Friday, May 11, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:38 AM
In the attempt to prove the point that Christians need not necessarily be afraid to vote for a Mormon for President, much confusion, and hysteria has been birthed. Atheists like Chris Hitchens have also mucked up the works by forcing marginally "Christian" characters like Al Sharpton to make theological assertions.
Many Mormons have expressed shock and surprise to discover that Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Simple explanations such as, "If you don't hold to Christian doctrine, then you are not in fact Christian" has not seemed to satisfy this shock. Thus I have begun a multi-part series of explanation as to why Mormons and Christians are distinct.
In the last post I touched on the "sacred texts."
This installment will address one of the most essential key doctrinal differences - the theological assertion of "original sin."
Original sin refers to the depravity of man. Scriptures are replete with this assertion.
Romans 3:23: "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Christians believe that once Adam fell, that all of man kind has been born with the willful, selfish, craven desire to "do what I want." Parents easily see this in the will of their toddlers. But the point in Christian doctrine says that left to our own devices mankind would miss the mark of God's standard. Everyone has - no exceptions. The "sin nature" is in born in the heart of every person, and thus the need for salvation through Christ's death and resurrection to be "born again." The view that we can not save ourselves and that it is only Christ who can save us drives home our total dependency upon God's truth (scripture) and God's son (Jesus Christ) to receive God's salvation.
Mormons believe that there is no such thing as "original sin" or "human depravity." Mormon doctrine would essentially allow a "good person" to conceivably live their entire life and not be found guilty of having committed sin. And while they argue that mankind is not depraved, they then attempt to justify the need of an "atoning work" of Christ. But it begs the question - if mankind is not depraved - what atonement is necessary?
The rejection of the biblical, scriptural, textual view that man is born into sin - because of Adam's original sin is a key doctrine to the Christian faith. In other words it's one of the non-negotiables, one can not be a Christian - by definition one who aligns themselves with Christian teaching - if they reject that same teaching.
Mormons reject the absolute need of salvation, because they reject the condition that produces that need.
Since the depravity of man/the need of salvation is one of if not the central belief of Christianity - by definition Mormons place themselves outside the circle of Christianity.
As I have said repeatedly - we are NOT electing a "pastor" or "spiritual shepherd" to the office of President. In essence what we are hiring is a CEO. As such what we need to know from the hiring candidates has more to do with character - is he/she an honest person, competent in what they do, do they have a proven track record, and most importantly - do they hold the position on the issues that you do. If so - their faith is truly a secondary matter.
Where does one begin??
First I suppose is, when did Townhall become a denominational advocacy website? Is this even appropriate?
Second, original sin is the concept that mankind is born with the stain of Adam & Eve's sins, not that mankind doesn't sin. We simply believe that babies are born pure and they become sinful only as they act sinful. LDS folks (mormons to you I suppose) reject that idea of original sin, however we absolutely believe that only one person enjoyed a sinless life and that is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Great I AM. What an outrageously false post.
I will willingly concede that the Chursch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has a different understanding of many theological concepts than might say a Baptist or a Catholic. However we absolutely believe in the divinity of Christ and accept him as our one and only redeemer, the only way to return to live with God.
The only way you undefine mormons as Christians is by adding extraneous detail to that definition. Frankly I have no issue with that either if you want to define Christianity beyond the belief and worship of Jesus Christ and his singular redemptive sacrifice on our behalf then feel free to do so, just don't be disingenuous about it. |
|
Kevin,
You need to stop writing about things you are completely ignorant of.
You are so far off I don't even know where to start.
And for the record it is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" not the Mormon Church. |
|
As an LDS-Christian (or Mormon if you prefer) I can tell you I have never heard another member claim that there is no such thing as "human depravity." One would have to be fairly ignorant of both history and the news to make such a claim. The history of our church, The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, has many examples of being persecuted. As such, why would we claim there is no sin?
We believe that there is sin in the world and that we need Jesus Christ for salvation. The difference is that we believe it is our own sins that we need forgiveness from; not Adam's sin. In Ezek. 18:20 it says, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."
I agree that we have theological differences. I agree that our doctrine differs. It is offensive, however, to be told that we are not Christian.
We do not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. We do not deny that the Bible is scripture.
I hope this post clarifies some of our beliefs. |
|
Kevin,
As is very often the case, once again LDS doctrine is mis-represented. Here is a verse from the Book of Mormon on his topic:
Mosiah 3:19
For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. |
|
Kevin, I understand how you may want to point out why us Mormons aren't Christian. You state it is because we don't believe in original sin. Since you are an expert on our beliefs, perhaps you could tell me what the following scripture from Mormon texts mean?
For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 3:19) |
|
|
Looks like my modem was too slow... |
|
Christians DO NOT recognize the Book of Mormon as authoritative - ONLY MORMONS do. Christians believe - as was said in yesterday's post on "Sacred Texts" - that the use of any texts beyond the biblical text is in fact HERESY.
This is not a divide you can easily get past.
Christians do not view the Book of Mormon as valid. Therefore by trying to align Mormon belief with Christian belief in using the BOM only underscores the point that Mormons place themselves outside the circle of Christianity.
IN OTHER WORDS - your own words, by quoting the BOM immediately tell Christians reading your words - that you are not the same as them. |
|
Whether the Mormons quote the Book of Mormon (which other churches do not accept), or the Bible (Ezekial 18:20), the point is the same. McCullough got it wrong on this point. Mormons do believe that humans are, by nature, sinful.
Mormons believe that no one is guilty or responsible for ADAM's sin, any more than they are guilty or responsible for their great-great-great-great-grandfather's sin. They are, however, all of them, PRONE to sin, and Jesus is the only one who ever lived a perfect life.
Mormons believe that the atonement of Christ is absolutely vital, and is the most important doctrine there is.
As for the first point - having not just the Bible, but other scriptures as well, McCullough was correct to point out those other scriptures. Mormons may argue that the commandment not to take away from them was already broken in 300 B.C., so the other scriptures are necessary to make up for the ones that were deleted in the original compilation of the Bible, or lost in the various translations, copyings, and versions of the Bible.
Traditional Christians believe that the Bible CANNOT have any errors in it, as it is inspired by God. Mormons believe that it was once perfect, but has been edited so much that many truths have been lost, which needed to be replaced by means of modern scripture. Also, Mormons believe that God loves his children today, just as much as he did then, and doesn't want to give them the silent treatment, so he continues to bless with revelation.
That is, however, a completely different argument, and does not invalidate the responses to this post. McCullough got THIS one wrong, and the ones who argue that "You can't prove yourself on this point by quoting the Book of Mormon" are missing the arguments from the Bible, which prove the point.
Mormons DO believe the Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the keystone of the religion. |
|
We understand that others do not believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture. However, we believe that it is scripture and that it testifies of Jesus Christ. As such we believe that we are Christians.
Yes, we have some beliefs that are different. We still think that we are Christian. |
|
It is distressing and embarrassing to read a misguided and misleadingdiatribe that creates false beliefs and doctrines and then ascribes them to a religion or a people that you have completely mis-characterized.
Personally I don't care if you think I am a Christian or not, since you have acted so unChristian-like in your poorly researched analysis. Can we not agree that Chrisianity has gone through a number of "reformations" over the centuries--and consequently the "definition' of a Christian has changed more than a few times.
I will permit anyone who claims to believe in the divinity, the birth, the resurrection, and the teachings of Christ to address themselves as Christians. That causes me no pain whatsoever--even if I might suspect they are mis-informed, misguided, or ignorant. So if you want to call yourself a Christian, you have my permission. Now can you at least offer me the same courtesy?
Is not up to Christ to finally decide who He will accept into his Kingdom? Be careful about judging so quickly the beliefs of the member os the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day-saints (what you call Mormons)--lest Jesus Christ judge you with the same speed and dsregard for factual accuracy or tender mercy.
I want to be a disciple of Christ--or a Christian by His definition--not yours. Your definition leaves me perplexed, distressed, and embarrassed.
Hopefully you have sincerely prayed about this matter and not just yanked it willy-nilly out of the mouths of the many self-proclaimed experts and critics on the religion named after Christ--i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Oh yeah, you might try reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon and become honestly informed about all aspects of Christianitye and Christian doctrine--not just the Nicean Creed versions--(which I suspect not even you can explain or understand--for I surely cannot). |
|
Deut. 24: 16.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his down sin.
Also, the question is "Do Latter-Day Saints believe in the Atonement" not "Do Latter-Day Saints believe in additional scripture." Everyone knows we believe the Book of Mormon is a second testament of Jesus Christ. Thus, if you want to know our beliefs, it's natural and correct for us to quote from this scripture. As has been seen, by quoting the BOM we have in fact reinforced the basic Christina belief that the only way to God's presence is through the Atonement. That's like asking a Muslim what he believes and then not allowing him to use the Koran to explain.
Hope this has shed some light... |
|
|
Mr. McCullough appears to have absolute confidence in his own perspective on Mormons, and seems incapable of considering that he might be completely mistaken. I have never seen anyone who is so confident in his or her own bizarre misconceptions of another group of people, coupled with an absolute refusal to consider any evidence at all to the contrary. This defines true bigotry. |
|
Kevin,
I’m sure this won’t be your only email about the error of part II of your series so I’ll be brief.
Mormons absolutely believe in original sin. We believe that because of Adam’s fall we are carnal and imperfect. We believe that due to this fall and the subsequent nature of man we will all sin. We don’t believe we are forced to sin and of course some will sin more than others but as God can tolerate no sin we will all need an atonement to redeem us from our sins. We believe we are accountable only for the sins we ourselves commit. We do not believe that we are punished for Adam’s fall, but rather that because he fell we are separated from God both spiritually and physically through sin and death. We need Christ to redeem us from both the physical death, which He accomplished with His death on the cross and resurrection, and our spiritual death (sin) which He accomplished with His atonement for every human’s sin in the garden of Gethsemane. We believe that even if someone were to live out there life with very little sin he would need Christ to redeem him from his fallen state and mortal fallibility (Example… Enoch of the Old Testament).
King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon teaches this doctrine of original sin very clearly. Of course I also believe Paul does a fantastic job, but his example wouldn’t do to assure you that you have misunderstood Mormon doctrine.
Mosiah 3:19 “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doeth submit to his father.”
Mosiah 3:17 “And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.”
Ultimately, it makes little difference if non-mormons believe mormons are not Christian. What will matter, is what Christ thinks.
|
|
Kevin,you seem to be a thoughtful man but not a diligent seeker of truth. I just loved your responses which can be summarized like a misguided High School debate student. In summary you will explain to me what I believe and declare how wrong I am for believing it.
Amazing.
Could it be possible that you missed the point somewhere and therefore your conclusions are not only wrong-headed and rushed, but a little bit vindictive--mean-spirited, AND perhaps willfully cruel?
If you meant to violate and hurt about 12,000,000 sincere "Mormons" in a couple of hundred nations you have done a little "good" in the world today. "now wake up and do something more than dream of your mansions above..." (popular LDS hymn from the LDS Hymnal: Have I Done Any Good In the World Today?)
Congratulation! |
|
Many Protestants and Catholics theologians do not consider LDS members to be Christians for reasons other than the doctrine of original sin. The first and foremost of these is the LDS church's rejection of the traditional notion of the Trinity, as stated in both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. That is, these creeds state that the three persons of the Trinity are of one substance; are co-equal and co-eternal; that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father (not created by the Father and a heavenly mother) and is true God as the Father is true God (and as the Holy Spirit is true God); that only the Son became incarnate and took on human flesh; and that there is no such notion of a heavenly mother or any notion of the Father having a glorified physical body.
Additionally, what separates LDS members from mainstream Protestants is the doctrine of justification. The latter confesses a doctrine of faith alone, whereas the LDS holds to a more works-based approach. As LDS President Hinckley stated in a July 2006 Ensign magazine, Christ's redemtive work gives "every son and daughter of God the opportunity for eternal life and exaltation in our Father's kingdom, as we hearken to and obey His commandments." From this, it sounds as though Christ's death makes redemption possible, but that you have obey the commandments to actually get it. |
|
If one accepts his approach to definition Kevin is justified in his conclusion. So the logical basis of challenge for LDS is the definition.
My solution is to refer to "Traditional Christianity" (TC) and "Restored Christianity" (RC) to differentiate Catholic/Protestant from Mormon.
LDS theology does and does not believe in "original sin" depending on what specific meaning is applied.
Mormonism certainly believes that the first or "original" sin of Adam and Eve introduced sin into this world and that such has consequences for all mortals.
Consequence 1 is mortality itself -- physical death shall be the inheritance of all descendants of A&E.
Consequence 2 is that all mortals are born into and become subject to a corrupted and sin-full world and will eventually commit sins. This results in separation/alienation from God, i.e., spiritual death.
BUT consequence 3 -- that babies are sinners (to oversimplify it)and must be baptized in infancy -- which is believed by TC is not believed by RC. That is, Mormons do not believe babies can sin and therefore do not need baptism. For LDS, sin happens only when humans are capable of moral choice and then make a bad choice (which all eventually do, but in different degrees and with different acceptance and repentance).
So, the matter is not quite so either/or as portrayed.
I noticed in the earlier post (Part 1) that Hitchens, as might be expected, made two fundamental mistakes about Mormonism and "race" -- date and who. "1965" was not the watershead year; it was 1978. And it was not "sons of Shem" but descendants of Ham thru whom the curse of Cain was supposedly continued.
|
|
|
As a Southern Christian, I read the many different posts and coments regarding the legitimacy of LDS, and it carries me back to a time when one side of my family was Southern Baptist, and the other side Pentacostal. End result to the conflict was the children grew up at the ball park instead of a church. Even the Apostle John never missed an opportunity to refer to himself as, "The one that Jesus loved the most!".............We now live in a world that NEEDS NO CONFLICT between christians, and in my oppinion, dogma would be well served to be directed towards ISLAM..............I feel absolutely NO threat by LDS, yet am horrified by the Radical Islamic threat on a worldwide basis. Besides, only I, am resonsible for my soul, and Jesus required his disciples to dust their feet off and move on to the next town rather than argue. I've had a lot more success introducing people to Christ when I was not hitting them in the back of the head with a Bible.........But that's just me. |
|
|
Just want to add my disbelief of the false statements in your post. Hopefully you can follow up with some of the many sources listed by other posts, and the reasons used for your claim just aren't accurate. As a Mormon, its not really a big deal to me if other denominations don't consider me Christian. I consider them Christian because they do their best to follow Christ. I applaud that. I consider myself Christian for the same reason. I don't exclude myself because I don't fit their definition. To use a more specific definition for those who want to be exclusively known as Christians, I would probably use Protestants or Evangelicals. But I would say they are Christian. I know many Catholics who also consider themselves Christian. It just seems like a lot of overly-defensive behavior. All in all, it doesn't really change anything no matter who you call what. |
|
As an LDS person, I can point out WAY more divisive doctrines between LDS and other Christians. Why is original sin so high on the list when, in almost every meaningful way, that is one of the few doctrines we share.
We believe Christ's atonement covers children until 8 years old (somthing most other Christians don't believe), but we also believe NO one can somehow avoid sinning or work their way to heaven. How is this a meaningful difference? Even if someone other than Jesus hypothetically avoided sin (which LDS people do not believe is possible), that person would still not be able to get to heaven on their own, since they require ressurrection and a host of other things they've already received, putting them further into a spiritual indebtedness that they can never get out alone.
I don't understand the persuasiveness of quoting a scripture, giving a particular intepretation, and then excluding others if they don't believe in that particular interpretation. Baptism is a good example of how this type of logic ends up excluding viritually everyone from Kevin McCullough's definition of Christianity. Many evangelicals do not believe in the need for baptism, despite the scriptures being replete with examples of baptism. Many christians, including Catholics and many protestants do perform baptism. Are they not Christian because they fail to adopt the Evangelical interpretation of salvation? If so, I'm sure these Protestants and Catholics would be surprised they are no longer Christian.
Just a bit of advice: I think a previous poster said well enough that the LDS concept of God (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct, etc.) is probably the largest doctrinal divide. Your better off just sticking with that.
Or better yet, instead of trying to keep people out of the tent of Christianity, people who claim that Jesus of Nazerath, was and is the Son of God and claim Him as their one and only personal Savior, you'd probably appear more Christ-like if you just let em in and be grateful for their contributions... |
|
Imagine my dismay after reading Kevin's Blog to discover that my wife of over 50 years is not actually a woman.
I looked and was surprised to discover her hair is different from other women, her eyes are not the same as all the others--well not even the same as any of the others. And goodness knows she has a different voice than the others...and now she even speaks and I learn she sounds different and even thinks differently.
What can I do? Surely she can't be a woman by definition. I think she must stand outside that circle that incompasses those who are really accepted as the real woman.
Oh yeah....maybe I can draw the circle a little wider and get her inside.
That's a relief!! But I'm still not sure Kevin will allow me to call her a woman.
Well we will just have to deal with it. Please don't rat me out to Kevin. |
|
Kevin
I read your response to so many Mormons quoting from the BOM. Your accusation of heresy does not ameliorate your mistaken understanding of Latter-Day Saint doctrine regarding the fall of Adam. The first part of the series is based on what Mormons will not dispute; we do indeed believe in God’s word being found in the Bible as well as many other sources. Part II, on the other hand, is no more than an exhibition of your misunderstanding. Perhaps you could call us Heretical Christians. I wouldn’t mind that at all. Here are some definitions of heresy for you to review. Keep in mind that being orthodox does not imply being correct.
her•e•sy 'h?r ? si[her-uh-see] Pronunciation Key
–noun, plural -sies.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
________________________________________
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME heresie < OF eresie < L haeresis school of thought, sect < Gk haĂresis, lit., act of choosing, deriv. of hairein to choose ]
|
|
Whether you are Christian or not, and whether or not you think that I, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, am a Christian or not really doesn't matter to me. I know that I am trying to follow Jesus Christ, because I know that His teachings apply to me. I was baptized in His name. I belong to Him because He paid for me with His blood in the Garden of Gethsemani and upon the cross at Calvary.
Whether you, Mr. MucCullough, or anyone else for that matter, believes that is entirely up to you. I do not answer to you nor will I be accountable to you at the last day.
I know that Jesus Christ lives, and that He is my Savior and Redeemer, and there is nothing you can do or say that can take that away from me. |
|
Suppose McCullough and I both say we are Phoenix Suns fans. But McCullough says you're not a fan unless you attend the games, buy beer and pretzels, and wear a purple shirt. I only watch them on tv, read about them in the paper, and root for them when they play? By McCullough's definition, I'm not a fan. But I think I am.
So who gave McCullough the right to define what a Christian is? Who set him up at the ultimate arbiter of what a Christian is?
I would have thought, in my naivety, that because I worship Jesus Christ and attempt to follow his teachings, I would be considered a Christian.
Kevin, if you want to have a definition that says there are traditional Christians, and Mormon Christians, that's fine. But please don't imply that I don't worship Jesus Christ, or in the words of Al Sharpton, that I'm not someone "who really believes in God."
|
|
I think you may enjoy the discussion over on Pastore's site... There is a good discussion there about (amongst other things) the role of the traditional creeds in the apostasy.
Briefly, however, I will say that the creeds were established not from any revelation by God, but by uninspired men debating and then voting on what the true nature of God is. Those who disagreed with the majority were "replaced" with bishops who held more appropriate views. Is the nature of God a truth, or subject to a vote?
As far as justification goes, Mormon theology is quite clear that we can justify nothing of our own efforts. Regardless of our own efforts, we don't earn our salvation, it is by grace only that we are saved. However, since the commandments are just that: commandments, we must diligently strive to obey, and repent when we fall short. Jesus asks for no less. |
|
|
Denial of original sin is such a minor difference between Mormons and Christians. Are we next to compare Hindus and Christians? Mormonism is a seperate religion, not a branch of Christianity. Belief in multiple gods, apotheosis, the equality of Jesus and Satan as spiritual brothers, all of these items are much more important differences than simply ignoring original sin |
|
I am shocked that you call the earliest Christians "uninspired men." How are you to judge the nature of their faith? If God revealed His revelation to Joseph Smith, a man who was certainly not without fault, why would he have not revealed His true nature to those who composed the creeds? Why are you able to question their faith and motives and call them mere opportunists hungry for political spoils and riches?
As for justification, there are instances where Mormonism appears heavily law-based. In particular, Section 58 in the Doctrine of Covenants makes it clear that humans are their own "agents" and that those who "receiveth a commandment with a doubtful heart and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned." If the Holy Spirit is at work in a person, how is that person his or her own agent? |
|
In his first column in what is increasingly looking like a series, Kevin states "Many Mormons have expressed shock and surprise to discover that Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Simple explanations such as, "If you don't hold to Christian doctrine, then you are not in fact Christian" has not seemed to satisfy this shock."
We are "shocked" because we use the definition of "Christian" as: one who believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and accepts Him as such. This simple definition does not seem to satisfy the shock of those who profess that us Mormons aren't Christian.
So I ask: with numerous Christian denominations all with different interpretations of scripture, who has the definition of "Christian Doctrine" to which one must comply to be considered Christian? Kevin has stated some beliefs so far, both incorrect as to what Mormons believe. We believe the Bible, yet that doesn't make us Christian. We believe mankind is sinful, but that doesn't count. Is he going to go through an entire list of the hundreds of different doctrines in such an ill-informed manner?
How about those who say Mormons aren't Christian tell us what about the definition I gave is unacceptable?
A Christian believes in Christ and accepts him as Savior. What is so complex about that?? |
|
"I am shocked that you call the earliest Christians "uninspired men." How are you to judge the nature of their faith? If God revealed His revelation to Joseph Smith, a man who was certainly not without fault, why would he have not revealed His true nature to those who composed the creeds? Why are you able to question their faith and motives and call them mere opportunists hungry for political spoils and riches?"
-- Because some who supported the Arian view instead of the Athanasian view were stripped of their titles and banished, and new bishops appointed in their place. Also, they CLAIMED no inspiration. They purported that revelation had ceased with the apostles and that there was no more of it. I didn't say God would not have revealed his true nature to those, but that evidence leaves me to think that he didn't. I question their faith and motives because history speaks of their actions and their results. "By their fruits ye shall know them" said Jesus. But remember, it is not the study of these things that draws Mormons to these conclusions in most cases, it is that we have prayed about the Book of Mormon, received what we believe is an answer to that prayer, and then can go back in history and the Bible and see evidence after evidence that supports our views and a paucity of anything that contradicts it. History serves to strengthen a testimony of truth, but it can never give one.
I invite you to see the post I just posted on Pastore's April 30th column, where I go into some depth on this. It would also be a more appropriate venue for a theological discussion...
"As for justification, there are instances where Mormonism appears heavily law-based. In particular, Section 58 in the Doctrine of Covenants makes it clear that humans are their own "agents" and that those who "receiveth a commandment with a doubtful heart and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned." If the Holy Spirit is at work in a person, how is that person his or her own agent?"
-- Mormonism is heavily "law-based" because Jesus commanded us to keep the commandments. He expects no less. Despite keeping the commandments, despite having faith in Jesus, repenting of our sins, serving others, despite all that we are capable of, we are still "saved by grace after all we can do." Meaning, even after all the good things man is capable of, it is grace that saves him. We don't earn salvation. The concept of agency you quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants is that of "free will," not meriting salvation in any manner. Please, if you are going to quote Mormon scripture please understand how we use it, otherwise it is just taken out of context and with no other information. |
|
that the conservative mormons who are shocked just shocked that this author could say things that are not true about mormonism understand that he does this every week to liberals.
every week in some column he takes his perspective of little knowledge of what a group of americans believe and expounds on how wrongheaded they are.
this guy is ignorant plain and simple. |
|
Christianity is strictly monotheistic, and Mormonism is polytheistic. This is so fundamental to the definition of a religion that it leaves no room to say both can be Christian. In the eternal plan of progression, Mormons seek exaltation to Godhood just like their doctrine includes the belief that Heavenly Father was once a man and attained Godhood. This doctrine is rarely emphasized in recent times given the efforts to present Mormonism within mainstream Christianity. I would not be surprised if many current LDS members (especially recent converts) are unaware of this doctrine and would deny that Mormonism ever included this doctrine so let me provide a refresher.
This is quoted from a article authored by Gordon B. Hinckley (current LDS leader). Ensign is an official LDS publication and this article is posted in full on their official website.
“Don’t Drop the Ball,” Ensign Magazine, Nov 1994, page 46
-----------------start quote--------------------
"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)
Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom."
------------------end quote-----------------
Hinckley references the King Follet sermon, but fails to mention the other half of this where Joseph Smith (the founding Mormon prophet) preached a very un-Christian anthropomorphic nature of God. You can find this posted in full on BYU's website. Here is the relevant quote in Joseph Smith's own words
-------------- start quote------------
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. 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; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."
-------------------end quote -------------
On June 26 1994 at the unveiling of the Sunstone for the Nauvoo Temple, this is how Gordon B. Hinckley referred to the King Follet sermon as a monumental address and important doctrinal document. Quoted from the following Source
Gordon B. Hinckley, “Nauvoo’s Holy Temple,” Ensign Magazine, Sep 1994, page 59–62
--------------- start quote----------
"This building was to be concerned with the things of eternity. It was to stand as a witness to all who should look upon it that those who built it had a compelling faith and a certain knowledge that the grave is not the end, but that the soul is immortal and goes on growing. In March of the year he died—1844—the Prophet had amplified this doctrine in a monumental address which he delivered in the grove which was just below the temple site. The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon."
--------------end quote---------
Checkmate
I would encourage you to read the full articles because getting the full context is even more illuminating. Keep in mind; this is contradicted by the Book of Mormon which is monotheistic like the Bible. Such is the contradictions in Mormonism which requires expertise at cognitive dissonance to manage.
|
|
I don't read his column regularly, I admit it was the word "Mormon" which made me click over here. But to accuse him and by extension conservatives of twisting other's views, remember that this is done by both sides. Character defamation, ad hominem arguments, straw man creation, ideological twisting of your opponent, etc, are done by both sides in this country. It isn't ignorance, as some of the most educated people engage in the same behavior. It is rhetoric, designed to convince and persuade others.
I for one like to discuss politics and religion in the guise of ideas and whose are better.
Flat tax or progressive?
Social security reform or not?
School choice or mandates?
Freedom in Iraq or withdrawal?
And so forth. To simply attack others instead of discussing ideas is the evidence of a weak argument. Sometimes it is helpful if pointing out another's hypocrisy, but it is ideas which will eventually win.
By the way, conservatives are ahead in that field... |
|
I see you ignored my question. Rather than stating our beliefs for us, what is wrong with the definition of a Christian as
One who believes in and accepts Jesus Christ as savior? |
|
When the DEMS and Lefties try to rebut our claims on the issues (taxes, marriage etc...) we cite their rebuttals directly and respond.
Don't you owe at least that courtesy to your religious opponents. Kevin, have you ever cited one of our rebuttals above and responded to it?
As Messrs. Mosser and Owens (both evangelicals) have said... you may be losing the battle and not knowing it. |
|
Gabby writes:
"God never uses such polluted vessels to write his sacred words."
Wow, I guess Saul of Tarsus did not write anything of worth either. He being a mass murderer and all. |
|
Because some who supported the Arian view instead of the Athanasian view were stripped of their titles and banished, and new bishops appointed in their place.
--Of course they were! They were regarded as heretics! The number of bishops supporting Arius was small to begin with.
Also, they CLAIMED no inspiration. They purported that revelation had ceased with the apostles and that there was no more of it. I didn't say God would not have revealed his true nature to those, but that evidence leaves me to think that he didn't.
--I claim no inspiration when I read the Bible; that does not mean, however, that the Holy Spirit is not at work within me. Emotions are fleeting, transient, and all too human. Simply because I don't "feel" inspired does not mean that I am not inspired. Simply because I "feel" insprired does not mean that I am--as I am by nature a sinful person. Paul of Neocaesarea, Paphnutius of Thebes, and Potamon from Heraclea showed up to Nicea after having been persecuted violently for their faith. I would think they were quite inspired to confess the true faith, whether they "felt" that way or not.
I question their faith and motives because history speaks of their actions and their results.
--And I question the actions of any human, whether he/she is considered a prophet or not, because we are all human. The deposed Arians were just as guilty of spreading division throughout the church after Nicea and for influencing Constantine to strip Nicene bishops of their titles.
But remember, it is not the study of these things that draws Mormons to these conclusions in most cases, it is that we have prayed about the Book of Mormon, received what we believe is an answer to that prayer, and then can go back in history and the Bible and see evidence after evidence that supports our views and a paucity of anything that contradicts it. History serves to strengthen a testimony of truth, but it can never give one.
--If one is by nature sinful, yet prays that God would reveal his will to him, how can he be so sure that what God tells him to do in his prayer is of God and not of the devil or his own sinful human nature? How can feeling be the basis for a revelation? Why should something external to human emotion, such as the Bible (or BOM, for that matter), play second fiddle to it? |
|
The fact that you do not recognize how I addressed your question proves an critical point how Mormons do not understand the importance Christianity places on defining the nature of God. Just claiming you worship a diety named Jesus Christ as your savior does not impress Christians when there is a fundamental and wide gap in how you define Jesus Christ's nature and origins. You can try to emphasize the existing similarities, but the differences are too big to resolve in keeping Mormonism and Christianity within the same religious classification. It is ironic that up until the 1970's, the Mormon attitude was more along the lines of proudly stating that "We are not Christians, we are Mormons." How times change.
|
|
i too like to debate issues but this author only deals in generalized emotional issues never facts.
here is an example of what he says about liberals:
'Liberals like to embrace a compassionate but dead Jesus, they also revile the holy and risen Christ.'
"Liberals in America despise Christians of true faith. "
"What is this obsession that liberals have with seeing America destroyed?"
exactly how many liberals did this guy interview to come up with these conclusions.
10? 100? 1000?
now as Christian and a liberal these statements are false and misleading but every week he comes back with more of these emotion based observations.
as far as your issues
heard a guy last night on jerry doyle from fairtax.org saying flat tax would be 23%.
social security reform?
not needed despite all the grim predictions from the right the latest gao assessment is that it is solvent until 2040.
school choice?
i would prefer not to have taxpayer money going to the madrasaes that teach young kids to hate america.
iraq?
we gave them freedom, why are we refereeing a civil war?
now i will warn you my time is short so i can't get into a long discussion but at least you can see rational thought processess on my part rather than the lame emotion based arguments put forth by the author of this blog.
|
|
"Wow, I guess Saul of Tarsus did not write anything of worth either. He being a mass murderer and all."
St. Paul repented of his sins against the earliest Christians. |
|
solafide writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 2:24 PM
"St. Paul repented of his sins against the earliest Christians. "
Yes, he did...and was given revelations.
Just like ANY man can.
|
|
|
Why don't those who truly want to know the LDS beliefs do their own homework and go over to http://www.lds.org You may be able to see how far off of the mark ignoramuses like McCullough are. Go to our meetings - you'll find a sign out front welcoming you, "Visitors Welcome". Inside you will find a lot of good, friendly, God fearing folks who live to the best of their ability a Christ-centered life. You will notice that each and every Sunday that we partake of the sacrament (communion, Lord's supper. etc) in remembrance of our Saviors Great Atoning Sacrifice for us. This we have done since the beginning of the church. You will find that Christ is taught, (his life, doctrines, commandments, crucifixion and resurrection) in each and every meeting. After all we are The Church of Jesus Christ! |
|
|
Kevin you are off base. My bible (catholic) and yours do not have the exact same books or translations. Which one of us is the heretic? The Jesus of the Jews and the Jesus of Christians is slightly more different than the Jesus of the LDS compared to Christians. Sounds like you think when you get to heaven you'll be the only one there. |
|
I see that TH has not fixed their screen name problem. For the record, the "Scott" posting above is not the same "Scott" who has been posting on TH for the last 7 months or so on many columns with Christian themes.
It is unfortunate that TH apparently sees no need to rectify this situation.
Scott |
|
Using the same terms and words does not make you Christian. As I documented in my previous post based on material from http://www.lds.org, Gordon B. Hinckley taught that that “As God is, man may become”. This conflicts with core teachings of Christianity. It even contradicts the Book of Mormon which is far closer to Christianity and the Bible than the rest of Mormonism as practiced today.
The mainstream LDS church always cries foul when the fundamentalist sects who still practice polygamy refer to themselves as Mormon yet they use your same "we are Christian" logic in citing belief in the Book of Mormon and testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet who restored the gospel. The LDS church even cries foul when the media calls them "fundamentalist Mormons". Isn’t belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as scripture a simple enough definition of Mormon?
You also cannot be a Mormon in good standing if testimony is limited to believing Jesus is your Lord and Savior and the Bible is scripture. It also requires having a testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet who restored the true church and that Gordon B. Hinckley is today’s true living prophet. Mormons try to have it both ways, they want to be seen as Christian yet they believe they are the only true organized church on this Earth. Mormon’s desire to be seen as Christian is also more ironic considering that in the recent past (i.e. plenty of existing members participated in it), the Mormon temple endowment portrayed a sectarian protestant minister as a hireling of Satan. As part of the process of moving toward mainstream Christianity, they correctly and wisely removed this controversial aspect of the endowment in 1990. When you throw aside the arguments over definitions and who uses what terms, I do not see a big distinction between the refusal of Protestants and Catholics to recognize Mormons as Christian vs. the Mormon belief that none of the other Christian Churches are true. Since both sides of this debate believes the other side does not have the fullness of the true gospel, this is an agreement among both sides that they are in different religious classifications.
|
|
"Mormons . . . want to be seen as Christian yet they believe they are the only true organized church on this Earth."
Well, that's right. But, we understand that other churches have many things that are good, but they don't have the whole truth.
But, since you claim to believe in Christ, we will let you call yourselves Christian.
You're welcome. |
|
|