Why is it that anti-Mormons insist on spending time and money to judge the faith of others, instead of promoting Christianity and faith? Why are there so many anti-Mormon blogs, web sites, books, pamphlets, and videos dedicated to negative proselytizing? Why do the anti-Mormons promote ill feelings and mistrust with their negative feelings toward Mormons? This is unfortunate, especially in the United States, where religious freedoms encourages respect for individuals of all religious beliefs.
What makes the vicious attacks by the anti-Mormons so shocking is that they do it in the name of Christianity. Mormons could expect such an attack from an atheist or a non-Christian, but from someone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ? If one really wants to know what Mormons really believe in, ask a Mormon - not someone who is filled with hate against another Christian sect.
You will not find The Church of Jesus Christ wasting time and money tearing down someone else's religion - there are just to many sick, hungry, and poor in the world today to care for.
The Bible makes it clear that toleration, peacefulness, kindness, understanding, etc. are the true Christian standards. In Mark 9:38-42, we learn that even Christ was not concerned with doctrine or theological differences. The message in these verses are to let those who worship Him, worship Him, because those who are for Him are not against Him.
The anti-Mormons hold rallies, have booths at state fairs, and try to disrupt church services of the Mormons - all this in the name of Christianity. Jesus would be ashamed if He were here on earth today. That is what the Pharisees did against Jesus in his day. Not much has changed since the days of Christ.
Didn't Peter tell us in 1Peter 2:21-23 to follow in Christs footsteps, that when reviled, revile not again? Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:39? Didn't James say to be slow to wrath and that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God? James 1:19-20 James also says that if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. James 3:2 If the anti-Mormons really believed in the New Testament, how do they justified their attacks on Mormons?
I have personally been to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints general conferences held in Salt Lake City and I have witnessed the biting, hateful, and ugly attacks on the Mormons that goes on there. Street corner after street corner is filled with the anti-Mormons yelling and holding up signs telling us that we are all liars and all going to hell. The police presence during this time is high due to the violence that has erupted in the past. I have personally witnessed the anti-Mormons taking the garments that Mormons hold sacred and rub them on their behinds or spit on them. I wonder if they would have the courage to walk down to the local Jewish synagogue and do the same with a Jewish yarmulke. I doubt it. I have never been asked by the LDS Church to go to another Christian church and hold a rally and speak hurtful and hateful things to them. Never.
Anti-Mormons are so busy spending time and money looking for faults in the faith of Mormons, that they don't have the time, evidently, to read their own Bibles. In Romans 2:1 we read ; " Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whoseoever thou art that judgest: for thou that judgest doest the same things".
One can never judge another religion righteously without hypocrisy. It is God's right to judge, not man's. The Bible tells us that the true followers of Christ is not to judge at all: no excuses. See the following: Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 19:22, John 8:15, 12:47, Corinthians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:23, James 2:13, and Revelation 16:7.
It is those who choose to ignore Christ and the Bible who execute their own personal judgements.
More on this topic on the next posting. IMHO
13 comments:
Your sentiment is commendable I suppose but unfortunately it is just that - sentiment. You may live in a country that subscribes to the unbiblical notion that all religions are equal but this is simply not true.
Anyway, you break your own rule by attacking so-called "anti-Mormons". You will insist, no doubt, that your comments are a response to what critics of your faith are saying, but then I could say the same thing.
Joseph Smith declared all the churches of Christendom were abominable and corrupt.
The Book of Mormon declares that there are only two churches, the Church of Christ and the Church of the Devil. Now which one do you think I belong to?
You write:
"You will not find The Church of Jesus Christ wasting time and money tearing down someone else's religion..."
Now isn't that confusing? Are you saying that Christians are tearing themselves down? Because a Christian is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. (I address this issue on my own blog if you care to consider it http://bridgeofreason.blogspot.com/)
Or are you appropriating exclusively to Mormonism the epithet, "Church of jesus Christ"? In which case, again you endorse the Book of Mormon view that I am of the church of the Devil. Not exactly walking the walk are you?
Now, forgive me, but if you are only being reasonable in "responding" to criticism, and the charge of tearing down others' faiths cannot be put against you, why cannot I "respond" to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and, indeed, yourself without facing that same charge?
Any Bible student will tell you that "contending for the faith" is a responsibility of every Christian. That this can get fierce and animated is clear from Scripture where we read Paul referring to Judaisers as "those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh" (Philip.3:2). Was Paul "judging the faith of others, instead of promoting Christianity" or was he contending for the faith?
Or Jude who warned the church against, "godless men, who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign Lord." Was Jude "tearing down another's religion", or was he warning the saints about error?
You mention "protestors" at Conference and at other Mormon events. I grant that there are some who call themselves by the name of Christ but whose conduct is far from charitable.
Nevertheless, I find it revealing that, to a Mormon, there is never anything that they would call fair and reasonable criticism. Every critic, no matter how patient and charitable, is an "anti-Mormon"; everyone who stands up in defense of traditional biblical Christianity against the error of Mormonism is unreasonable, spiteful, and stands condemned; every Mormon a victim of persecution simply because someone expresses doubt in the veracity of Mormon claims.
It is the standard defense every Mormon puts up, "You are an anti-Mormon and really quite unChristian to doubt or question my church. It isn't nice." In which case Paul wasn't nice, Jude wasn't nice, indeed, Jesus wasn't nice.
Mormons have forgotten how to defend the faith as their forebears did and fall back on this catch-all response that condemns the questioner without ever addressing the question. I suppose it works for some but, frankly, not for me.
Hi,
I appreciate you sharing your views of the LDS church. I recently read a great post that explains how we as members should approach discussions with friends of other faiths...I especially think this myth applies:
Myth: People belong to either the LDS church or the “Church of the Devil,” also known as the “great and abominable Church.”
Check out this posting:
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/01/21/mythbusters-the-one-true-church/
I also have some comments on my blog at:
www.graceforgrace.com
Focus
I agree with the sentiment you have expressed. We do emphasize the positive teaching within our manuals etc, rather than tearing down.
mike
Well expressed points. And I agree with you that any church by its existence is saying there is something missing in the others - other wise its existence is meaningless.
becca b
I would hold to the claim of the Book of Mormon and the Bible that all churches other than the true one make it difficult for people to find the whole truth. I agree with the quotes cited that reformers (almost all of whom DIDN'T start a Protestant church themselves) where invaluable to our present religious freedom. I also agree that they get some great ideas about how to live from the Bible (it contains many truths). But these facts don't detract from the point that
God has no part with the devil and visa-versa. These churches keep wonderful people away from the whole truth. These are our brothers and sisters. I therefore oppose their organisations that teach falsehood. And whether well meaning or not, their leaders are promoting these falsehoods.
Good post Focus. I've always believed that I don't have to make you look bad to make me look good. I think that there is a Buddhist saying that goes somehting like, "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle."
Keep up the good work.
I think Doug makes some very good points. Most Mormons I speak to seem to want it both ways, i.e. they want to be "the only true church on the earth" - except for all the others that they are determined to be nice about even though their founding prophet declared us all abominable and corrupt.
If it is the only true church and you make me believe that what I have has some merit and is no bad thing really then you are cheating me out of the truth. I think Doug realises this.
Dan and Wendy illustrate very well the dilemma facing Mormons who want to have it both ways. they write:
"I've always believed that I don't have to make you look bad to make me look good."
This is where a Mormon tries to take the moral high ground by insisting they don't - unlike some - tear down other people's faith. But on their own blog Dan and Wendy write:
"In Ephesians 2:7-9 it states, 'That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.' (King James Version)
This passage is often used by those that espouse an 'all I have to do is say that I believe in Jesus Christ, and I am saved,' mentality. Have you ever seen those bumper stickers that read, 'Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,'? I have a friend that follows this philosophy. He professed that he knew he would be saved, despite fornicating with his girlfriend on a regular basis. He knew that it was a sin, but he believed that since he 'accepted Jesus as his personal Savior,' that whatever sin he committed, was acceptable to God, since he was a believer."
They have just torn down my faith to promote their own because, a) they have grossly and shamelessly misrepresented the orthodox beliefs of Evangelical believers on the subject of grace by presenting a grotesque caricature and, b) presented one anecdotal case with which I would be every bit as appalled as they or anyone here would be, and implied that this is the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of believing "grace alone".
They have, to paraphrase Buddha, lit their own candle by snuffing out mine. By their own standards, that is hardly, "good work".
Of course, it doesn't "offend" me at all that a Mormon would think me as someone who is walking n darkness. What I can't understand is why a Mormon would be so weak as to be offended when someone questions their faith and challenges what they believe. This is not at all "offensive" but simply the consequence of living in a world in which there is so much darkness and error.
Grasping at the moral high ground by making a virtue out of complimenting error and condemning those who challenge it is the ultimate apostasy - don't you think?
Just to illustate my point about being my faith being craicatured let me share this wonderful quote from an Evangelical believer you may have heard of:
"Wherefore, though the Christian, as a Christian, is the only man at liberty, as called thereunto of God; yet his liberty is limited to things that are good: he is not licensed thereby to indulge the flesh."
Bunyan, John
Amen!
mike's 4 tea
While individuals within the church do realise that problems exist within other churches, the church itself doesn't promote writings against other churches. They don't sell them. They also don't get up and preach from them.
It is obvious that we don't accept Protestantism nor Catholicism. And the statement to Joseph Smith makes it clear.
But having been a missionary, I can assure you that other than presenting that Protestantism has a lack of revelation to guide it, and is missing vital authority, the discussions weren't directed at attacking Protestantism.
We don't go out about rumours that John Wesley had a girlfriend on the side (I don't know if such rumours even exist). I don't care whether the Archbishop of Canaberry told his wife he didn't believe in God. Or whatever.
Stuff against the church is generally nonesense or sensationalised.
As to the quote about saved by grace. I also have come across people claiming to be born of God who sin. John tells me this is impossible (1 Jn 5:18). So who do I believe?
Doug
To deal with your last point first, you write:
“As to the quote about saved by grace. I also have come across people claiming to be born of God who sin. John tells me this is impossible (1 Jn 5:18). So who do I believe?”
Do you really need someone to answer that for you? You accept the fact that there is wheat and there are tares and distinguish between the two.
I knew a Mormon who had a coffee problem for years. I knew another who had an alcohol problem. I knew more than one who was an adulterer. I never speak of them, they never come up in conversation, because, however those people justified to themselves what they did, I knew that this wasn’t Mormonism. Why do you struggle with that?
I seems to me that there are those here who want to take the worse example and present it as normative for Evangelical Christianity, or at least use it as an excuse for questioning what is obvious to everyone else, i.e. Evangelical Christians do not believe that it is alright to sin because you are saved.
Interestingly, you also write:
“While individuals within the church do realise that problems exist within other churches, the church itself doesn't promote writings against other churches. They don't sell them. They also don't get up and preach from them.”
I infer from this that I am not to take the ideas and pronouncements of individuals as authoritative and /or representative of how Mormonism officially teaches and believes. Yet you are doing that very thing! You have taken a couple of examples (I could easily produce some of my own) of people with bizarre and unbiblical ideas about grace and ascribed that to what we all believe. There is a double standard operating here, much as there was one in the post from Dan and Wendy.
I think I understand what you wrote about John Wesley and the Archbishop of Canterbury but your remarks raise a very interesting point. You seem to distinguish between those critics who, unreasonably in your view, comment on the personal lives of leaders and those who legitimately bring a criticism.
You admit that, when on a mission, it was part of your practice to teach that “Protestantism” lacks revelation and authority. I infer from this that you have no problem with people like myself taking the same approach, i.e. legitimately questioning the core teachings and practices of Mormonism on the basis of what I believe. Is there anything wrong with that?
Finally, you write that, “Stuff against the church is generally nonsense or sensationalised.” I could equally say that Mormon claims of apostasy and restoration are nonsense but would you be satisfied with that simple assertion? Neither am I with yours. You cannot get rid of a question by sticking a label on it “nonsense” and moving on. It is rather lazy and simply serves to reinforce the questioner’s point.
Mike
Living in a country with only 100,000 members to 20 million population I have MANY Protestant churches around me, and was brought up going to 3 a day on Sunday, plus weekday interaction. I have heard MANY Protestant ministers and Protestants themselves claiming that once they have accepted Christ they are saved regardless of what they do.
Now there are some few who do see it otherwise, as you say. And obviously you are one of those, and I appologise for taring you with the same brush. But it does become difficult when Protestantism (in the main) has moved away from the concept of having any doctrine on the one hand, but claiming ours false on the other.
They say, "as long as you believe in Christ". Well Joseph Smith wins there.
You’re in Australia then? This puzzles me even further because there are some excellent churches and first class theologians and theological colleges in Australia. I think especially of Moore’s, with whom I am currently doing a correspondence course. In no way would they teach what you seem to believe Evangelicals teach and believe.
I can only repeat that your “evidence” is anecdotal and, while I don’t doubt your integrity for a moment, I suspect that you have heard what you want to hear, or misunderstood what you have heard. Before addressing this, however, your remarks raise an interesting issue.
Whenever I quote Mormon authorities, even church leaders, prophets and apostles, citing “chapter and verse” from reliable sources, the stock answer is “that is not official but one man’s opinion. The only official source of doctrine is the Standard Works of the church”.
I am sure this scenario is familiar to you. Yet here you are citing entirely anecdotal evidence, giving no names, sources or “authorities” for what you claim, and I am supposed to accept it unchallenged. Again, I find a double standard operating when I speak to Mormons. A\ pattern seems to be emerging don’t you think?
My initial answer to you, then, is that whatever source you cite, anonymous or otherwise, the only official source for Evangelical doctrine is the Evangelical “Standard Works”, i.e. The Old and New Testaments.
I cannot believe that you have ever heard any gospel preacher teach from the pulpit that, since we are saved by grace, it matters not a jot how we live our lives. This is an early church heresy called antinomianism and it is challenged and denounced in the Evangelical “Standard Works” by Paul (Rom.3:8;6:1) and James (Js.2:14-26;3:13) and Jude (v4) among others. Anyone teaching Antinomianism, Jude tells us, “are godless men, who change the grace of God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ, our only Saviour and Lord” (v.5).
I doubt you have ever met a true Antinomian, though you may have met people who rationalise their sin by appealing wrongly to the “once saved, always saved” formula. I am confident that you have never heard a sermon or sat in a church teaching that “it doesn’t matter how you live now that you are saved”. I can show this to be true from evidence that you, yourself, have provided. You write:
“I have MANY Protestant churches around me, and was brought up going to 3 a day on Sunday, plus weekday interaction.”
If, as you claim, you are surrounded by Christians who believe that, “once they have accepted Christ they are saved regardless of what they do”, what are these people doing in church three times on a Sunday, plus weekday interaction? Why aren’t they staying in bed with a cup of coffee and the Sunday papers? Why aren’t they going out for a meal, or to the theatre, or bowling, instead of all this weekday activity? What are they doing in church?
Furthermore, why are they striving to make a difference in their communities? Why do they get involved in church programmes to help the wider community, to serve each other and to serve God? Clearly, although flawed in their humanity, becoming a Christian has made such a difference to them that their lives speak more eloquently of their belief in “works” than could any creed.
I don’t believe for a moment that you “have heard MANY Protestant ministers and Protestants themselves claiming that once they have accepted Christ they are saved regardless of what they do.”
I suspect that you have heard a message of grace that teaches salvation as a Sovereign work of God (Ps.68:20; Acts 15:11; Ro.10:13); that trying to get to heaven by “good works” is useless (Gal.3:1-12); that, “having believed, [Christians] were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory” (Eph.1:13-14); that Christians can be, “confident that he who began a good work in [us] will carry it on to completion until the Day of Christ Jesus” (Philip.1:6).
In other words, you have heard Christians declare a message of “Once Saved, Always Saved” and, not understanding this message, you have added the caveat, “therefore, it doesn’t matter how you live”.
I appreciate your apology for misrepresenting what I personally believe but I think you will find that, while there are those individuals who find excuses for their sins in the gospel message, Christians have not, “moved away from the concept of having any doctrine on the one hand, but claiming ours false on the other.”
I think the error lies in your misunderstanding what you have heard. The doctrine is there and is based on the Evangelical “Standard Works”.
As far as, “They say, "as long as you believe in Christ". Well Joseph Smith wins there” that is another issue and your argument doesn’t stand because of what the bible teaches and what Joseph Smith believed about the nature of God, the person of Christ, the nature of man, the nature of sin, the means of salvation, the eternal future of man, on all of which JS taught false doctrine.
mike
I said that I went to church 3 times on Sunday. They were 3 different churches.
Me going out and getting you 100 names of Protestants that believe as I say won't make any difference to the point that you believe as you do.
I had the director of Missions for South-East Asia for the Calvery Baptist Church (Southern Baptists in the US) tell me that only those who accept the name of Christ are saved. He informed me that once having done that the salvation stood, regardless of what they did or didn't do thereafter. I confirmed the meaning of this in several ways. This he said in front of the entire congregation.
I have countless times had Protestants tell me that "as long as you believe in Christ it doesn't matter what exactly you believe."
This they say to pretend a unity of faith in all Protestant churches in spite of the varying opinions. So if this is true that all Protestants are saved regardless of their individual doctrines then Joseph Smith doesn't need to fit in with your perceptions of what Christ is, or what he is doing, or where he comes from or anything else for that matter.
And if this is true then it doesn't matter if Joseph Smith taught "false doctrine" as you claim.
As to the Bible and your interpretation of it and it's problems as an ultimate authority, I wrote on that subject on my site, and in spite of at LEAST one Baptist minister reading it he couldn't make any defence.
The points I've raised make it obvious that it can't be used as a reliable sole authority. Therefore as you have no 2-way communication with your god how can you declare Joseph Smith's claims false?
Doug
I still maintain that there is a disconnect between what you are being told and what you are hearing. You have even ascribed to me beliefs you are convinced “all protestants” subscribe to, even though I have made it plain what I do believe. With such a record, really how am I to simply take you at your word? I don’t doubt for a moment your integrity, as I have already said, but somehow you have misunderstood something. I have visited the Calvary Baptist Church site at http://www.calvarybc.org.au/index.php and found the following, taken from their statement of faith:
•The Salvation of a Sinner
A person is saved by repenting of their sin and believing on and trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Him alone. - Ephesians 2: 8-9
•Eternal Security of Believers
Once a person is saved they have everlasting life and are therefore saved eternally. Salvation is a gift of God, not earned by good works. John 6: 37. 10:28,29.
•Believers Baptism
That every born again believer should be baptized by immersion in water in obedience to the Lord's command. - Matthew 28:19
•The Existence of Heaven
Heaven is a real literal place of eternal peace and joy prepared for all who trust in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ and are born again. - John 14: 1-3
Am I right in thinking that you draw from this the conclusion that you do, i.e. once you are saved it doesn’t matter how you live?
As far as two-way communication with God is concerned, how do you know what communications I have with God? I can tell you with assurance that I pray and he answers and the Bible you find so unrelaiable is an invaluable source of those answers. It astonishes me that someone who regards himself a Christian should eschew such a reliable source.
mike
I find the quote from the site to be extremely unclear in meaning. That could support either your interpretation or mine.
It leaves all sorts of questions, such as, what does "repenting" actually mean? What does it mean to be "born again"? And what does "believing on and trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ" action tranlate to in reality?
I would ask you, "do you really believe IN Jesus Christ, or just OF Jesus Christ?"
Do you believe that God is a God of love, in reality? Or do you believe he only loves as it suits him?
Do you believe in a God that has all power to the degree that he actually SENDS those he claims to love to a burning hell forever, purely because they didn't follow a set of rules he made up at his good will and pleasure?
Because if you believe the latter you don't really believe IN him at all.
Post a Comment