts the first. Although this poses no problem for Latter-day Saints, other Christians can only resolve the dilemma by accepting the first statement as it stands, and then concluding that those who make the second statement are not real Christians on their own criteria, since they insist on a works-based salvation.

So we return to the question with which we began this survey: are anti-Mormons Christian? The answer: of course not. They were never even in the hunt. Their clerical collars and pious platitudes are simply a smokescreen to hide the ugly reality that anti-Mormonism is one of the clear manifestations of the darkest side of human nature; the side that made possible the death camps and burning crosses, the massacre of the Hutus and the wholesale slaughter of the Native Americans. Just as vicious and repressive dictatorships like to give themselves grandiose and liberal-sounding titles like "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Such-and-such", so these nasty religious haters appropriate the label of "Christian" in order to claim for themselves a specious respectability that their deeds and attitudes do not merit.

Notwithstanding all of the above, Latter-day Saints are, and continue to be, more than willing to allow these folk the right to call themselves Christians. All we ask is that they return the same courtesy.

[svcw]

Do you remember when you said that lds were persecuted. Something about a friend had a glass of water thrown on her.
This is persecution: http://www.anglicandioceseofjos.org/dogo.html

[Elsie]

Huh, well, that’s my core belief and I am LDS.

What are your peripheral beliefs?

We can find 'republicans' all day long that have the same CORE beliefs as Conservatives, and then have a whole lot of OTHER things they 'believe' that show their true colors.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

why would I do that? You give the threads some comic relief, that is, till our resident x-mormon atheist shows up, then we have two clowns to laugh at!

How Christlike of you. You prove why my Jesus is better than your Jesus. lol.

[svcw]

I guess they really take to heart that “whores of Babylon” thing Joe said.

[Elsie]

Of course as the LDS con was developed and the power of promising godhood as a sales tool became apparent, that all had to be kicked to the curb, which in this case means using the old tried and true Pee Wee Herman "No I didn't" methodology which is standard LDS SOP.

---

---

---

I don't know that we teach it

In case you don't recognize the title of this post, it is part of President Hinckley's answer to a reporter's question that appeared in the August 4 1997 issue of Time magazine. The reporter referenced the King Follett discourse. The answer supplied and the manner in which it was delivered caused the reporter to draw some false conclusions about a very important doctrine.

In that discourse, the prophet Joseph Smith said, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man." (See also D&C 130:22)

The article referred to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man is now, God once was; as God now is, man may become." The reporter said, "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing." President Hinckley was then asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

The bothersome reply

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

The reporter wrote, "On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain." That's an unfortunate conclusion. Of course I wasn't at the interview and neither were you but I'll bet the reporter mistook careful thoughtfulness for uncertainty. This doctrine is indeed deep territory and not something that is taught outside the LDS Church.

An earlier and similar interview

The San Francisco Chronicle, published an interview with President Hinckley in April of 1997. The reporter asked, "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?" President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'"

He then said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."

President Hinckley's response

President Hinckley said in October 1997 General Conference: "I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine.

"I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." And there lies the whole point of my post today. Some members did indeed become a little concerned by the exchanges they read in the press reports of those interviews.

Does the Church still teach this?

I know this is old news but it still bothers some people when they discover the anti-Mormon attacks floating around on the Internet. President Hinckley was right. We really don't know much about how our Heavenly Father became a God. The idea that he passed through a mortal probationary state like you and me is certainly not documented in any scripture of which I know.

However, it is still taught. In the Gospel Principles manual in the chapter on exaltation we read, "Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."

Summary and conclusion

I don't know why this should bother anyone. The doctrine is true. Joseph Smith knew a whole lot more about this than I do. President Hinckley also knew a whole lot more about this doctrine than he was willing to share with reporters who did not have the background to understand it. It must have been difficult for President Hinckley to hold back and not teach it in those interviews.

It didn't bother me when I read the interviews back in 1997 and it doesn't bother me today. However, I know it does bother some people. We each have trials of our faith. I have never depended on an intellectual understanding of the gospel in order to accept it and live it. There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.

 

---

---

 There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith. alrighty then!!!

 

 

 

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Are you capable of having any thoughts of your own or are you performing for your imaginary groupies again? lol. Oh I know. Perhaps you’re spamming your way into heaven.

[Elsie]

 

And, as I remember, there was a whole lot of killing that went on between Catholics and Protestants on that same question. After y’all get things COMPLETELY sorted out, let me know. In the mean time, I’ll lay down and take a nap since it’s going to take you a while.....

 

 

Can you tell if these are Catholic or Protestant verses?

---

---

Acts 2:42
  They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

 

 

 Acts 4:2
 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.

 

 

Acts 5:42
  Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

 

 

Acts 13:1

  In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.

 

 

 Acts 13:12
   When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.

 

 

Acts 17:18-19
 18.  A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
 19.  Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

 

 

Acts 18:11
    So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

 

 

Romans 15:4
 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

 

 

Romans 16:17
   I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

 

 

1 Corinthians 4:17
   For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:2
 2.  I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,  just as I passed them on to you.

 

 

Ephesians 4:14-15
 14.  Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
 15.  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

 

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15
   So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings  we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

 

2 Thessalonians 3:6
  In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching  you received from us.

 

 

1 Timothy 1:3-4
 3.  As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
 4.  nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.

 

 

1 Timothy 1:7
  They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

 

 

1 Timothy 2:7
   And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

 

 

1 Timothy 4:1-2
 1.  The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
 2.  Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

 

 

1 Timothy 4:6
   If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

 

 

1 Timothy 4:11
  Command and teach these things.

 

 

1 Timothy 6:3-5
 3.  If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
 4.  he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 
 5.  and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

 

 

2 Timothy 1:13
  What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

 

 

 2 Timothy 2:15-17
 15.  Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
 16.  Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.
 17.  Their teaching will spread like gangrene.

 

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17
 16.  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
 17.  so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

 

 2 Timothy 4:3-4
  3.  For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
  4.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

 

 

Titus 1:11
   They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach--and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

 

 

Titus 2:1
  You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

 

 

Titus 2:15
  These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

 

 

 Hebrews 13:9
 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings.

 

 

 2 Peter 2:1-3
 1.  But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
 2.  Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
 3.  In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

 

 

2 John 1:10
  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.

[Elsie]

And very accurate; too.

[Elsie]

I cannot believe you waste so much energy against mormons and their church.

Believe it.

When the doubts come in the night Iand they will) just remember where you heard the Truth.

[Elsie]

 

What’s the point of sending those young men door to door in our communities to try and convert people to mormonism then?

---

---

 

 

 

Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/  <-- Complete and uneditted

---

 

 

Timeline...    Subject...

 

0:59            "Anti-Mormons..."

1:16            "ATTACK the faith you have..."

2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."

3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."

[ejonesie22]

You know they really are funny.

In a pathetic little way..

[reaganaut]

I am much more concerned about how God thinks of me.

I want to follow Jesus, yes, the same Jesus who we read about in the New Testament.

- - - - - - -
Then you share the same concern I do, and I am sorry but the LDS Jesus (created being, had to earn his godhood, one of 3 gods, bore sin in the Garden not on the Cross and thus didn’t NEED to die, killed thousands in America during His Crucifixion, is our ‘creditor’) is NOT, IN ANY WAY the Jesus of the Bible. At all. And worshiping a false Christ will NOT lead to salvation in ANY WAY any more than it will save Muslims.

I also know exactly who the LDS believe in and I find it rather strange that they keep insisting they are just ‘another Christian denomination’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I hope you see where I am coming from. I will not quietly sit by and let people be dragged down to Hell because they think they belong to the ‘one true church’.

Best,

R

[Elsie]

There you go - using FACTS to point out the truth!

[svcw]

Every post you put “lol”. So I keep wondering, you can’t possible mean laugh out loud, because in most cases it makes zero sense to your reply. Then I realized you really mean “little old ladies” and then it because clear.

[reaganaut]

What really annoys me is that they will not take no for an answer.

- - - - - - -
Tell them you are an ‘ex-mormon’. They will walk on the other side of the street for MONTHS or longer (at least the mishies in our area do).

[Elsie]

 

 If the protestant churches say the Catholic church went astray how can they (protestant) be perfect if they came from a broken church.

 

---

 

 

Welcome folks, to our daily session of Theological discussions about Mormonism: Is it Christian?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feel free to enter the talks at any time.

 

If you get dizzy, feel free to leave at any point.

 

All points are valid;

and, all points will be discussed.

 

 

---

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd_ucRdLLf4&NR=1

---

---

 

[reaganaut]

I guess they really take to heart that “whores of Babylon” thing Joe said.

- - - - - -
I did when I was training for MY LDS mission.

[Elsie]

So when, exactly, did the Church stop teaching the Truth and go into apostasy? Should be an easy question.

An EASIER one should be:

Just what did Joseph Smith learn to be UNTRUE about PRESBYTERIANism?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I cannot believe you waste so much energy against mormons and their church.

Believe it 999. These people spend more time obsessing about how their Jesus is better than somebody else's Jesus that they seem to not bother to take time and learn how to behave according to their own precepts. Its a disconcerting yet entertaining (like watching a trainwreck) show to behold. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Every post you put “lol”. So I keep wondering, you can’t possible mean laugh out loud, because in most cases it makes zero sense to your reply. Then I realized you really mean “little old ladies” and then it because clear.

Oh come on. Its my own silly way of feeding you trolls. "lol"