105 comments

1. Thanks Pam, I am blessed by your testimony and am praying for you and your ministry.

2. Thanks for your story,Pam.I hope I get a chance to tell mine some day.It is nothing short of miraculous.

   Keith

3. Interesting interview Todd. It highlights several things we Mormons could be doing better. One of the first being, not getting defensive and dismissive about stories like this, but rather trying to listen to what the person is saying on their own terms.

4. Todd, in Pam’s interview she mentioned “before she was a believer”. For the sake of the record, most active Mormons are believers. It seems that Pam meant to imply that Mormons aren’t believers and that she didn’t become a believer until she left the Church to join a Protestant sect. But I truly hope that you will agree that most active Mormons are sincere believers. The difference is that they believe in the scripturally-based Jesus Christ rather than the Jesus Christ of the creeds. Creedal Christians are correct: they are two different Jesus Christs. The New Testament Jesus Christ is a separate being from his Heavenly Father. Stephen saw Jesus on the right hand of God. Jesus prayed often to his Father in Heaven, and taught us the principle of worshipping God the Father.

   Pam wrote I then had to make that final decision. Which Master did I want to follow? The God of the Bible who is Omnipotent reigning or the one who leads to everlasting burnings. On my knees, I asked the Lord God (as revealed in the Bible) to forgive me for my sins and to be my One and only Lord and Savior.

   And then she chose the God of the creeds, not of the Bible. I remember you once wrote in a blog comment that many or most of the members of your congregation are not familiar with the creeds. Is this a wise approach for you to be taking Todd? Don’t you think that your congregation needs to know that the creeds are extra-biblical formulations created by councils hundreds of years after the last eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ had died? Examining the controversies that gave rise to the creeds and the personalities involved in their formulations, as well as the political exigencies and circumstances associated with them might give your congregation more insight into their nature and allow them to make more informed decisions about whether they actually relate Biblical truth or not.

   But, back to the main point I want to make: even though Pam tries to imply otherwise, Latter-day Saints are believers. Just because they do not believe in the creeds does not mean they do not believe in God or in the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Todd, if you do not accept this fact or deny it with some kind of sophistry such as “if you don’t believe like I do then you actually don’t believe at all even if you think you believe” then I have to question whether you are actually dealing with Mormons in good faith or not. Even if Pam did not believe in God before joining your local Protestant denomination and even if she wants to make it seem that no Mormons actually believe in God, that does not change the fact that Mormons are deeply religious and faithful people.

   Seth makes an interesting point. Pam’s experience shows where the Church perhaps can do a little better. It seems that Pam never really had a firm understanding of the Gospel as a Latter-day Saint. Oddly, her comments imply that none of us are children of God (apparently, she thinks that this view is compatible with the beliefs of your congregation/creedal beliefs — is it?). She talks about “Mormons enlightened” class and other things that sound very foreign to a faithful Latter-day Saint. Also, she seems to avoid the fact that Latter-day Saints regularly read the Bible. She acts like it was a novelty or a surprise when she read the Gospel of John in an evangelical Bible group as if she had never read those words before. She might be surprised to learn, and might even actually deny, that many or even most active Latter-day Saint adults have read the Gospel of John, and the entire New Testament, many times. It is true that Latter-day Saints do not elevate Romans over the rest of the New Testament like Evangelical Christians tend to do, but that does not mean that we are not intimately familiar with the New Testament, as much or more so that any Evangelical who answers many queries with either a quote from Romans or a paraphrase of the extra-Biblical creeds.

5. John f, several things:

   1. I would agree with you that most active Mormons are sincere believers. No doubt about it. And the debate would be what is the nature of the object of our faith.

   2. I don’t think Pam has ever really given consideration to any early church creeds. But don’t think that I might try to be hiding anything. Sometime I need to at different times offer inserts in our church bulletin, sharing the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, etc. I do enjoy church history. I love all the rooted connective threads. But I think our people and I really enjoy getting into the Word each Lord’s Day. We judge any creeds with the Word.

   3. I am thankful that many very active and diligent LDS read through the O.T. last year and that many are reading through the N.T. this year. But we are only scratching the surface. I want the LDS to love what they are reading. How many really enjoyed the O.T. last year? How many are ready to throw it out? I want them to feast upon the living Christ in the written word.

   4. Same goes for many evangelicals. Some evangelicals don’t read their Bibles. It’s pathetic. There needs to be a revival of joy in God.

6. In fact, even inactive, insincere Mormons are sincere believers. And I like to discuss with them what they are sincerely believing.

7. Todd, I think you are (amazingly) uninformed about the nature of LDS feelings about the Bible. Every LDS ward is stocked with old Mormon High Priests who quote from the Old and New Testament prolifically and offer spontaneous and insightful interpretations about the meaning of the passages and about their own deep feelings in relation to them, wise sisters in the relief society who know every parable and teach deep doctrine from both Old and New Testament, seminary students memorizing scripture mastery scriptures from the Old and New Testaments, and attending classes early in the mornings every day before school to learn the Old and New Testaments. It is wonderful because the breadth is much wider than isolated quotes from Romans and St. John but encompass the Old Testament, the New Testament, the words of Jesus Christ to his faithful in the Western Hemisphere, and the words of Jesus Christ to his faithful in the Latter-days (you see, it is all about Jesus Christ in the Church of Jesus Christ, even if Evangelical Christians want to convince people otherwise).

   What you will not find is recitations of creeds or the reading of the New Testament through the lens of creeds. That is the difference. (Hence no belief in the Trinity as understood by creedal Christians.)

   The creeds are the difference, not the Bible.

8. John f, I wonder what would be the statistics here in Idaho Falls of the LDS that reflect that kind of intensified hunger for the Bible.

   Now, I will admit that I am amazingly ignorant of what goes in the inner circle. But I am not too far removed from attitudes in the streets and in schools.

   Not all young high schoolers just rush eagerly to seminary for their scripture learning. Do you remember the cliche? “Well, I am off to cemetery.” Btw, the devout LDS were my best friends in high school.

   I respect unhypocritical passion in belief. And that is what I respect about you, John f.

   Among LDS, where does one first learn about “creedal Christianity”? High school seminary or later at BYU?

9. We usually don’t give much thought about the creeds until we’ve either been beat over the head with some anti-Mormon tracts, or the odd high-level sermon where it gets mentioned – such as Jeffrey R. Holland’s recent criticism of the creeds in General Conference last Saturday.

   Other than that, I’d say the first real treatment of creedal Christianity your typical faithful LDS gets is in the missionary “Gospel Library.” The following books extensively treat creedal Christianity in juxtaposition with Mormonism and were required reading for missionaries when I served:

   James E. Talmage: The Articles of Faith
   Legrand Richards: A Marvelous Work and a Wonder

   I doubt a creedal Christian would consider the books fair and the scholarship is a bit dated. But it does seem to be the first extensive exposure to the creeds that a lot of Mormons get.

10. Todd, attend the full LDS bloc of meetings regularly and you will find out. You might also want to join the Church, though, so be careful.

    Among Latter-day Saints, people first learn about the creeds when they learn that Jesus Christ does not agree with the conclusions of the creeds as he informed Joseph Smith not to join any existing creedal Christian denomination. This can happen in Primary for many LDS kids, but for many they probably first encounter this part of the Joseph Smith story in Sunday School as a teenager or possibly seminary. The creeds themselves aren’t read — that could perhaps be improved upon by reading them together with the kids to see what exactly Jesus Christ was disagreeing with in his instructions to Joseph Smith. But being raised with a New Testament belief that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God, with his own separate physical body from God, means that the children already are raised with an understanding that differs from the creeds.

    The main difference is that LDS kids grow up from their earliest ages reading the Bible without the lens of the creeds in the first place, because their parents do not constrain themselves to the interpretation forced by the lens of the creeds.

11. DMI Dave made a fair point over at his blog in response to this interview.

    Why did Pam feel the need to accuse the LDS Church of lying to her? The interview was going along amiably enough until that point.

12. Seth, would John f. think my interpretation of the Bible to be truthful or inaccurate?

    Of course, the next question is . . . would I be offended if he thought my teaching to be lies and not supportive of truth?

    Well . . . 🙂

    At least, I would respect that he believes fiercely in religious absolutes.

    Pam’s world had been rocked by opposing biblical truth that had never been taught to her before. And she is just being honest about what is contra to that truth.

13. Concerning learning about creedal Christianity, I picked up a book the other day from the BYU-Idaho bookstore. It is a textbook for church history, I believe. It’s at the office, so when I locate it, I will mention it and ask for your input.

    John f, wouldn’t you say that Joseph’s testimony is a mighty lens for young LDS children as they look at the scripture?

14. Can’t speak for John F.

    We’ve got to be careful in which words we use. “Truthful” implies genuineness or deceptiveness it speaks to the inner state of the person. “Accuracy” implies fact and objective reality. One can be both truthful and inaccurate at the same time. Likewise, one can be accurate, but not truthful at the same time (such as one who blackmails, or is selective in his choice of facts to fit an ulterior agenda).

    I, of course, would consider you to be truthful, but perhaps inaccurate. 😀

    To be fair, I regard myself the same way.

    Now, I have, on occasion read some anti-Mormon literature (perhaps Pam encountered some of it) where the authors showed an impressive appeal to historical writings and facts in Mormon history. They had obviously studied extensively and their work reflected a dizzying array of facts and quotes, when taken together, formed a very uncomfortable narrative for the believing Mormon.

    However, proof-texting many of the quotes the authors cited showed that the quotes had been isolated and taken out of context. For instance the book would quote the first half of a paragraph Brigham Young wrote or spoke to advance the assertion that Brigham believed in some outlandish or repugnant doctrine. But the original source materials would then reveal that the SECOND half of the paragraph contained explanation by Brigham that utterly and completely contradicts the thesis of the authors. Yet they had conveniently left out this second half of the quote.

    Accurate? Arguably, to a limited extent…

    Truthful? Not at all. The book was lying and mean-spirited and showed a willingness to use any means necessary to accomplish the authors’ ultimate aim of discrediting Mormonism.

    As long as people are being truthful, I’m willing to overlook a few transgressions of accuracy.

15. Seth, I have lied in the past, unfortunately. Just ask my parents. 🙂

    But now getting down to Joseph Smith, here is one of my questions as an outsider. Is he being unintentionally inaccurate or intentionally inaccurate with the biblical text? My focus has never been really over LDS history (though I am learning), but I am passionate about interpretation of the biblical text.

    Of course, I would tell those in our church family: examine what I say about the text.

    The Bible rings true, but not always the proclaimers of Bible texts.

16. Not much of a choice you are giving me Todd, is it?

17. Seth, I don’t know how to express how much the JST bothers me.

18. Joseph’s testimony is indeed a lens through which to read the Bible. The difference is that Latter-day Saints do not claim that people who do not read the Bible through the lens of Joseph Smith’s testimony are not Christians in their hearts. (The issue of ordinances performed by priesthood authority remains outstanding, however.)

    Todd, in my earlier comment I was not suggesting that Primary kids or Seminary kids literally discuss the creeds themselves. What I meant was that first exposure to Joseph Smith’s explanation that Jesus Christ said that “their creeds were an abomination” to him could occur in Primary when the children first read from the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price but more likely in Sunday School classes or Seminary classes at the teenager level.

19. Todd, there is no doubt that Latter-day Saints are skeptical that the scrolls of the New Testament finally made it into the canon in the fourth century A.D. entirely unscathed and unaltered by transcription, literacy, and clumsiness issues, not to mention the possibility of intentional alterations for political purposes at a time when a bishop’s political strength was closely tied to doctrinal issues and the control of doctrinal issues. Thus, Latter-day Saints speak of “plain and precious parts” that fell away during the centuries between the writing of Gospels and their ultimate cementing in the canon hundreds of years later. Restoring these plain and precious things seems a natural enough activity for a prophet of God assigned by God to restore primitive Christianity and usher in the Fulness of Times.

20. John, maybe sometime this week in a new post, I will offer a puzzling example of Joseph’s Smith alteration in John 5 and connect this with his alteration in Isaiah 29. I don’t see this as natural activity towards scripture.

21. Natural in the sense of faithful.

22. I’m not entirely certain what Joseph Smith meant by undertaking that translation. Who knows where it would have gone, had he lived long enough to finish it…

    All I can tell you is that only selections of that work are included in the footnotes of the LDS scriptures. Today, it is viewed more as something similar to rabbinical commentary (to pick an example from Judaism), rather than outright prophecy which out to trump the KJV text.

23. But look at the impact of the rabbinical teachings upon the orthodox Jews.

    Though it is in the footnotes, the hermeneutical framework is loud and clear, not among bloggernacle LDS, but amid Church LDS.

    As contra JST would be welcomed among bloggers, does this hold true for LDS in Church and on official church websites and in Deseret bookstores. I realize I have had this conversation elsewhere at NCT.

24. I think the official LDS Church would rather not address the issue and simply leave it up in the air.

    It’s rather frustrating trying to pin down LDS doctrine, or cannon, or orthodoxy (all things evangelicals tend to regard as rather important). Very rarely are old notions, interpretations, or teachings publicly and definitively retired. Usually, they are left to fade away in quietly in obscurity.

    We Mormons simply aren’t very good at taking care of our orthodoxy. Probably in part due to our lack of a professional clergy. Also probably because we really don’t inherently care that much about it to begin with. Mormon worship is more a matter of correct practice than correct belief.

25. Seth and John, here is the book I was thinking about . . .

    The History of Christianity: An Introduction by Bradley P. and David P. Nystrom.

    Would this be used in a freshman class at BYU?

    I bought the book used. I haven’t read it yet, only scanned for what seem to be student notations.

    Like these pencil and pen comments in the margins . . .

    “philosophical background that corrupted the church” (p. 8 ) under the heading – Greek Thought

    “not true” in the margin near this sentence in the book – “From Judaism, for example, Christianity inherited monotheism . . . ” (p. 55)

    “Pelagius went too far” (p. 95)

    “Augustine was sincere, but gets credit for solidifying false doctrine” (p. 102)

    etc.

    It looks like someone cares about doctrine. Maybe the idea is to pull down what is perceived as false in Christianity and then build from there with LDS belief.

    I would like to enroll in this class at BYU, whatever it might be called.

26. “I would like to enroll in this class at BYU, whatever it might be called.”

    Me too. Alas, I don’t need any more student debt than I’ve already got.

    Sure, some of the LDS intelligentsia are interested in the whole orthodoxy question. But as a people, and as a general culture, we really aren’t.

    Try really arguing some of this stuff in a bog-standard LDS Gospel Doctrine class. Sure, you’ll get some people willing to take you up on it. But most of the people will be like “who cares?” “just pay your tithing and take care of your family” “why worry about who God’s father was, etc?”

27. Pam,

    I tried to post this earlier but it seems not to have worked. I was interested you said that you are a descendant of one of Joseph Smith’s bodyguards. I am wondering which one. I am a descendant of one of Joseph’s bodyguards and I wondered if we could be related.

28. Hello Jacob J.

    Being related is always a possibility! LOL!
    Joseph Stacy Murdock.

    Let me add a little ditty to that.

    Joseph Stacy Murdock and Joseph Smith loved sports, and they often wrestled or ran foot races togeher. His friendship was so strong and his love for the Prophet so great that he was honored to be appointed as one of Joseph Smith’s personal bodyguards.
    “I went with Brother Joseph on the way to Carthage jail. I went among the horses and held onto his trousers and begged to go with him. He told me that he thought that if I went others would want to go also. I asked him what lay ahead, and he said,”I don’t like the looks at all of what lies ahead, I see no light in that direction.My light is in the West.” He then told me never to give up work of the Latter Day Saints, for it was true, and if they killed him, judgement would come upon this nation. He went to Cartiage jail and was murdered.” JSM Journal

    Joseph Stacy Murdock married Eliza Clark.

29. Pam,

    If you don’t mind my asking, who was the bodyguard of Joseph Smith you were related to? I am a descendant of one of Joseph’s bodyguards and I wonder if we are related?

30. Ha! My original comment finally appears as #29.

    Thanks for the response Pam and for the snippet from his journal. Sadly, we don’t share the relative you mention (that I know of!) but as you say, it’s always possible we’re related somehow else. Anyway, I am sorry to hear that you did not find God through Mormonism. My experience in Mormonism seems to be quite different than yours, but I wish you the the best.

    I must confess that your mentioning of Satan not being Christ’s brother seemed like an odd thing for a Mormon to say, since that is something Mormons don’t talk about but anti-Mormons obsess about. Also, in all my many years as an active LDS, I have never heard someone talk about Joseph Smith being a part of our salvation in the way Jesus is. Not ever. Prophet, yes, but never anything on par with Christ. I can only assume your experience was nearly the exact opposite of the one I have had.

31. Jacob, it must have been magic. Perhaps Chris L. saw it being accidently overlooked by me in the WordPress comment section.

    I have never heard someone talk about Joseph Smith being a part of our salvation in the way Jesus is

    No, I haven’t heard anyone today say anything of Joseph like Jesus in the exact sense, but I have heard very clearly that outside of Jesus there is no other man like Joseph in the work of salvation.

    I just read a quote by one of the LDS apostles recently; let me see if I can round it up for you, Jacob.

32. but I have heard very clearly that outside of Jesus there is no other man like Joseph in the work of salvation

    And what is doctrinally wrong with that? Is it just that you think that Martin Luther deserves this description more than Joseph Smith?

    The idea entirely subordinates Joseph Smith to Jesus and acknowledges that only Jesus Christ’s Atonement saves people, but it seems obtuse to act like some people can’t play a greater role in spreading the work of salvation than others. Isaiah had more influence than the random laborer of his day. Martin Luther had more influence than Fritz the neighborhood baker. And we believe that Joseph Smith played a greater role (by virtue of his calling as the prophet to usher in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times) than any others who preceded him. We can disagree about that and argue facts. But the problem is that Evangelicals are not willing to leave it on that level; rather, they pretty much uniformly want to convince casual observers and Mormons as well that Mormons believe that we somehow worship Joseph Smith or ascribe to him some kind of actual salvific power.

33. True. It simply is not taught in LDS churches that Joseph Smith has anything to do with our fundamental salvation. The quote Pam mentioned sounds more like one of those quotes about different prophets being symbolically “at the head of their own dispensation.” Moses at the head of his, Adam at the head of his, and Joseph at the head of his. But it’s a rather esoteric Mormon doctrine, not well-understood, and I’m quite certain it has nothing to do with taking Christ out of the salvation picture.

    The big evangelical-Mormon dispute here is that the LDS believe in an institutionalized Church as the gateway to exhaltation (not mere resurrection and passage into a degree of glory – which is pretty much a free gift with the atonement). This really rubs free-form worship Protestantism the wrong way, as they believe everyone “who saith Lord, Lord” ought to be “in” Church or no Church, baptism or no baptism. For such born-again types, Joseph Smith (and the Church and ordinances he taught) becomes the embodiment of some perceived barrier between them and their Jesus. His doctrines regarding the heads of dispensations are just a convenient labeling tool.

    Mormons don’t really see it this way. They see it as “put up or shut up.” If you really dig Jesus as much as you say you do, we’d expect to see you put your money where your mouth is – via the Church ordinances of first baptism, and then the temple. Otherwise, we see the lip service to Jesus as superficial, insincere, and of no effect. Thus the common Mormon stereotype of born-again Christians as paying lip service to Jesus while in reality living far from him. A stereotype that is reinforced by all the casual Christians we encounter who only go to church twice a year, don’t know anything about the Bible, and seem Christian in name only.

34. A stereotype that is reinforced by all the casual Christians we encounter who only go to church twice a year, don’t know anything about the Bible, and seem Christian in name only.

    But who don’t pull punches when telling Mormons that they aren’t Christians.

35. So many books . . .

    I found it.

    The words of LDS modern-day apostle, Joseph B. Wirthlin . . .

    First proclaimed to the student body of BYU-Idaho, February 13, 2005.

    Now published for the whole corridor in the book, Press On (Deseret, 2007):

    “In 2005, we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He is the second guiding light I would like to recommend to you. Sometimes, the more familiar we are with someone, the less we appreciate them. But when it comes to the Prophet Joseph, the more I learn of him, the more I love and revere him. We believe that in the history of the world, he has done more for the salvation of mankind than any other person save Jesus only (D&C 135:3)” (p 102) . . .

    “Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; the Prophet Joseph Smith; and President Gordon B. Hinckley are three great examples worthy of emulation. Although each of them lived in different times and faced different challenges, each is a beacon of excellence that can provide light for our journey” (p. 106).

    But reverends (I tell people to never ever call me that) or religious leaders of this world don’t even come close to Jesus Christ. Yet this issue is very fuzzy, very difficult, and very frustrating in Mormon/evangelical discussion. Because for LDS are not Joseph Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley of the same species, same kind as Jesus? Perhaps some LDS might think that Joseph Smith has presently already attained the status of God. Is Joseph free and unlimited in his personal agency where he too can one day be worshipped by others? Are there Gods out there that should not be worshipped by anyone and never will? Maybe, we should just call them super humans?

    Yes, evangelicals respect past biblical prophets and apostles, but for us, there is only one superhero. Earthly prophets will never be in the category of that Prophet, Jesus Christ. John the Baptist, the last prophet of the old covenant, made that clear.

    But then I hear scandalous whoppers of how Joseph is the door to salvation in this dispensation as Jesus was/is the door in John’s Gospel.

    And I don’t know how to take such words from Dorothy Allred Solomon in The Sisterhood (2007) about today’s LDS prophet and apostles:

    “Everyone in the church, women included, listens to the prophet and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who speaks on behalf of the Lord. His counselors assist him, along with twelve apostles, as in the original church founded by Jesus Christ. One of the most powerful experiences a person can have involves being in the presence of these loving and enlightened men. Even from a distance, they emanate palpable radiance (8).”

    Can you imagine the reaction of Isaiah, John the Baptist, or Martin Luther, if Dorothy would be saying that about them?!

36. I don’t expect to ever worship Joseph Smith.

37. Yet in the fluid and colorful Mormon paradigm of continual revelation and visitation, how can one know absolutely that Joseph is not ever to be worshipped?

    Does latter-day revelation rule this out indefinitely?

    I read a Stephenie Meyer book recently. To see a vampire in the full sunlight is to see skin dazzling, shimmering in the glow of diamond sparkle. According to Steph . . . Godlike in every way.

    What if Joseph appeared and presented himself as a God to a future LDS prophet, a young one not encumbered by LDS bureaucracy and group consent; and this young one dropped to the ground in worship.

    Would you revolt against this, Seth? Are there fundamental doctrines that you hold to presently, shackling you from ever accepting such a scenario?

38. Jacob, in my testimony I stated that it wasn’t until after I read from God’s Word, did I learn that Jesus and Satan were not brothers. I was not a Christian (yet) when I learned that.

    I wouldn’t say that Christian’s abscess about such knowledge. While a Mormon, I attended Primary, Sunday school, MIA/Young Adults, and Seminary. I was also on the women’s softball, basketball, and volleyball teams. I can say that the LDS leaders did indeed teach that Satan and Jesus were brothers. Seems they spoke of it often.

    As said in my OP, I wanted to be a temple Mormon. I wanted to be married for time and eternity. The singles ward in California offered classes taught by a missionary for that very purpose. I had the understanding then of the LDS gospel and it didn’t line up Biblically. We cannot become gods………..I was saved almost 18 years ago! 🙂 Praise the Lord.

    I do thank you for your kindness. And who knows, we could be related down the line some where… 🙂

    To address John’s concern:

    A Mormon is a believer, but a believer in a different god, a different Jesus, and a different gospel. I simply meant that for me as a believer, I believe the Bible is the only Word of God and HE is the complete and final authority. I believe that God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are ONE known as the Trinity. In reference to one as a non- believer, is a term used for those who do not believe in the Trinity; the Deity of Christ. FTR- I don’t follow after any god(s) of creeds, simply the One reveled in the Bible.

    Thank You.

39. Todd,

    I expect you to have those kinds of misconceptions, no surprise. I was surprised to hear Pam say that stuff because it is just not the kind of concern one usually comes away with if one participates in the LDS church over any significant period of time.

    To assert that Mormons put Joseph Smith in the same category as Jesus just demonstrates a lack of understanding. Nothing more.

40. Todd,

    What if Joseph appeared and presented himself as a God to a future LDS prophet, a young one not encumbered by LDS bureaucracy and group consent; and this young one dropped to the ground in worship.

    Reminds me of something I was reading the other day from Revelation 19:10

    Joseph Smith will never be worshipped.

41. Pam M,

    I believe you are telling me the truth of your experience, it is just very different than mine. When I read your last comment, I just wanted to clarify that I am not doubting your honesty or sincerity.

42. Seth, you said: (23?)

    “I’m not entirely certain what Joseph Smith meant by undertaking that translation. Who knows where it would have gone, had he lived long enough to finish it…”

    Which is the same saw I have heard for years. Yet, he did get through the Bible, he just kept going back and revising and revising and revising. He did the SAME thing with the doctrine and covenants. He would go back and revise and revise. So by your logic we have no idea where the doctrine would have gone. Your comments make the doctrinal foundation of the church feel weak.

    If we dont trust the JS’s bible because he couldn’t ‘finish’ then why do we trust anything in the D&C??

43. tiredmormon,

    It is true Joseph Smith revised the D&C as he learned more and as he prepared things for publication. However, you should be careful not to overstate your case. The amount of substantive change is quite small and your assertion that he kept going back and revising and revising and revising is just hyperbole.

44. I believe that God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are ONE known as the Trinity. In reference to one as a non- believer, is a term used for those who do not believe in the Trinity; the Deity of Christ. FTR- I don’t follow after any god(s) of creeds, simply the One reveled in the Bible.

    Pam, you believe in a homoousis as God, not the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Ask Todd for an explanation if you are unfamiliar with the term homoousis — it is something you should know since you worship it.

    Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, believe in the Jesus Christ that we read about in the New Testament, not the one that you worship who is described in the creeds. They are different.

    FTR- I don’t follow after any god(s) of creeds, simply the One reveled in the Bible.

    The Trinity is not in the Bible Pam. The creeds is where this entity is described and codified.

    Pam, in militating against the concept that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are spiritual brothers, you are implying that none of us are children of God. Check with your pastor to make that is actually doctrine that your particular Protestant denomination is comfortable supporting.

    If Latter-day Saints in your circles really did speak of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers “often” then it is only because Latter-day Saints believe that all people are children of God, i.e. that God created all of us. Are you saying that God did not create Lucifer? Check with your pastor to see if that is doctrine that your denomination is willing to countenance among its members. Lucifer is therefore a spiritual creation of God who rejected God in the pre-existence.

45. Jacob: I expect you to have those kinds of misconceptions, no surprise.

    Yes, I lack Mormon understanding in many ways. I will admit that. So I appreciate your using Revelations 19:10 as a definitive doctrinal statement on worship. I do see this verse as a historically accurate, authoritative, and fundamental truth experience, written by the Apostle John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And the words speak to me today. I assume Joseph Smith did not tamper with this verse by John in the JST. I hope that no future LDS prophet, with the increasing acceptability of the multiplicity of gods in America, will massage the text either. Today, many LDS and those in evangelical denominations, in a practical, pragmatic sense, worship themselves, their material possessions, and other people; but it is my prayer that Joseph Smith will never be worshipped. May the General Authorities boom this out in the next conference. The other day, when a man in Idaho Falls was asked why he became a Mormon, he responded, “Here is a religion where I can become a God, too. Sounds pretty good.”

    But where I might misunderstand people worship as a outsider in the Mormon culture, I am also equally disturbed by the other ends of the spectrum. One BYU-Idaho student adamantly declared to me that Jesus Christ was not to be worshipped like Elohim. This individual wanted me to prove where the Bible says that Jesus is to be worshipped. Is this a prevalent thought?

    John f., I am puzzled why you would tell Pam to “check with your pastor”? Isn’t she doing what you desire her to do? It is what I desire her first and foremost to do. To study her Bible. Of course the word, Trinity, is not in the Bible. But she is telling you about the ONE she has found in the Bible. Is this Holy “One” referring to the Father? or the Son? or both?

    And your last sentence: Lucifer is therefore a spiritual creation of God who rejected God in the pre-existence. If “Jesus Christ and Lucifer are spiritual brothers”, would you accept this sentence? Jesus is therefore a spiritual creation of God who accepted God in the pre-existence.

    tiredmormon, please don’t interpret my words as mean and pushy with any of my friends here on HI4LDS. I do get excited about what I have found in scripture. And I want to welcome you to the blog. It is easy to become tired. I’ve been there. I know my creature frailty. It’s the worst. But the joy of the Lord is our strength. This morning, I am dancing in that joy. And how eager I am to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in the streets with all my LDS friends. Jesus paid the ransom for my sins. He set me free. He is the great Rock of glory in a weary, exhausting land.

46. “Would you revolt against this, Seth? Are there fundamental doctrines that you hold to presently, shackling you from ever accepting such a scenario?”

    Being a prophet is not about ruling by personal fiat. All prophets must be judged against the scriptures, the inherent worth of what the prophet is saying, and by personal appeal to God. I study it, I ponder it, and I pray about it. If a prophet does not meet those criteria in certain particulars, I do not sustain him. Simple enough.

    You are still approaching this from an assumption of prophetic inerrancy. This assumption has also crept into the LDS Church as its membership has increasingly cozied up to Protestant fundamentalism. This is unfortunate and places too much emphasis on mortal men who head the Church and not enough emphasis on God.

    Of course a prophet can get it wrong. That seems rather obvious. No doubt many things Moses said have similarly not withstood the test of time and have fallen be the wayside. The only difference between Moses and Joseph is that Moses has been dead for thousands of years and we don’t have a detailed, extensive, and nit-picky record of everything he ever uttered to dissect. But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he himself said some rather outlandish or poorly understood things in his day that simply haven’t withstood the test of time.

    I simply do not think that the concept of inerrancy, whether applied to scripture or to prophets holds any water. God has decided on a hands-off approach in dealing with His children. He has given us the room to mess things up. He will not force the wording and idiom of a prophet at General Conference any more than He forced the hand of the scribes who wrote and compiled the Pentateuch. I don’t need to believe in inerrancy to believe that the Bible is valuable and even inspired by God. Neither do I need to believe that a prophet is a mere robot with God holding the remote control to believe that a prophet is a messenger from God.

47. Todd,

    but it is my prayer that Joseph Smith will never be worshipped. May the General Authorities boom this out in the next conference.

    This is simply ridiculous and you know it. If there was an actual problem with Joseph-worship in the Church, the current prophet would most certainly denounce it. Since it is not a problem, since Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith, since they never have, and since the only people concerned about it are antagonists of the Church, don’t expect to hear any denunciations of it in the next conference.

48. The only “worship” of Joseph Smith going on is the normal sort of “hero-worship” you find in any population of people – whether it be a born-again Christian who is really, really, enthused about George Washington, or a teenager on the street who is bonkers about the latest rock band. Some Mormons really dig Joseph Smith. Maybe that’s a bit wrong. Maybe it’s normal and harmless. Who knows?

    But we do not, and have never considered him a God.

49. Of course the word, Trinity, is not in the Bible.

    And neither is the concept.

50. At least in the sense that “Trinity” is taken to mean “one substance”.

51. Seth, I agree with you. I don’t believe that a “prophet is a mere robot with God holding the remote control.” In all that inspiration implies, it should not be defined by mechanical dictation. When I read the book of Isaiah, I see the human author from the front of the scroll to the last line (though some see a second Isaiah, others even a third Isaiah, and some see even more. Interestingly, after the discovery of the great Isaiah scroll, higher critics had to eliminate some of their late date theories of redaction.) When I read the prophet Ezekiel, I see the personality of the man. Same for any of the Gospel authors or the apostle Paul in his epistles, etc. Biblical inspiration does not in any way eradicate human personality.

    But also, in the vast amount of manuscripts, we find the divine imprint of God. The Spirit of God carried all these individual human authors along in the penning of God-breathed words for communicating divine messages. The original autographs for each one of the biblical books turned out to be 100% human and yet 100% holy. Unlike other books written, they were completely trustworthy as the voice of God through human authors to sinful man. “God breathed it; men wrote it; we possess it.” And before Jacob starts laughing, I must say that this is another one of those mysteries because it is so miraculous. A perfect “Thus saith the LORD” even in the minutiae, communicated and written down by sinful men for sinful men. So for most of the questions that plague the rationalists, they are solved for me in the doctrine of biblical inspiration.

    Tell me Seth. What is your definition of inspiration?

    Jacob, I am not trying to be ridiculous. I’m writing earnestly. I think it very foolish for any group of religious people to imagine themselves immune to hero worship. It has tormented evangelicalism and Christian fundamentalism. I think in any conference, religious leaders ought to publicly speak up and meditate with the audiences over the words by the prophet, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” There’s lots of talk about humility, but when do you hear the vivid action of this behind a pulpit or lectern in America, especially on national television? And believe me, I am not selective in my anguish and concern over this. For the 47,000 in Joel Osteen’s church, is it about human improvement and advancement or glorifying God alone? Look at the book titles in the inspiration section of WalMart.

    Heart question: Do LDS show great personal sacrifice (decrease) ultimately for spiritual advancement or Christ’s glory?

    John f., (sigh)

52. Todd,

    I know you are always earnest. On the topic of general hero worship, I enjoyed Pres Packer’s talk in Conference last week saying that the General Authorities are just mere men. Their callings do not make them more important than anyone else. It seems like we are telling people we don’t worship Joseph Smith ad nauseum, so I don’t disagree that it is important, I just don’t think it is an actual problem. Sit in my ward in testimony meeting and you will hear a steady stream of people get up to bear testimony of Jesus Christ as their Savior and Redeemer, and Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration. We don’t confuse the two.

    As to your “heart question,” I don’t think spiritual advancement and Christ’s glory can be separated in Mormon theology. After all, we have a verse in which God declares: “This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” In Mormon theology, we give far more glory to God by becoming holy than by praising him with our voices. Our spiritual advancement is God’s glory.

53. Is that verse the theme for the Work and Glory movie series?

    Thanks for the thought provoking comment.

    Today, I have been studying some in John 6 in preparation for this Lord’s Day.

    The people are asking Jesus what works they can do, and he tells them what is the singular work among men to be done. I have been thinking about this tonight.

    Secondly, as we believingly praise him with our whole hearts (more than just lips), is it not proper to acknowledge that he is supreme in relationship to the Father and as bread for man because he uniquely came down from heaven? He humbled himself of glory that we might be able to freely taste and believe. The Bread of Life discourse collides strongly with a seeking Jesus for a personal, material advancement. So much for the wealth and health gospel.

54. Jacob J.

    You claim that JS didn’t revise the D&C very often. Can you document that and give me a source? Your point would be strengthened if you could show that he changed the D&C less than he changed his interpretations of the Bible. After my reading of Mormon history, at first blush I would disagree with you. JS seems to have changed the bible numerous times and completed his first run pretty early on. Although he changed some things the month before his death, he had commented on the entire range of the Bible.

    The whole point is that JS often went back to revise everything he wrote, and said. If we as Mormons won’t accept his revised Bible as sciptural cannon, then JS’s D&C sections should get the same treatment, wouldn’t you agree?

    Todd: After several months in the blogsphere, and commenting on any number of Mormon blogs, I must say that your welcome surprised me and I thank you. Maybe the guys and gals over in the Bloggernacle could ditch the name calling and start welcoming new commenters.

55. One of the main reasons that the JST fell off the radar for the LDS Church is that Emma Smith took the manuscripts with her when she fell out with Brigham Young. As a lot of you probably know, after Joseph Smith died, there was a bit of a debate as to who should be next prophet. Brigham Young won out. Emma disagreed and didn’t follow the Mormons west to Utah. The faction she threw in with eventually became the Reorganized LDS Church and that church retained control of the manuscripts.

    Brigham Young always held suspicions that the RLDS had tampered with the documents. As a result, he never trusted the documents and they simply dropped out of the LDS consciousness for nearly a century. It was only when Apostle Bruce R. McConkie started studying the original documents again and campaigned for their rehabilitation that the LDS Church started to embrace the JST again.

56. I am an active Mormon with all the typical credentials, if that matters. 7th generation, RM, temple married, former Bishop etc. I still participate, but don’t really believe much of what is taught. I know and deeply admire quite a number of people who have left the Mormon church, so I have no particular problem with people who leave in general. But Pam’s story does not ring true to me. Not that I think she is not telling the truth–I am certain that she is being truthful and sincere. But there is too much here that suggests that she never really understood Mormon theology, and that she has only a tenuous grasp on Christian theology of any kind. It is fine for people of all faiths to “bear their testimonies” about their faith, but Pam’s story is hardly a thoughtful critique of anything.

    Incidentally, I too have studied the Bible a great deal. I have prayed much over it. I took seriously the claims of evangelical protestants and I have listened intently to hundreds of sermons by all of the leading lights of evangelicalism. I have read many of their books. I have dedicated many hours to reading and praying about the New Testament, in particular. And now, although I have lost much of my faith in Mormonism, much of what I see taught by evangelicals strikes me as even more nonsensical and nonbiblical than it did when I was a much more orthodox Mormon. I get very frustrated with the evangelical critics of Mormonism who seem to think that if only Mormons would really read the Bible, then they too would be evangelicals. It is just not that simple.

57. I got the exact same impression Garfield. It seemed to me, from the account, that Pam wasn’t discovering evangelicalism for the first time. She was discovering religion for the first time. Her commitment to the Mormon faith seemed to be purely cultural and mostly rooted in her family ties. She has shown very little understanding of LDS doctrines and perspective. Did anyone else catch that part where she mentioned she had never even read the entire BoM before she was already enrolled in an evangelical Bible study? Or am I just imagining things?

    I don’t want to beat up on Pam too much on this score. As far as I’m concerned, she went from being an indifferent and uninformed Mormon to a believing Evangelical. In my mind, that’s an improvement – in and of itself. Garfield possibly disagrees with me on this score. But if Pam has found a relationship with God through her search, more power to her.

    But I wouldn’t take much of her testimonial as indicating much of anything, one way or the other, about what the LDS Church does or does not believe. I think it’s clear that our Church has failed Pam, and others like her. That’s enough for me.

58. Garfield, keep reading. Man, I would love to get into a biblical book study with you. I have had interest from LDS in town to get into a John’s Gospel study with me outside the church building. But I tell them, it would be good to have six months together in the text.

    But this is extremely short, compared to our Sunday morning pace.

59. The remark: “She was discovering religion for the first time.”

    Seth, the comment misses everything. If Pam was enthralled by the big, extensive superstructure of religion and what she could see with her physical eyes, she and her family wouldn’t be hanging at the simple Berean Baptist Church, independent of any denominational mecca.

    I think she found and hungers for something more than religious programs, spotless organization, clean buildings, and regular activity.

    It’s all about Christ and trusting Him. Not religion. How much of religion in America majors on this?

60. Ah. Actually Todd, that’s not the sense that I meant “religion.” I was using the term rather loosely to include actual fervent belief.

61. tiredmormon,

    These are not compreshensive, but a few good places to start if you want to read about Joseph’s revisions of the D&C are here, here, and here. Together, those give a pretty decent overview.

    The whole point is that JS often went back to revise everything he wrote, and said. If we as Mormons won’t accept his revised Bible as sciptural cannon, then JS’s D&C sections should get the same treatment, wouldn’t you agree?

    Well, it seems to me it would depend on the purpose of the different revisions. The purpose of JST seems to be very different than the purpose of Joseph’s revisions of the D&C, so I don’t think your conclusion follows. I think the fact that Joseph did revise his revelations should teach us something about how he viewed scripture and we should take it into account when we read the scriptures. Joseph was never opposed to learning more from God, no matter how much he knew already. The nature of learning requires that sometimes you will find out your previous understanding was only partial, or was an approximation. We should never assume we know everything just because we have some scriptures, that much I can agree with you on.

    I agree with Seth’s 57.

62. Keith,

    Thank you for your post. Being delivered out of darkness and into the saving grace of Jesus is miraculous. God is in the business for miracles that’s for sure! 🙂
    The Lord has done many things in my life.

    Some here on the board unfortunately continue to insinuate that I hadn’t read any of the BoM.. I had obviously read what was needed for almost 3 years of seminary! Though I hadn’t read it cover to cover, doesn’t mean that I was/am clueless to their teachings.

    God will speak to us no matter where we are in life. The question is,” Are we listening?” Sadly, from a Mormon perspective, I have learned more about Joseph Smith’s teachings after leaving it. Researching Mormonism almost 18 years DOES have value.

    If I am being told here that I am clueless with Mormon teachings, why is it OK that the missionaries can tell people to pray and ask if the BoM true or not (Moroni) and wait for the burning bosom? Interestingly enough, they teach a burning would tell them if a book was true whether they read it cover to cover or not. (Pointless as well as unbiblical).Satan will counterfeit those feelings.

    Like I said, it wasn’t until I began to take that class taught by missionaries, did the Lord work HIS wonders. Just when I thought I had my own plans, i.e., becoming temple worthy did God make that U-Turn in my life! Obviously when He spoke, I listened.

    Of course the LDS church failed me as well as it has failed everyone else . But it was not in a sense of how that was stated. There isn’t a church building in this world that is capable of giving salvation. Only Christ!

    Pastor Todd,
    This past week, I am continually reminded of how Jesus was treated by the Pharisees. The Pharisees knew their laws well. They were very aware of each law like the back of their hands. However, they were in bondage to it. The sad part- they were so caught up in being right in their ways; they couldn’t see that Jesus was standing before them.

    Wouldn’t you say this still goes on today? It seems many today are caught up in bondage of “their ways” they can’t see Jesus, nor hear the Shepherds voice. All we can do is praise our God for HIS deliverance out of darkness, plant seeds, and pray for those that are spiritually blind.

    Some will accept the Holy Sprit, while others rebuke. My heart saddens when others, (my family too) continually miss the whole concept. The thief on the cross knew who Jesus was and believed in HIM. While others that can be scripture scholars, read the BoM and/or Bible 300 times, grab every class that’s offered, claim to know everything, yet miss the simple message of Christ with unbelief.

    God is not a God of confusion.

    Joseph Smith taught there are many gods and we can become one. Jesus says there is only ONE- HE knows not of any other.

    In Mormon Doctrine, p. 670, we read, “If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
    LDS Church News, March 17, 2001 we read, “Joseph Smith was a prophet, and all calumny and aspiration to the contrary cannot controvert that fact. Anyone who has concern for the welfare of his eternal soul should give attention to this message. Every man who has lived since the days of Joseph Smith is subject to accepting him as a prophet of God in order to enter into our Heavenly Fathers’ presence.”
    Mormon Doctrine, p. 411 says, “The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds the keys of salvation for all men now living because he is the only one by whose authorization the sealing power of the priesthood can be used to seal men up to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God”

    Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

    Obviously the LDS teachings contradict the Bible and mock Jesus’ teachings with another gospel that is like murky water.

    Bottom line, it doesn’t matter where we are in life, what path we are on when HE calls us. The question is, “Will we know HIS voice? Will we listen? Will we obey HIM?” Or will we look for some another way………………..

    Blessings!

63. yes, the bottom line is that you have experienced a real Jesus, different from your upbringing . . . completely sufficient in Himself for your whole life’s path of salvation and glorification.

    Pam, I saw a license plate on a SUV in town. It read, “COURAGE”. Thanks for the courage in placing some of your story on HI4LDS.

    More interviews will be appearing down the road. But you are the first from the Berean family.

    Thanks.

64. Pam, I have never, not once, had a “burning in the bosom.”

    I believe in Mormonism because I have researched it, I have lived it, and it has worked well for me. It’s not a “warm fuzzy” thing for me.

    A lot of Evangelicals like to emphasize the “burning in the bosom” line as a way to imply that Mormons are emotional nitwits who are clueless about their own religion, or are opportunistically trying to deceive the gullible.

    Who is disrespecting whom here?

65. So now Mormons are the Pharisees? I think in terms of Evangelical/Mormon interaction, the Evangelicals make a pretty good comparison to the Pharisees — a better comparison than comparing the Mormons and the Pharisees in the context of this relationship. It is the Mormons who have come on the scene claiming guiding revelation and who must endure harsh Evangelical rebukes and scolding for following such revelation rather than holding to a constricting and non-scriptural dogma (the Trinity of the creeds).

    Similarly, the Pharisees had built much that was unnecessary and unscriptural into (what they were calling) the law in an effort to set the ultimate boundaries of the law and make sure to stay within it, not realizing that their efforts to do so strayed from the intent of the law and were based on interpretations of it that were laid down during a period of relative apostasy from guiding prophets. (Not to mention failing to understand that the law itself could not save even though their own prophets had understood and taught this earlier during periods of closer adherence to the prophetic voice.) When Jesus came, the Pharisees chose not to listen to their hearts in response to Jesus’ revelatory voice and to his miracles but hardened their hearts against him because what he was preaching seemed to their ears to be foreign to their religion. In truth, it was the natural culmination of their religion and they would have and could have recognized that it they would have allowed themselves to read the scriptures without the lens of their formulaic understanding of dogma.

66. Mormon Doctrine, p. 411 says, “The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds the keys of salvation for all men now living because he is the only one by whose authorization the sealing power of the priesthood can be used to seal men up to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God”

    Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

    Obviously the LDS teachings contradict the Bible and mock Jesus’ teachings with another gospel that is like murky water.

    Pam, this is an incredible argument. If you are making this argument then I assume that you also claim that the authority that Jesus gave to his New Testament Apostles is also a mockery of Jesus.

    Nothing in the Church mocks Jesus. That is just silly. The belief that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have in priesthood authority derives directly from the New Testament, not even from the Book of Mormon — you realize that, right? The New Testament is where we find discussion of the sealing power that is associated with the only priesthood that Jesus authorized while on the earth before his crucifixion and during his ministry during the days between his resurrection and ascension. This is all entirely biblical, nary a word of the Book of Mormon here. And what the New Testament very clearly portrays is that Jesus Christ established a Church with a hierarchical priesthood structure and intended that only ordinances performed by that very priesthood were valid in his eyes.

    The Latter-day Saint view on this is far more faithful to the New Testament text than free-church Evangelical Protestants’ view. This is because, just like we read in the New Testament, Jesus Christ gave his priesthood authority to his Apostles so that they could perform ordinances in his name. That priesthood authority is still just as necessary today as it was ten years after Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

    To attend a church that does not believe that only ordinances performed through authorized priesthood authority mocks Jesus, don’t you think? Do you belong to such a church? I don’t know whether Todd is preaching once-saved-always-saved or the-only-thing-required-for-salvation-is-to-accept-Jesus-in-your-heart in his congregation but if he at leasts recognizes the necessity of baptism, then that itself invites the question of authority to baptize, and if Todd is preaching authority to baptize, then Pam your arguments against the Church also cut against Todd’s congregation.

67. Ok, John, let me ask you this as I am also seriously musing over the other thread, the JST on John 5.

    For me, to solely defend scripture wording (not talking about interpretation of text), I am being a Pharisee, according to devout LDS.

    Because according to Joseph Smith, human philosophies, extra biblical dogma, have crept into the text itself, like in the Pentateuch and John’s Gospel, etc., impacting our use of the KJV.

    Therefore to rely upon the impaired biblical text solely is to be in danger of relying upon scribal traditions.

68. Pam brought up the Pharisee comparison. I was just showing her that it works equally well, perhaps even better, where the Evangelicals are the Pharisees and the Latter-day Saints are the followers of Christ. I don’t really think you are a Pharisee for confining yourself to an interpretation of the New Testament dictated in creeds formulated by a church that you don’t even believe in (the Catholic Church).

69. Pam,

    Some here on the board unfortunately continue to insinuate that I hadn’t read any of the BoM.. I had obviously read what was needed for almost 3 years of seminary! Though I hadn’t read it cover to cover, doesn’t mean that I was/am clueless to their teachings.

    Can you please point me to the comment that insinuated that? Seth R’s comment 57 (to which I assume you are referring) said: “Did anyone else catch that part where she mentioned she had never even read the entire BoM before she was already enrolled in an evangelical Bible study?”

    He is very explicit in saying you had not read the “entire” BoM, which is the exact point you seem to take issue with above. Did someone else insinuate you had not read the BoM or have you misrepresented Seth’s comment? The fact that you had never read the entire BoM does not mean you were a bad person, but it is definitely indicative of how deep your understanding of Mormon doctrine (not the book by Bruce R. McConkie!) was and is. The fact that you continue to cite Mormon Doctrine (the book by BRM) is indicative of the shallow understanding you have of how doctrine works in the LDS religion.

    You then go on to say that LDS teachings “mock Jesus’ teachings .” I think that kind of language is unfortunate and to creates animosity instead of a civil conversation between people of different beliefs. I thought Todd’s purpose in creating this site was to minister to Mormons, but telling me that my beliefs mock Jesus is different than saying I am wrong. To mock something is to ridicule it, to hold it in derision. I would never accuse Evangelicals of ridiculing Jesus’ teachings, even though I disagree with Evangelicals. I am sorry to see that kind of language used here.

70. I remember how defensive I felt when I was a Mormon. It’s hard to explain…. even though I could see that their doctrine didn’t line up biblically, part of me still wanted it to be true. I remember the tears I went through. I remember the endless questions I had. I think for the Christians, they remained to have patience with me.

    I sometimes come across strongly, but only because I know the dangers my loved ones are facing. I have always been one of those “I want to fix it now” kind of people. I need to remember that everything is in the Lord’s timing, not mine.

    Example: Years back, I witnessed to my Grandmother but she was sure her church was true and ignored the Word. Her heart just wasn’t ready to receive HIM. It wasn’t until about 4 months before her passing of 97 years, did the Lord send me to witness to her. She accepted the Lord as her Savior and is now in HIS Kingdom. 🙂 Praise The Lord!

    Timing…..The Lord answered many prayers that day! 🙂 Many prayed that the she would accept the Lord as her one and only Savior, God, and Redeemer before her passing. In HIS timing, she was saved; thus prayers answered.

    I never meant any “individual” had any intentions of mocking Jesus. The LDS teachings “itself” go against the teachings of Jesus when the teachings itself has removed Salvation as a gift of God by replacing it with works for Eternal Progression. It simply isn’t Biblical.

    I have much love for my LDS neighbors and family. Sometimes my emotions run because of the danger they are in.

    Pastor Todd has a great church; teaching HIS Word…word for word in the Bible. I have been to a few churches and this one I can honestly say they totally dig in the meat of HIS Word.

    His awesome board is also reaching many wonderful LDS people that are in need of hearing HIS Word for the first time. We (I) love our LDS community. There are a lot of good LDS people out there that do a lot of wonderful things for the community.

    Let me just ask that you read through the Book of John, hold your Bible ever so close to you and pray for HIS guidance in seeking HIM. He is there waiting.

    God Bless.

    Pastor Todd, I am looking forward to your other interviews. The Lord is working HIS miracles! Thank You for having us here. 🙂

71. Fair enough Pam. I’ll gladly accept that response.

72. Pam M,

    I remember how defensive I felt when I was a Mormon.

    I’m not sure what you are trying to convey with this first paragraph. Is your point that I being defensive, but you remember how it was to be like that back when you were a deceived Mormon like I still am? That is my best guess, but honestly I am not sure.

    I sometimes come across strongly, but only because I know the dangers my loved ones are facing.

    I’m not sure what the danger is from your perspective. God’s irresistable will will be accomplished, right? Whatever God has ordained will come to pass, so what is there to be worried about? Again, it is an honest question.

    The LDS teachings “itself” go against the teachings of Jesus when the teachings itself has removed Salvation as a gift of God by replacing it with works for Eternal Progression. It simply isn’t Biblical.

    Surely you can appreciate the fact that I feel your beliefs are not Biblical in the same way that you feel mine are not. If I tell you your beliefs mock Jesus and you tell me my beliefs mock Jesus, that doesn’t get us anywhere. It only creates bad feelings and prevents us from having a friendly discussion where everyone’s beliefs are respected.

    His awesome board is also reaching many wonderful LDS people that are in need of hearing HIS Word for the first time.

    The Bible is God’s word, right? LDS people read and study the Bible, so there is no basis for saying LDS people are hearing HIS Word for the first time. We have been hearing God’s word all along.

    Let me just ask that you read through the Book of John, hold your Bible ever so close to you and pray for HIS guidance in seeking HIM. He is there waiting.

    I love the gospel of John and have read it many times. Like you, I draw closer to God by reading and studying the scriptures. The tone of your entire comment is quite condescending, as though you are the only one who has found God through the Bible. How could you possibly know about my relationship with God?

    Like Seth, I think it is great that you have found God. I agree with him that going from an indifferent and uninformed Mormon to a believing Evangelical is an improvement. I love that you are excited about the gospel. I fear you will have to be less condescending and insulting of my beliefs if you want to minister to me effectively however. Also, after misrepresenting what Seth said and then telling me my beliefs mock Jesus, an apology would go over better than an explanation that you only did those things because you know I am in danger of hell-fire. I feel to follow Seth’s example of charity by accepting your response despite its lack of an apology. So, I freely forgive you as Christ teaches me to do. I wish you only the best.

    God Bless.

73. Wow, Jacob . . . should some be asking for apologies on LDS blogs in how they describe the Calvinist beliefs or other beliefs by evangelicals which they claim is totally distorting God? Pam’s honesty in her language seems pretty mild to what I have observed by both evangelicals and many LDS.

    It has not even occured to me to ask for apologies on other blogs in the whole last year on bloggernacle for misrepresentation that I might perceive.

74. We get some inflammatory rhetoric occasionally.

    I recall that I myself accused the entire “Christian Right” of outright idolatry (i.e. worshiping their pet causes like abortion or school prayer instead of God) a couple years back. I quickly got stomped on by other Mormon bloggers however.

75. Todd,

    Point me to anything I have ever said which is comparable to telling you that your beliefs mock Jesus’ teachings and I will fall over myself apologizing.

    As I said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with disagreeing (you know me well enough to know that). I don’t have any objection whatsoever to Pam disagreeing with me or anyone else. But telling someone their beliefs mock Jesus’ teachings is different than telling them they are wrong. If people on Mormon blogs say something like that about Evangelicals I think they should apologize. As I said, show me the example and I would be happy to call publically for an apology.

    I hold no ill will against Pam. Really, I don’t. I am merely telling her, and now you, that if you want to minister to me, you need to find a way to do it that doesn’t include saying something so insulting. Keep in mind that NCT is not a blog designed to minister to Evangelicals. I took it from the title of your blog that you want to evangelize Mormons.

76. Pam wrote [LDS doctrine] simply isn’t Biblical.

    The truth is that creedal Christianity simply isn’t biblical.

    I also find it interesting that you proclaim that your grandmother is saved. How can you be the judge as to whether someone else is saved or not? If that is what your particular Evangelical denomination is putting forth as dogma, then it is hugely deficient and entirely unbiblical.

    Latter-day Saints, by contrast, believe that it is only by the grace of Jesus Christ that anyone is saved, even after doing everything good that they can, including receiving the ordinances performed by the only priesthood authorized by Jesus Christ. This is fully biblical, as mentioned above. To argue that priesthood authority is unnecessary is to contradict the Bible in many ways.

77. Pam wrote Let me just ask that you read through the Book of John, hold your Bible ever so close to you and pray for HIS guidance in seeking HIM. He is there waiting.

    Pam, you are sorely mistaken if you think that most Latter-day Saints have not already read the Book of John. Just because you had not done so before going to an Evangelical Bible group does not mean that scores of Latter-day Saints are not intimately acquainted with the Book of John, and the rest of the New Testament.

    Speaking of John, what do you make of 1 John and 2 John? (They are in the New Testament as well.)

    Ask Todd what he thinks of the Shepherd of Hermas. It was in the first New Testaments after canonization in the mid-fourth century — yet it is no longer there. Also, ask Todd what he thinks about the Book of James and then go read Martin Luther — you might be surprised at what you find.

    Todd # 73: it is not hateful or mischaracterization when a Latter-day Saint explains that the doctrine of Calvinism is foreign to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and was NOT taught by Paul, as your friend Aaron S. was arguing. Aaron S. proclaimed forcefully that “Mormon” doctrine was not in the Bible. The natural reply was to point out to him that the horribly depraved doctrine of Calvinism is not in the Bible and certainly was not taught by Paul. It certainly does not partake of the love that God and his son Jesus Christ have for all of their creations.

    Aaron S. deleted any comments criticizing Calvinism at his blog anyway. As for the debates at New Cool Thang, it seems below you to claim now that they were misrepresentations of Calvinism when in truth they were very informed and made extremely damaging points against the errors of Calvinism that really should be addressed as to their substance rather than brushed aside as supposedly being mischaracterizations. If you allow for predestination, then there is no way to avoid the conclusion that God is the author of the misery and eternal torment of billions of his creations, whom he has apparently created only to torture.

78. Yes, that was an interesting conversation. At the same time however, I’d like to believe that we LDS can come up with a better retort than “I know YOU are but what am I?”

79. To Jacob J: Sorry, but Pams’ experience is much like mine. My ward chapel had an oil painting 3ft x 5ft of the prophet David O.McKay at the front above the organ, while Jesus’ picture was a photocopy 8″x10″ UNDER the wall clock on the side wall. At the age of 10 I was singing about Jesus and wondering why He was in such a small place and His prophet has such a special place. God has a wonderful way of revealing Himself to us. Romans 1:20
    To Seth: I was thrilled to see the exhibit at the Museum of Idaho of Ink and Blood because it validated my belief in the doctrine of the Bible that exisited before JS went to the grove. I can follow the Word of Gods’ “geneology” from the Dead Sea Scrolls to theKing James Bible. The Word was true and available when JS told of his vision and incorporated the new found teachings of Free Masonry to people who just didn’t read the Bible they had. Read the Bible, Gods’ love letters to us, and be passionate about His doctrine and gospel. To be right is not always loving. To be doctrinal is Gods’ love, will, and way.

80. “To be right is not always loving. To be doctrinal is Gods’ love, will, and way.”

    Nope.

    “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”

    Love of God is to have a conversion such that it leads to a Christian life. Correct belief without a Christian life is worthless.

    “Though I speak with the tongue of angels… and have not charity, I am nothing.”

    Being correct in doctrine counts for surprisingly little in the Bible.

81. Ruthie,

    No need to apologize for what your experience was. As I said originally, I don’t doubt that Pam is sincere and honest in relating her experience. I don’t doubt that you are either. I can only say that your experience is different than mine. That happens, no big surprise. In my experience Jesus has been front and center in all my experiences in the church. If he was not in your experience that is unfortunate.

    Pam,

    It was pointed out to me in a private correspondence that my final comment in #72 about forgiving despite the lack of apology looks like anger cloaked in piety. I really am not angry, but my annoyance comes through. For that I apologize. To be honest, Seth’s #71 seemed very generous to me and genuinely inspired me to want to follow his example. The fact that I failed in my attempt shows that I have lots of room to improve.

82. Guys, welcome to another ex-LDS and dear sister in our church family . . . Ruthie Mogan. Sometime in the future, I will post an HI4LDS interview with Ruthie, too. But I have another interview with yet another sister in our church family. It is sitting in the hanger at the moment. Hopefully, it will be ready to post in a day or two.

    Jacob, I appreciate the nice words to Pam in #81.

    John f, in this thread, you bring a lot of details to the discussion, especially in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity and themes in bibliology and soteriology.

    1. Remember that I am the inconsistent Calvinist; this has all been covered over at NCT. I believe in two pillars: God’s unconditional, gracious election but also that Christ died for all. Wait till I have some HI4LDS interviews with strong ex-LDS who hold fully to the Calvinistic framework. Ok? then you can discuss and debate with these good brothers whom I respect and hold to in strong friendship.

    2. Bibliology (inspiration, trustworthiness, canon, sufficiency, preservation, etc.) – I am very keen on this, because the scripture words are the primary source to what we believe about who God is. If you want to debate the issues of the church creeds on the Trinity, go to Brad over at Defensor Veritatis; my desire is to scrutinize the biblical words that reveal to us the nature of God. This is where I want to engage with you. And I do like James. We spent almost a whole year as a church family on Sunday evenings in the book. And yes, I did tell everybody what Luther thought about the ‘straw’ epistle. If some missed it from me, most hear it anyways from LDS friends or family.

    3. The sovereign Triune God
    I think this is central. Just as we strongly react against and reject Joseph’s description of God, LDS are highly critical of the evangelical’s sovereign Triune God. The spiritual intensity in our messy evangelical/Mormon discussions go way beyond our reactions to one another. We can’t stand each other’s Yahweh. Really, ultimately, I don’t care what the creeds say about Yahweh. I want to know how the biblical texts define this absolutely unique Being.

    We are all going to stand before Yahweh someday. But the problem is that evangelicals see in the Bible, when one finally stands before Yahweh after death, it will be too late to apologize. For genuine, truly regenerated evangelicals, the intensity of our speech right now should not to be interpreted as hate. We do see everlasting burnings, as I have just read today in Isaiah 33.

    I am not going to act like the carnival, attention-grabbing “street preachers” of general conference, but I am not going to tip toe through tulips when I believe in a literal hell as a destiny for all who reject the straight and narrow way. Love does severely squeeze a man to not just sit and say nothing.

    Saying that, John f., I am all for getting into what the texts demand about Jesus and how he will judge if we don’t believe.

    thinking of heart issues . . .

83. Seth,
    I can appreciate those that have not taken their studies lightly. You mentioned that you also have studied LDS Scriptures. I still have a questioned that baffles me. If Joseph Smiths teachings do not contradict one another, why have his writings done so in the PoGP? In Moses chapter 2, it states, “And I, God, said…….” But compare Joseph Smith’s teachings by looking at his very next chapter. The Book of Abraham chapter 4 on creation, it reads, “AND THE GODS CREATED…” There are a couple of pages with verses after verses declaring that THE GODS created the earth. Now, that certainly isn’t Biblical.

    It can’t be both. It looks as though Smith changed his beliefs.

    Jacob-
    Thank you for your clarification. #81 Sometimes with blogs, message boards, and e -mails, words can be taken wrong.

    John,
    Considering I have been under fire since my interview was posted, that is how I perceived it. As if I hadn’t read anything and/ or misinformed as well as clueless. I used the word insinuate, as in [i]suggesting [/i]. Sorry the wording was misunderstood.

    As mentioned above, I am sincerely questioning Seth about J.S teachings. The LDS teaching does go against the Bible. I have not yet read in Genesis that the GODS created anything. The Bible only speaks of One.

    Ruthie,
    Thank you for your response. You are a blessing to many. There are many people that have gone through the same things we have and some desire to be free of bondage. We are just HIS messengers. It’s only the Holy Spirit that can reach the hearts. We just plant the seeds.BTW- Thank YOU for today!

    Yes, JS was VERY involved with Free-Masonry.

    Justin,
    The Lord is working miraculously in your life. You are an inspiration to many. Keep reading HIS Word! 🙂

84. Pam, in the Isaiah study tonight on chapter 33, I took the family to Psalms 97, a KJV cross-reference. I think it is verse 5 (among many other fascinating texts like this, Ps. 82 is another central text for discussion).

    I don’t have my Bible in front of me.

    The Hebrew word for “gods” is elohim, the same word underlying “In the beginning God” in Genesis 1.

    Now, this is the debate, when do you translate elohim in the O.T. as God or Gods?

    I know one BYU prof who in correspondence would contend very strongly that it should be translated in the English plural throughout the O.T. The English translation masks. But I would push for the context and the Hebraic usage for a plural of majesty in many of the cases.

    Even greater, who is being identified as Yahweh, the One high and lifted up above all elohim?

85. Well first off, I’m not too concerned whether a particular LDS belief is Biblical or not. We don’t hang our entire theological hat on the Bible to begin with, so that’s a non-starter.

    First let’s look at your quote from Moses. If you don’t mind, I’ll quote from verse 1 instead of verses 3 and 6 since I think it makes the same point for you anyway.

    “I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest.”
    (Moses 2:1)

    Next, I believe you are referring to Abraham Chapter 4, verses 1 through 31. But let’s just focus on verse 1 again:

    “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.”
    (Abraham 4:1)

    Your contradiction is that it appears to be One God in Moses, and several in Abraham.

    First realize that simply calling something a “god” in Mormonism does not mean “ultimate being with all power” like it does in other faiths. God the Father, Eloheim, is the undisputed source of all power and authority by which the world, and everything in it, was organized. For Mormons, this is hard doctrine.

    However, we also allow that others were involved in carrying out God the Father’s will in organizing the earth. The multiple “Gods” mentioned in Abraham were simply acting under the direction of God the Father. It was by His power, and His authority that they were able to do whatever it was they did. God remains the supreme architect, with the “gods” as His servants.

    If you understand that, the scriptures really don’t contradict each other. Abraham simply builds upon Moses. In both cases the ultimate power, will, and authority that was exercised in creating the earth was God the Father’s and His alone. We needn’t get too worked up over the “middle-men.”

    Aside Note: you have mentioned feeling “attacked.” Well, I wanted to avoid that from the start. But I am curious… what response did you expect when you wrote that Mormons are essentially either ignorant or lying?

86. Alright Todd. Let’s forget the creeds and their homoousis and see what the Bible itself says. What have you got?

87. Pam wrote As mentioned above, I am sincerely questioning Seth about J.S teachings. The LDS teaching does go against the Bible. I have not yet read in Genesis that the GODS created anything. The Bible only speaks of One.

    This is simply wrong Pam. I am sorry if your pastor has not pointed out to you that the Hebrew Bible uses the word “elohim”, which means Gods in Genesis 1. (Although I see that he instructs you as to this in comment # 84 but avoids the implications by saying that he interprets it to mean a “plural of majesty”.)

    The point is that you go too far in repeatedly saying that LDS teachings go against the Bible. The fact is that they do not — even with this issue of saying “the gods” in the context of the creation story in the Pearl of Great Price. What is really going on here is that LDS teachings go against Protestant sects’ interpretation of the Bible (in other words, not against the Bible itself but against your interpretation of the Bible). So there you have it. It is a he-said, she-said situation. You would do well to accept that fact. I am delighted if you decide to hold to your chosen Protestant denomination’s interpretation of the Bible. What you should stop doing is claiming that LDS teachings “go against” the Bible, since they don’t based on the plain language of the Bible. Going against theological interpretations of a primary text and going against the primary text itself are two very different things.

88. It’s a matter of some dispute among scholars whether Eloheim is singular or plural in any given instance in the Bible. And there hasn’t been a definitive conclusion one way or the other. So while it’s accurate to say that LDS teachings definitely aren’t contained in the Bible, it would be inaccurate to claim they are CONTRADICTED by the Bible.

    But like I said, we aren’t hanging our hat on the Bible anyway, so….

89. Seth, for the very first time this week, I delved into the JST on Genesis. It was psychic. I think Joseph Smith was thinking the very same thing that electrified my thoughts after hunkering down in John 5. Some time soon, I am going to put up a future post, “The path of Scripture for Joseph Smith and me.”

    I could hardly sleep over this . . . on Tuesday night.

    #85 – John f, I will. At the end of this month, I have a friendly 95 theses for the I-15 corridor to consider.

90. Really? Well, you’ve piqued my interest. I’ll look forward to it.

91. Great Seth.

    I will post it on the internet, Halloween Day.

    Reformation Day from 490 years ago.

    And also, I hope to kindly and professionally mail it to the first presidency and LDS apostles. Eager to hear what they might say.

92. I am very well aware of the plurality name in which elohim holds. The LDS teachings do not have the full understanding.

    A Hebrew word Elohiym, translated in English “God”, is a plural word – from El or Eloah that is singular for God. (-im ending in Hebrew indicates plural – just as Cherub is one Cherub, Cherubim is more than one.)
    Elohiym is plural word because Godhead consists of three eternal Persons who comprise One God. In Hebrew (the language of the OT), it is very clear, for the verb is always in singular when true God (Eloiym) is spoken of, but when false gods, or judges who are also called elohyim (as in Ps. 82) are in view, then the verb is in plural, and word is not written with capital G, but with lower case g – god or gods! Using a singular verb with a plural word would be grammatically wrong, as if we said “we is”, but when speaking of God ( Elohiym in Hebrew), there is an exception, for God being three is yet ONE GOD.

    The Bible teaches, from beginning to end ONE GOD. Jews, also called Hebrews, daily repeat “shima”, which in a way is a “creed”, expressing their belief, faith in One God. They say, “Hear, O Israel, The LORD our God is one LORD.” (Deut. 6:4.) (If we translated it back into Hebrew, we would read: Hear, O Israel, YHVH, our Elohiym, is ONE YHVH.)
    In our English Bibles, when the word LORD is in all capital letters, in Hebrew it reads YHVH (or Jehovah in English) – which is the name of God as God gave it to Israel, in Exodus 6:3, saying, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, BUT BY MY NAME JEHOVAH (YHVH) WAS I NOT KNOWN TO THEM.”
    One God has one name. Note words I (not we) and my name (not two names as Mormons say: Jehovah and Elohiym). Elohiym or Elohim is not the name of God – it is an expression of who God is: One God, but three Persons. This same is repeated through out the Old Testament. It is also repeated in the New Testament. God is one. There is only One God – even demons believe that and tremble (James 2:19), but Mormons have chosen to believe Joseph Smith’s lie instead the Bible.

    1 John 5:7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus – John 1:1, 14), and the Holy Ghost: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.” Jesus is an image of INVISIBLE GOD (Col. 1:15), for God IS SPIRIT (John 4:24), and “NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME.” (John 1:18) The same repeated in 1 John 4:12.

    I have met Mormons who try to “explain” the truth away, by adding “oh, yes, they are one in purpose”. The Bible does not say that! Of course they also have the same purpose, but the Bible is speaking of WHO God is. The words of the Bible are clear. You cannot get three Gods out of any of it – only One God.

    We can not be gods ourselves as they teach, nor is it Biblical. Isaiah 45:5, 6, 14,18,21,22 says there is no other God but ONE.

    We can go back and forth all month and get no where. There must be a will to truly seek HIM out. And until the Holy Spirit opens hearts and removes the spiritual blinders (veil) can they begin to see the truth. (HIS truth).

    In answering Seth wondering if I didn’t think I would be attacked. Oh, I knew I would. The dark always tries to put out HIS light. I will not put a bucket over HIS light to please others.

    I have been under fire before so this isn’t a surprise. I did it for the silent readers that are too fearful to post. I did it for the ones that are serious in seeking answers that are lost. I did it for the ones that have a sincere heart to seek HIM and unsure where to begin.

    I will not argue with anyone here. Some have made it very clear they are not interested in HIS truth. Smith IS a false prophet, having false teachings.

    My heart breaks for the LDS people that have been deceived. It further pains me when I hear some LDS members that don’t really believe in their teachings, but have no desire to leave either.

    For those that are serious in seeking HIM and don’t know where to begin their walk with HIM, they are invited to get in contact with our Pastor. We have quite a few Ex-Mormons that attend Berean Baptist who have found the true Everlasting to Everlasting, never changing God. (not one of many).

    Seth, Jacob, and John, I pray that you truly seek HIM.

    In conclusion, Pastor Todd, I thank you for the opportunity to share. You have been such a blessing to many. You are truly blessed by God.

    I know there are many LDS members that are in search for answers. They have a void that is still missing something. That something is Jesus.

    Thank you for giving us all the opportunity to come forward and sharing our lives with others; bringing HIS light. Perhaps this is what many have been looking for!

    The Glory is HIS!!!!!

    Amen!

93. Pam wrote We can go back and forth all month and get no where. There must be a will to truly seek HIM out. And until the Holy Spirit opens hearts and removes the spiritual blinders (veil) can they begin to see the truth. (HIS truth).

    We Latter-day Saints do have the will to seek him out and we have. We have the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, not a homoousia as defined in later creeds. As to who has spiritual blinders on, that depends on whether you’re talking to a Latter-day Saint or an Evangelical creedal Christian.

    It is very irritating that you keep claiming that Jesus is missing from the lives of Latter-day Saints. Just because he was missing from your life when you were a Latter-day Saint does not mean that he is missing from the lives of other Latter-day Saints who regularly read the Bible and believe in the life, mission, and Atonement of Jesus Christ.

94. Seth, Jacob, and John, I pray that you truly seek HIM.

    I second what john f. said in #93. Pam, I can see that you have no intention of interacting without a continual tone of condescension and insults which go far beyond charitable disagreement, so I will bow out of this discussion.

95. Todd:

    You live among the Latter-day Saints and yet you still seem to have so little understanding of them.

    Let me try to give you a touch of perspective in light of your parishioners’ following your lead and declaring that Latter-day Saints don’t have the will to seek, haven’t found, and don’t know Jesus Christ.

    On this Sunday just past, October 21, my wife and I took our family to church, as every Sunday. Sacrament meeting began with the partaking of the sacrament, which is the LDS term for what creedal Christians call “communion”. In taking the sacrament, the bread is a symbol of Christ’s body and the water a symbol of Christ’s blood. The sacrament prayer for the bread includes the injunction that those who are partaking of it “are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son [i.e. Jesus Christ], and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them”. The sacrament prayer for the water includes the exhortation that those partaking may do so “in bremembrance of the blood of thy Son [i.e. Jesus Christ], which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him”.

    Following the sacrament, a brother in the ward gave a talk during sacrament meeting about Jesus succoring us in times of need. A visiting member of the stake presidency reminisced of his conversion from disbelief to belief in Jesus Christ and challenged the ward to follow Christ’s example and his commandments.

    After sacrament meeting, my wife taught a smashing Sunday School lesson out of Ephesians that she stayed up late on Saturday night preparing (what non-Christian does that?). Her lesson focused on Ephesians 4 and compared brilliantly the primitive Church’s relationship with Jesus Christ as described in Ephesians to the relationship with Jesus Christ that the marital unit should have.

    I taught a lesson in Elder’s Quorum that built on the words of Jesus Christ’s prophet Spencer W. Kimball on strengthening families and focused the lesson around Helaman 5:12:

    And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

    This is a scripture that every LDS youth who attends either early-morning or released-time seminary is supposed to learn by memory. The members of my ward’s elders quorum who were present (some from England, Nigeria, Ghana, Germany, Zimbabwe, Honduras, and me from the USA) had much that was useful to share with regard to this scripture, their personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and how they were trying to orient their families around Jesus Christ and teach their children to establish a relationship with him and to rely on him and his Atonement throughout their lives.

    After Church, I was involved in assisting the ward in fulfilling Jesus Christ’s instructions to care for one another in the Church family through mundane administrative associated with our ward’s allocation of fast offering funds to those suffering in the ward.

    We went home from Church and reminded our children that the Sabbath is for focusing on Jesus Christ and doing activities that help us draw nearer unto him.

    This is a typical Sunday for millions of Latter-day Saints. Then some of us go online on Monday (such as Monday, October 8 when you posted this) and endure people like Pam claiming that we don’t seek, haven’t found, and don’t know Jesus Christ. It really is quite absurd actually.

    The whole problem would be avoided if people like Pam would just say “I think the only correct interpretation of Jesus is the one found in the Trinitarian creeds beginning in 325 A.D. Mormons do not believe in the Catholic creeds. I therefore believe that they do not have a correct doctrinal understanding of the ontological nature of Jesus Christ, even if they sincerely believe in the Jesus Christ that appears in the New Testament.” That is different than saying that Mormons don’t believe in Jesus or don’t seek Jesus or haven’t found Jesus.

96. “The whole problem would be avoided if people like Pam would just say “I think the only correct interpretation of Jesus is the one found in the Trinitarian creeds beginning in 325 A.D. Mormons do not believe in the Catholic creeds. I therefore believe that they do not have a correct doctrinal understanding of the ontological nature of Jesus Christ, even if they sincerely believe in the Jesus Christ that appears in the New Testament.” That is different than saying that Mormons don’t believe in Jesus or don’t seek Jesus or haven’t found Jesus.”

    You sure you don’t want Todd to eat his hat too John?

    Everything WOULD just be so simple if the other side were merely willing to admit they’re full of baloney wouldn’t it?

97. What do you mean Seth? Conceding that Mormons do read the Bible and believe in Jesus based on how he is described in the Bible would not have to affect Todd’s efforts to convert Mormons to the creedal Jesus at all.

    Given my and my family’s activities just two days ago, it really is absurd for Todd or some pastor in a Dallas mega-church, or Pam, to tell me I do not seek Jesus, have not found him, and do not know him. My New Testament’s epistle to the Ephesians contains the same words as Todd’s and Pam’s.

98. Well, for one thing, I imagine Todd believes that his Jesus is Biblical (and not solely creedal). Just a guess though.

    As for the other stuff, I totally agree with you and think you put it rather nicely. I just felt like you were getting a touch over-ambitious in the concession department, that’s all.

99. John, two quick questions . . .

    1. Do you believe that Jesus has always been eternal God or that at one time he was not equal with the Father as God, that he was a spirit child who eventually progressed to Godhood?

    2. On Lord’s Day, October 21, would you have considered it appropriate to worship the Son equally in measure as you would worship the Father?

    And tell your wife, I love the book of Ephesians. And I commend her for the time placed in scripture study. But before we get into chapter 4, I would be very curious of her study conclusions from the data of Ephesians 1-3.

100. Do you believe that Jesus has always been eternal God or that at one time he was not equal with the Father as God, that he was a spirit child who eventually progressed to Godhood?

     I know this is very important to you. Your approach here will be to take whatever answer I would give and, if it is different than your interpretation, declare to me that I am not Christian. It is fine if you believe and declare that I am not Christian. I admit that I do not hold to the creeds and must therefore accept the chips as they fall. Still, claiming that I am not Christian does not seem to describe me accurately given my intimate acquaintance with the Bible, my deep devotion to Jesus Christ as described therein, my belief in his Atonement and the universal need for that Atonement, my belief in what I believe to be his Church and his priesthood authority.

     I know that your position is that the Jesus Christ that Latter-day Saints believe in is a “different” Jesus. But getting to the conclusion that Mormons don’t seek, believe in, trust, love, and/or know Jesus at all is a strain since we come to our belief in him through the same Bible that you are reading through a creedal lens.

101. John, I just get very passionate over what I am learning in Scripture. And it just seems that my LDS friends keep encouraging me to lay aside (not you necessarily) in our conversations what theology and Christology I am meditating on in these biblical books.

     And at the moment, I can’t think honestly of any creedal phrases that I would put forth in answer to those two questions. None immediately pop in my mind.

     But biblical themes do.

     At an earlier time in my life, I was not seeking Jesus for Jesus’ sake alone. And because of my depravity (Seth, I am bringing up that dreaded word again), I still struggle with my seeking that is threaded with my own appetite versus true comprehension. But God is loving and patient with me.

     thinking of heart issues . . .

102. John F.

     Do you think that Todd in his study and in his preaching reads and or uses the creeds of the Catholic Church as you would read the Book of Mormon, PoGP, D&C etc.??

     If so what gives you that idea?

     Also what has changed in the LDS Church in the last 15yrs or so that has been pushing for the label of “Christian”? I am not very old, and I can recall when the LDS community did not want to be labeld as “Christian” they were LDS.

     Any way that is all everyone’s comments have been very interesting.

103. John, I have been thinking about Yahweh today in my studies. Would Yahweh, the Servant of Yahweh, and the Spirit of Yahweh in Isaiah be three separate beings? And according to the N.T, who would be Yahweh?

104. From where I’m sitting Todd, I’m not sure it matters. The instructions are clear enough, regardless of who’s giving them, aren’t they?

105. In a pluralistic religious society, beyond even the discussion of saints and latter-day saints, I think it does matter.

     There are a lot of christs out there.

     Who is the right one? And so through prayer and seeking the Spirit’s guidance for illumination, which written authority will we trust for bringing that helpful definition we all need?