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.

[genetic homophobe]

see post #31

[ejonesie22]

I am sure you will guide us to the proper mindset as a modern American “Oprah Christian”. All paths are right, hell is just an illusion etc.

Teach us...

[stinkerpot65]

I like Mormons. They are nice people.

However ...

“we don’t believe exactly how you believe, so we are called non-Christian.”

Polytheism and believing that you can become God is a little more than a difference in interpretation. You have made a religion based on the original blasphemous sin of Adam and Eve - i.e. "Eat this fruit and you will be become God."

Who cares what you call yourselves and what anyone else calls you? The bigger issue is that these beliefs are a slap in the face to the sovereignty of God.

[ejonesie22]

Modern American Christianity, you know the kind that thinks it's the 10 “Pretty good but nonbinding suggestions” and to express anything but admiration for all paths and faiths is just hateful is not into defending the faith...

Too mean and nasty that...

We need a hug on the way to hell...

[JAKraig]

1. Believing there are multiple gods.

2. Believing that God was once a man.

3. Believing that you can become God. does not complement the Bible. These beliefs are blasphemous.

________________________________________________________

It would sure seem this way unless you talk to a Mormon and they explain it to you. To them God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Ghost are separate entities with a single purpose. Reading the Hebrew book of Genesis would prove their point as accurate if you believe in that book. So to me number one is a non-issue.

Believing that God was once a man? While I admit that is a tough one, my little brain has a tough time with understanding “no beginning”. Having no end is easy but it just seems that it all had to start somewhere. So while I may not be exactly in their camp on this issue it doesn't bother me.

Believing that you can become God. This one is a no brainer. That is why we all worship God in the first place. If you don't believe this then I don't think you can be Christian. Christ says that He will inherit ALL that His Father has, He tells us that if we follow Him that we will be joint heirs with Him and also inherit ALL that His Father has. Does His Father have godhood?

So, after all I find your accusation of blasphemy to be greatly in error.

[Hootowl]

According to Mormon Doctrine, Heaven consists of three levels or “glories.” (D&C 76:31-39) The Book of Mormon says there are only two possible fates after death: heaven or hell. Levels or degrees of heaven are not mentioned.

According to Mormon Doctrine, Jesus and God the Father are separate beings. (D&C 130:22) The Book of Mormon says Jesus and God the Father are the same. (Mosiah 3:8, 15:1-5, Ether 4:7, 12)

According to Mormon Doctrine, God has a body of flesh and bones. (D&C 130:22) The Book of Mormon says God is a spirit. (Alma 18:26-28)

According to Mormon Doctrine, God was once a man like us, and progressed to godhood. (TJS 342-345) The Book of Mormon says God does not change and has never changed. (Mormon 9:9, Moroni 8:18)

According to Mormon Doctrine, there are many gods. (TJS 370-373) The Book of Mormon says there is only one God. (Alma 11:28-30)

According to Mormon Doctrine, we can become gods ourselves. (D&C 76:58, TJS 342-345) The Book of Mormon says nothing of this idea.

According to Mormon Doctrine, we lived with God in a spirit world (a “premortal existence”) before being born into this life. (D&C 49:17, 93:23-29, 138:55-56) The Book of Mormon says nothing of this idea.

According to Mormon Doctrine, God is the literal father of our spirits, conceived by him and our “Mother in Heaven” (MD 516) The Book of Mormon says nothing of this idea.

According to Mormon Doctrine, Mary conceived Jesus by natural means, namely, God the Father impregnated her. (MD 546-47, JoD 1:50-51, 8:115, 11:268) The Book of Mormon says Mary conceived Jesus “by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Alma 7:10), by being “carried away in the spirit” (1 Nephi 11:15-19)

According to Mormon Doctrine, those who do not accept the gospel in this life will have the opportunity to do so after death, and can receive baptism by proxy (D&C 127, 128) The Book of Mormon says salvation must be attained in this life; after one dies it is too late (Alma 34:34, 2 Nephi 9:38, Mosiah 2:36-39). No mention of baptism for the dead.

According to Mormon Doctrine, David and Solomon did nothing wrong by having many wives. (D&C 132:38-39) The Book of Mormon says the polygamy of David and Solomon was “abominable” to the Lord (Jacob 2:24)

According to Mormon Doctrine, the Priesthood divided into an upper (” after the order of Melchizedek”) and lower (”Aaronic”) priesthood. The Book of Mormon says there is no distinction between “priests” and “high priests”; priesthood is “after the order of [the Son of] God” (Alma 4:20, 13:1-12). There is no mention of “Aaronic” priesthood.

According to Mormon Doctrine, salvation in the highest heaven (”exaltation”) requires undergoing the “endowment” initiation ceremony in a temple, the details of which are kept strictly secret. The participants are required to take numerous oaths, which are also secret. The Book of Mormon condemns “secret combinations” requiring secret oaths. (Mormon 8:27, 40, 2 Nephi 26:22, Helaman 6:22, and many others.) There is no mention of any such ritual as part of the gospel and no mention of “exaltation” or “endowment.”

According to Mormon Doctrine, exaltation requires marriage in a Mormon temple. (D&C 131:1-4) The Book of Mormon says nothing of this doctrine.

According to Mormon Doctrine, “celestial marriage” lasts for time and all eternity. (DoS 2:58 ff) The Book of Mormon says nothing of this doctrine.

According to Mormon Doctrine, the “first resurrection” is only for the righteous. (D&C 76:64. 63:18) The Book of Mormon says the “first resurrection” is for all who died before Christ’s resurrection, righteous and unrighteous alike (Mosiah 15:24, Alma 40:16-17)

According to Mormon Doctrine, the “idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart” is false. (D&C 130:31; verse 22 says that it is the Holy Ghost that “dwell[s] in us”) The Book of Mormon says “The Lord” dwells in the hearts of the righteous. (Alma 34:36)

According to Mormon Doctrine, the Lord’s Supper (”the sacrament”) consists of bread and water. The Book of Mormon says the Lord’s Supper should consist of bread and wine. (3 Nephi 18:1-9, Moroni 5)

According to Mormon Doctrine, only the priest blessing the sacrament kneels. The Book of Mormon says the priest is to kneel with the church while blessing the sacrament. (Moroni 4:2; see also D&C 20:76)

According to Mormon Doctrine, use of alcohol, coffee, tea (”hot drinks”) is forbidden. (D&C 89) The Book of Mormon has no such commandment.

According to Mormon Doctrine, the church is governed by the three men of the “First Presidency,” higher in authority than the Quorum of Twelve. The Book of Mormon says Jesus placed twelve disciples over the church he founded in America. (3 Nephi 12, passim) No “first presidency” mentioned.

According to Mormon Doctrine, except for Joseph Smith, all prophets are promoted to that office by those above them in rank, and by seniority. They work their way up to the top. The Book of Mormon says prophets are called directly by God.

According to Mormon Doctrine, faith, repentance, baptism are the “first principles” of the gospel, but that in order to obtain the highest degree of heaven, much more is required (obedience, tithes, endowment, etc.) The Book of Mormon says that the gospel is faith, repentance, and baptism ONLY. Any teaching beyond that will lead to hell 3 Nephi 11:31-40

[greyfoxx39]

This was posted by Inman MHGinTN earlier this month. It is an excellent reply to the article.

**********************************************************

Why Mormons are not Christians?

Monday, March 01, 2010 8:18:29 PM · 571 of 873
MHGinTN to 999replies; "God I cannot imagine why the world views Christians as self-righteous idiots."

 

Sarcasm aside, at the very beginning of the Church, Paul and others explained that such would be the case, that the world would view Christians as self-righteous, and shun them. It is a devilish trick to make such an assertion, rather than look to see what these strange 'Christ ians' believe.

Imagine if you will what it might have been like in the time of Christ's advent and the establishment of the Church, The Bride of Christ. There was no Buddhism (sorry Tiger). There was no Islam (sorry Barry Soetoro). There was nothing but the History of Judaism and the scriptures used in Jesiwh worship ... and of course, there was the pantheon of gods, a system of belief so poorly sustained that Roman Emperors declared themselves members of the pantheon, much the way Joseph Smith has been declared so by Bringham Young and other Mormonism leaders.

Power was the ultimate ruler of men's hearts. We can discern this state of life from the conflicts which Paul and Silas and Barnabas found themselves in places like Ephesus, where this new religion appeared to cancel the worship of 'the goddess' for whom many people were employed in statuary and such, used in the worship of 'the goddess'.

But it went further, deep into the intellectual community, as seen with Paul's reasoning on Mars Hill. The point of the lesson is really, Whom indwelt the members of Christ's Bride? From that indwelling Spirit, the humble believers eschewed the flowery worship of goddesses and emperors and the pantheon of gods. This caused the list of martyrs and the painful death of every single one of the disciples (except JOhn the beloved) who went to the four corners of the known world to carry the good news of Salvation in Jesus Christ!

A careful reading of the New Testament books/letters instructs us that Paul and the missionaries were very concerned about a bastardization of the simple Gospel of Grace found in the atoning work of Jesus.

Let's draw a parallel here. The assertions of Mormonism are in many ways very similar to the judaizers Paul admonished against. These segments of the New Testament are great reading, especially with an Oxford Companion to the Bible and a Holman's Bible dictionary/encyclopaedia! Paul spent long passages in his letters instructing the new converts (these people he wrote to were just that, new converts, in a new expression of Judaism, the most unexpected revelation any Jew of that day or student of Judaism would have expected; did you know Pilate had sent members of his educated Centurian guard out into the Jewish populace, to discover what their religion was all about so that he could work out difficulties with these stiff-necked people?).

Now, if the dissembling of the simple message was not a big deal, why would Paul and others spend so much energy admonishing the new converts to stay away from the 'extras' inserted by some who came behind Paul and Silas, and Barnabas, and Nathaniel, and Timothy, and Andrew sowing seeds of 'do this and do that to be worthy of the Grace of God'?

I think you instinctively know the answer to that one. The Grace of God in Christ is not something earned. When one reverts to doing their best to be worthy, they always fail because the tempter is stronger than their will power. ONLY God's presence within can bring forth the fruit of the spirit. And He only comes 'within' when the innocent blood is sprinkled upon the mercy seat for the broken and contrite spirit.

Jesus is The Deliverer (in the Greek, he is titled 'soter'). Being born again is the start of a new life with God's Holy Spirit indwelling the newly born, as the earnest of the inheritance which will not be realized while still in this body inherited from Adam. As God created the entire Universe and thus all in it, He also has a new creation in mind for those faithing (yes, I meant it as a verb) in Jesus.

Cults that seek to enlist members from Christian numbers always, without fail, use some form of the lie Satan told to Eve in the Garden. That lie was so powerful, it worked on someone who actually walked with God! Someone who was absolutely innocent and loving. That lie was so powerful, it is used by cults like Mormonism to usher seeking souls into a cocoon which has an ever thickening dead-spirit shell which rejects the simple Gospel message. Does it actually happen like that? ... Well, yes, Eve even stated to Satan a very simplified version of God's Grace, yet she succumbed to the lie and disobeyed.

And she died. Oh, not physically, yet. But she died in spirit the day that she disobeyed. Now, if dying spiritually is so easy, how could God prevent such a fall in every single person who confesses trust in Jesus as Savior? When one trusts in Him, the most terrible effect Satan could accomplish would be to destroy that salvation. But he can't ... By simply removing the responsibility from the one who professes faith in Christ, God has defeated Satan, as in past tense, future tense, present tense!

Eve was closer in her walk with God than you or I, yet she died, spiritually. Jesus makes of her a reborn being. That is His work. Soterism is not something men can accomplish, even men like Joseph Smith who proclaimed himself so vital to God's 'needs' (blasphemy at the root of it). ONLY Jesus can deliver a man freom his fallen spiritual state. Only God can make of Satan a defeated liar. You can't do it, I can't do it, and I'm absolutely convinced no Mormon can do it either. No matter how sincere.

Now here's the point of the lesson/the ramble/the homily: if Eve could die so easily, spiritually, what would make a man believe he is man enough to maintain his own salvation, even if he claims he has been born again? Why would the God of creation leave in the hands of already feckless men and women the most precious Grace possible in Heaven or Earth? ... He doesn't. And when Mormonism, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other Christian look-a-like gaggle tells men that they must follow these several steps on a list, you can be sure that religion, that religious discipline is not of God.

Why is this releveant to your slur against Christians contending against Motrmonism on FR threads? ... Just like in the first days of the blossoming Church of simple believers/faithers, the one who hates God and sees the souls of men and women as a way to stick knives in God's heart, that one will make a religious discipline seem so close to Christianity that people will follow a false belief and not faithe in the Deliverer, will not place their faith and life in His hands for deliverance. And they will be deadmen walking, even as they appear so goodly and separated from the sins of the world.

The Pharisees of Jesus's day walked righteous, self-righteous, even decorating the hem of their garments with religious material and wearing philacteries on their foreheads, containing a verse or verses from their Testament/Bible. Jesus said of them that they were whited sepulchres/tombs of the dead! Devout followers of Islam make a spectacular show of goodliness, but they are dead of spirit, as evidenced by the many strictures they murder folks for not following to the letter in service to their god, allah.

If aliveness in spirit were the goal of Islam, would Islamist murder people for such? If aliveness in spirit were the goal of Mormonism, would Mormonism leaders place a burden upon followers which even Eve could not fulfill? ... Think about it, brother. Can you change the DNA you inherited from your father and mother? ... Can you be unborn from their family? God has made a way for faithing people to remain His, in His hand. Mormonism teaches people to earn their deliverance. It has never been so from the day Jesus called His disciples. Peter should tells us that searing lesson.

That is why some of us suffer the isults of fellow freepers, to oppose the cult of Mormonism which is a Christianity look-a-like which cradles followers right out of their immoratls souls! That's a serious matter, brother.

[magritte]

Uh, Jews are NOWHERE near Christians, as they believe Christians follow a false Messiah...Mormons believe in some of the basic tenets of early Christianity and tend to reject a lot of Church-related beliefs, or it that Protestants...magritte

[JAKraig]

So then I’m curious, which of all the churches teach the “correct doctrines”?

Which of these Churches does not teach incorrect doctrines since they all teach different doctrines?

I would proffer that none of the churches are perfect. The only “Christian” church that has a leg to stand on in this discussion is the Holy Catholic Church. They had if first. If the protestant churches say the Catholic church went astray how can they (protestant) be perfect if they came from a broken church.

[ejonesie22]

If I may ask, given your tag line, exactly is your religion?

[Mr Rogers]

Mormons believe in thousands of gods. They believe the 3 Gods are for Earth, not the universe. The Father gave birth to Jesus, and to Satan, so they are brothers.

Sorry - NOT Christian!

Also, no Christian teaches we become gods of our own little worlds, nor become God at all.

[SnakeDoctor]

There are essential tenets of Christianity which must be believed in order to properly claim the title of Christian — Creation, flood, virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, bodily resurrection, only path to Salvation, 2nd coming, etc. There are also certain moral tenets which are undeniable — no other Gods, marriage, 10 Commandments, anti-homosexuality, etc.

There are also quite a few tangential or peripheral Christian beliefs which are non-essential and debatable among faithful Christians — prophecy, the details of the 2nd coming, rapture (none, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib ... blah, blah), celibacy for clergy, the primacy of the Catholic church, infallbility, etc.

I will admit that I don’t know if Mormons qualify. I would guess that quite a few don’t ... but I don’t know enough about the faith to definitively say one way or another — certainly not with regard to any specific individual. To the extent that you have the essential tenets of Christianity down, you may be OK — but whether further Mormon doctrines contradict or violate those tenets is between you and the Almighty.

SnakeDoc

[JAKraig]

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

______________________________________________________

Apparently when Martin Luther posted his thesis on the church door.

[Liberty1970]

Uh, Jews are NOWHERE near Christians,

I was speaking in terms of theological belief: what does one believe about God (and by implication, our relationship to Him)? That is what defines a person as Christian or non-Christian, not superficial things like moral rules or religious practices that are outworkings of the foundational issues.

The issue of monotheism vs. polytheism alone is huge. Someone can say they believe in Jesus - but the Jesus of Mormonism is just one of many godlings. Not the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator and sustainer of the universe, the sole source of a transcendant moral order, etc. At least Jews and Christians share a very similar understanding of the attributes of God and that we need to be reconciled through a divinely provided messiah.

[stinkerpot65]

Believing that you can become God. This one is a no brainer. That is why we all worship God in the first place. If you don't believe this then I don't think you can be Christian.

Wow. Well, anyway, I like Mormons. I hope things turn out well for you and yours.

[reaganaut]

Heaven help if their neighbor’s house in on fire in the middle of the night. By that logic the decision would be “well they have a right to be warm if they choose” and “it would be hateful to judge if a burning house is the best way to keep cozy, best not interfere”...

- - - - - - -
True, they seem to want the benefits without the scrutiny and think questioning equals hate.

[FatherofFive]

Apparently when Martin Luther posted his thesis on the church door.

Is that the official Mormon position?

I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss the heresy of protestantism.

[JAKraig]

Define the LDS view of ‘salvation’, and are other rites/works at ALL required to enter the presence of God according to the LDS? _________________________________________________________

Of course rites are required to enter the presence of God. Who not being baptized by water can enter into Heaven. Who not being baptized by fire (The Holy Ghost) can enter into God's presence?

James says "show me your works and I will show you your faith" and "faith without works is dead". There is nothing wrong with works. I would be one who would have a hard time believing in a deathbed confession of faith in The Lord. Fortunately I am not the judge. I however think it wise to show your faith by works before the day of your death.

[T Minus Four]

Anti-Mormon is one thing. Anti-Mormonism is something completely different. I’m not anti-Mormon because, for example, I have Mormon friends. I’m anti-Mormonism because I do not believe in the foundations of their faith

ME TOO!!! I love Mormons. If I didn't, I'd sit back and watch them work themselves right into hell

[Tennessee Nana]

Wouldn’t you agree that someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind through his Atonement, maybe someone that is, say, Christian?
_________________________________________________

No I wouldnt...

And it doesnt pay to cut and paste from the bias and ignorant Anti-Christian website, FAIR (mormon website)

The mormon “atonement” happened according to mormons in the Garden of Gethesmane...Jesus didnt sweat to redeem us...

In Christianity, Jesus shed His Blood on the CROSS and died on the CROSS to save men and women from the penalty of death for our sins...He died in our place...

His BLOOD makes the difference between mormonism and Chrsitianity...

The CROSS makes the difference between mormonism and Chrsitiianity...

Moving on, according to mormonism, their mormon jesus didnt do enough to save them on the CROSS... Eventhough Jesus Himself said “It is finished” the mormons think they have to do it themselves...

Also, Jesus gave His life for the whole world, but even He said not everyone of “mankind” (and “womankind) would be saved...(he who believes Mark 16:16)

The mormons claim that they have to find the names of everyone who ever lived and get them dead dunked to become good mormons to get them “atoned” or “redeemed” ...Good luck with that...Mormons might think they own the genealogy lists of the world all locked up in Cheyenne Mountain, but those records are full of errors and fictious names and dates...lots of those people are not real and never lived...mormons still turn in lists of made up names in order to get brownie points...Oh noes...

Jesus as the Son of God...Mormons deny that Jesus is God, the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and that He has always existed (a belief in the Trinity is necessary to be a Christian) Mormons believe that the mormon god and Mary had physical sex and concieved the mormon jesus who began to exist fot the first time when he was born...

Mormons believe that jesus had lots of brothers and sisters...us and that Lucifer was the brother of the mormon jesus...in fact the mormons believe that the mormon jesus and Lucifer discussed which one of them would “redeem” mankind” How that happened when the mormon jesus didnt exist until he was born I dont know...its a mormonism mystery...

Mormons are not Christians...