Its True! (Mormons Really Aren't Traditional Christians!)

Well, I read through most of your post, and got the gist of the rest. I appreciate the info on Mormonism, I respect your beliefs. I won't vote for anyone based on what type of Christian they are, but I will vote for someone who can win the election for the party who's ideas I agree with mostly. This is the classic compromise of politics. Purity of the candidate doesn't matter to me, just his ability to win an election and keep the Socialists out of office. The weeding out of undesirables should happen in the primaries. Thanks for your post, Keep it Up.

Sorry for the long post, but I didn't really think it'd work if it was shorter...

Glad to hear we've got someone of your viewpoint who votes. Now just a few million more...

printed and bound. Then sell it in book stores. Seriously, you're a profuse and good writer. I didn't have time to read it all either. But I really don't think most folks care too much about religion. The exception being Muslim. The MSM is trying to make an issue of it. My advice to Romney would be to totally ignore it. Keep silent. Stay out of it. Middle America just wants to see leadership. So far, personally, I'm just not getting too excited w/him. I would have loved it if he'd made his announcement down on the border. Saying something like "I will build the fence!" Then immediately get on a plane and head to Iraq. Afghanistan. Hug a soldier. Then back in the U.S. stand on the steps of the DoJ and declare "if elected I'll fire every attorney and prosecutor - all 93 of 'em!" and "I'll pardon Libby, Ramos, Compean, Hernandez and I'll reopen the case against Sandy Burglar! And put him under the jail!" By then I'm sure he'd be ready for a shower and a nap. But if he'd take some bold stances on hot button issues he could win. He'd have my vote. But I'm not holding my breath. DD
http://www.newt.org
http://www.gohunter08.com

I especially like and agree with the statement:
"Because we live in a republic (not a democracy, more on this another time…) we elect men and women to run the government in our stead. We DON’T elect people to represent us. We use the principle that Plato claimed as the basis of his utopian society of having the wisest among the citizens control the government. Rather than having those in power simply make decisions based on what a majority of their constituents want, we are to elect people who are wise and will do the best job at keeping the government to its original intended purpose. That is a fine distinction that most people do not understand. The purpose of a democracy is majority rule. The purpose of a republic is to seek the wisest leaders, at the selection of the populace."

I would not not vote for Romney (a double negative I know) because of his faith (I voted for Gordon Smith (a Mormon) after all when I lived in Oregon, before he caved in on the war, though I wouldn't again based on his politics, not his faith). I may not vote for him because of policy (I do believe at this point in his essential honesty), but never because of his faith.

I did read your entire post and agree with the comments above that it probably ought to be published as a pamphlet or expanded into a short book. I did not know a lot of what you wrote, and am very impressed with the knowledge you have about the origin and logical clarity of a new scripture being produced. However, there were just a few points of contention I have with you that may simply be the sticking points between one faith and anotherthat are irretrievable. I cut and pasted them, and will deal with each one separately for clarity.

"The Church was an organization through which his followers could work out their salvation (Phil. 2:12) and receive help and comfort, for they were not to be left in an unorganized condition. The Church was a necessary help and guide for each individual seeking to walk the narrow way which leads to life."

Without the rest of Ch 2, this could easily be read to claim that the believer works out salvation through the church. But Paul clearly states that

1) Jesus took on the form of man, and acted as a bond servant to men
2) Jesus was obedient to the will of God, even to the point of death
3) At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.
4) In working out your salvation, it is God who reveals salvation to you, not the Church or even the believer alone. Philippians 2 does not mention the Church.

"Christians state that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. In him and in him alone is there redemption. But he works in his own way. God's way is not man's way. The Lord provided that salvation should come through his gospel, functioning through his Church, wherein are prophets and Apostles for the "perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the body of Christ.'' (Ephesians 4:11-13"

Again, there is no mention here of the Church. The perfecting of the saints comes not through the gospel, not through the church, but only through the grace of God. (verse 7) In other words, we cannot attain the perfection of God except through Grace, through accepting Jesus. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Again, he did not say the Church here, he said through ME (Jesus) This is the fallacy of Catholicism as well as a flaw in Mormonism, the Church cannot bestow grace, nor salvation, God alone can do these things, and "for Jesus to say that he could means that He is Divine, Deceitful, or Insane, there is no other option." (paraphrase from CS Lewis' Mere Christianity)

"But the book that Christians base their faith, while it may have been written under inspiration, was certainly not compiled under inspiration. Since no original texts exist, one must also believe that nor corruptions have crept in from manual transcription and language translation. It must be claimed that the Bible survived in perfection based on faith. That is a faith I do not have after seeing the degradation of the Christian church itself."

This is the most compelling argument to dismiss Christianity. I guess this would be the point where my agrument breaks down logically and faith steps in.

I grew up in a Christian home. I accepted Christ at the age of 9 and was baptized into the Church at that age (Church of Christ), but my faith was very shallow. One as well versed as you in the scriptures may think it is still shallow. When I went away to college, I spent 2 years trying to remain faithful. They were two of the loneliest, bitterest years of my 36 years of life. The problem was that I had a shallow faith, and I thought I could be a Christian but ive life like everyone else. My third year of college, I transferred from the Junior College I had attended to the University of Idaho. I decided that I was no longer a Christian (though I lacked the courage to tell my family back home), but God was not through with me. First in Biochemistry and next semester in Genetics and Microbiology, I came to see that the evolutionary theory I was being taught by committed athiestic professors was intellectually unsatisfying. I came to realize that the order in the universe, pointed to a creator. There was no theory of Intelligent Design in 1992-93, but I sort of came upon the essentials of this viewpoint on my own. Then I had to figure out that if there was a creator, what was the nature of that creator. I first read the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism). Its fatalism did not seem to make sense to me. Then I read the Koran. It seemed like a twisted version of the Old Testament, very angry and very inconsistent. Then I read a number of other texts, including part of the Book of Mormon, a book of Confucius, a book on Native American religion, A book of the sayings of Buddha, and even a book of Roman Mythology. Then, unrelated to my pseudointellectual theological search, I read the Abolition of Man by CS Lewis. Since I was studying to be a teacher, A book about the flaws in public educations' attempt to teach moral relativism seemed very interesting. This led me to Mere Christianity, which led me back to the faith of my parents. Only now did my faith become my own.

So what was so compelling about CS Lewis and eventually about the Gospels? Their simplicity. God created us with free will. He allowed us to choose, and humanity chose wrong. Then, being a God of compassion, He provided a sacrifice. He could not alter right and wrong, but he could punish our wrong through a willing sacrifice of a part of Himself. This he did. And all we must do is accept this sacrifice, then strive to emulate Him. The Gospels and the rest of the Bible have much that appears to be missing as you point out. Yet what is there all flows together, all fits, and is internally consistent. And so I believe we have the Word of God as He intended. And yes, this is largely on Faith.

"The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days"

Once again, this presupposes that salvation comes through the Church rather than through Faith in Jesus as the Son of God and the Sacrifice for our sins. I believe that there is great trouble for many Christians of many different denominations when they claim that they hold the one true faith. I do not so claim. I have attended Chruch of Christ, Lutheran (in college), Foursquare (after returning to my faith), Baptist (after marriage), and now Calvary Chapel. I can do so because I believe that my salvation comes from my faith alone, not from membership in a Chruch. We are commanded to be a part of a body, and we are commanded to serve God through a body of believers, but nowhere in the Bible do I read that salvation comes from whom you associate with as believers. The single thing that determines salvation is acceptance of Jesus as our sacrifice. Many Christians will not agree with that, but that is what I have come to believe based on the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Both Catholicism and Mormonism rely on a Church to provide the pathway to salvation. To what Chruch did the man hanging next to Jesus belong? To what Church did the Ethiopian Philip converted on the road belong? It was faith, not membership that converted these men. Some Catholics have this faith. Many do not, they rely on their Church or Patron Saint to provide salvation. I do not know what Mormons believe about Jesus, so I cannot speak to their salvation. I do know that the Bible states that a Christian will be known by their fruits and many Mormons have powerful witness in this way. Perhaps you can explain to me what Mormons believe regarding Jesus' divinity and sacrifice for us.

"But if a Christian is one who believes in Christ, then surely they qualify."

Yes, if this were it, simply believing in Christ, (that He exists, or that he was a good guy, or that he was touched by God) then a lot of people would qualify. It is believing that Christ:
1) Is God sent to earth
2) Lived a sinless life
3) Was sacrificed as an offering for sin despite this sinless life
4) Rose again because of His sinlessness and offers us salvation through grace if we believe.

That makes one a Christian. Then, when you recognize the fact that you are recieving a gift you don't deserve, you have the desire to do all you can to help others find it and to thank God for it.

I hope you don't mind my repeated posts here. I have nothing but respect for your powerful statement of faith, and because this is the clearest description of the origins of Mormonism I have ever read, I felt compelled to respond. As far as voting for Romney, I think you yourself said it best:

"Thus, there are two conditions that any candidate should meet before getting your vote. First, they must have the same political beliefs. Secondly, you should trust them as honest men. If a man holds your beliefs but is a scoundrel, putting him in office will not keep good government. If a man is honest but the political equivalent of Lenin, electing him will not keep good government."

Religious beliefs are not a prerequisite to my vote. I believe that the second condition looks pretty likely, the first I am still working through. Thanks again, and I'll be back later this week to see if you respond to all of this.

I work for the next three days, so give me some time to get a response written. I'm glad you liked it, but I do have to say before you consider my writing to be very good that much of this WAS published as a pamphlet a few decades ago, hence my disclaimer of quoting verbatim.

I have to work as well, so I'll check back Friday afternoon. By the way, I haven't gone in this direction much, most of my blog has been war related (I was an Arabic linguist in the Navy for 6 years, and have strong opinions on foreign policy)However, your well written blog (not just this one post) have encouraged me to branch out a bit more

Phil 2:12 doesn't talk about the Church, and I can see how you thought I meant it that way from the post. Instead, it was included to emphasize that indeed, we need to work out our salvation. The Church is there to "help" with that, but never to replace or negate the sacrifice of Christ. The Church is there to help, the same as in ancient times. How? By interacting with other believers, having a time to study the Gospel, having opportunity to receive instruction, and most importantly, to take the Sacrament and receive the other ordinances required for salvation. The Church doesn't replace the salvation one must receive from God, but it isn't unnecessary either. Why would Christ establish a church if it didn't serve some purpose? (Matt 16:18)

That is all this scripture was meant to mean as I included it, that the Church was established to assist the Saints as they seek to work out their own salvation. It was never meant to replace God. In other words, going to Church is important, but you won't be saved merely because you attend church.

"Again, there is no mention here of the Church."

Actually, even though he doesn't use the word 'church,' the Apostle here is elaborating on the different officers of the church. Each has a different role and responsibility, and together they work to perfect the saints.


"The perfecting of the saints comes not through the gospel, not through the church, but only through the grace of God. (verse 7) In other words, we cannot attain the perfection of God except through Grace, through accepting Jesus. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Again, he did not say the Church here, he said through ME (Jesus) This is the fallacy of Catholicism as well as a flaw in Mormonism, the Church cannot bestow grace, nor salvation, God alone can do these things."

Mormons don't believe that the church can "bestow grace." And to say that God established a church doesn't mean that he can't bestow grace or salvation. It is one of the means he introduced to help us humans out. As I mentioned in the first post, it was established for specific purposes, but to insist that you can be saved only through the Church while never letting the atonement of Christ into your personal life is a fallacy. Likewise, you can't say that the church is unnecessary, either. Here's a way that may help you explain how we see it:
Could a Christian living during the Apostle's time have received salvation if they did not heed the Apostle's instructions? As each epistle was written to counter a form of apostasy that had crept into the Church, such instruction seems logical that it should continue in a day when many believe all different things, yet all seem to say that they have the truth of Christ. (Matt 24:23, Matt 7:14)

The other point in which Mormons differ is our insistence on priesthood authority. This is perhaps the main reason for the existence of a Church. We are unique in this view. Many Christian faiths debate whether or not baptism, for example, is required for salvation. We state that not only is it, but that it must be done by one with proper authority. Only one Church has been authorized by Christ to administer these ordinances, just as there was only one in the days of the Apostles. Again, the Church plays a role in salvation, but while essential it is not exclusive. To belong to Christ's Church doesn't mean you don't accept Christ. It isn't a replacement. But that is how it appears to many who think that because Mormons say that the Church was restored we should be members in it. The true point is not whether or not a Church is necessary, it is whether or not it has, as Mormons claim, been restored. Either it was and it is necessary to belong to it, or it wasn't and all Mormons are deceived.

"One as well versed as you in the scriptures may think it is still shallow."

I will never call another man's faith shallow, and thank you for sharing your story with me. I always find it inspiring to hear other's road to faith. Likewise, I love Mere Christianity and find it one of the best roads to faith, because he approaches it from a rational standpoint rather than simply quoting scripture. Quoting Scripture doesn't do any good to them who don't believe it...

"And all we must do is accept this sacrifice, then strive to emulate Him. The Gospels and the rest of the Bible have much that appears to be missing as you point out. Yet what is there all flows together, all fits, and is internally consistent. And so I believe we have the Word of God as He intended. And yes, this is largely on Faith."

This is where Mormons have a sticky relationship with most other Christians, I believe. On one hand, we accept the Bible insofar as it is interpreted correctly, but we also claim other scripture has been revealed. How does one use the Bible to defend his beliefs to someone who has a different interpretation of it?

I have always been curious how we must come across to other Christians, because I have never understood how those who claim to love Christ wouldn't be anxious and excited to learn that more was revealed, and eager to learn it.

If you understand that the Bible as we have it is not a single book, but rather a collection of writings, it may help you understand where we are coming from. If Philemon was lost from the Bible, would that make any of the other writings less inspired? What about all the writings of Peter? If all we had was the four gospels and no old testament or Apostolic epistles does that mean the gospels are no longer inspired? We simply claim that there was much revealed, and the Bible in its current form is not complete, and indeed was never intended to be. Thus, when we read our other scriptures, rather than contradicting the Bible, it sheds light on it and expands our understanding.

"Perhaps you can explain to me what Mormons believe regarding Jesus' divinity and sacrifice for us."

Simply put, Mormons believe that Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He is the Son of God and lived a perfect, sinless life. His sacrifice for us was essential to enable us to overcome the effects of sin and death. It is through accepting Christ, and through faith in Him to keep his commandments, that we can be perfected in Him and saved.

"I believe that there is great trouble for many Christians of many different denominations when they claim that they hold the one true faith. I do not so claim. I have attended Chruch of Christ, Lutheran (in college), Foursquare (after returning to my faith), Baptist (after marriage), and now Calvary Chapel. I can do so because I believe that my salvation comes from my faith alone, not from membership in a Chruch. We are commanded to be a part of a body, and we are commanded to serve God through a body of believers, but nowhere in the Bible do I read that salvation comes from whom you associate with as believers. The single thing that determines salvation is acceptance of Jesus as our sacrifice. Many Christians will not agree with that, but that is what I have come to believe based on the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Both Catholicism and Mormonism rely on a Church to provide the pathway to salvation. To what Chruch did the man hanging next to Jesus belong? To what Church did the Ethiopian Philip converted on the road belong? It was faith, not membership that converted these men."

Your reference to Corinthians 12:12-27 is an example of what I said earlier about interpreting the same passages of scripture differently. You mean that is says any believer of any different church acts like a different body part. In this sense, different churches are actually essential to salvation. We see it as meaning that different individuals in the Church have different roles, and together they make a whole. Hence vrs 28 where he states that apostles and prophets are one role, then teachers, etc... A way that may help explain it: some Churches claim that Baptism is essential. Others don't. They can't both be correct, since they are mutually exclusive. If baptism isn't essential, for example, then what else does that Church which claims it is essential wrong about? What if it is? Are the members of the Church that state it isn't missing other points relative to their salvation as well? The only solution is as James directs, that is "ask of God." (James 1:5). Ask God which is correct and follow what is revealed to you. Not just in choosing a church, but even in interpreting scripture. Perhaps, essentially in interpreting scripture...

"To what Church did the man hanging next to Jesus belong? To what Church did the Ethiopian Philip converted on the road belong?"

To explain the Mormon view here may be interesting for you to see why we don't consider this a contradiction, nor an assertion that salvation can come without knowing of Christ. The Ethiopian was converted by Philip, and presumably became a follower afterwards, although we have no further information about his story. The man on the cross next to Jesus illustrates a unique doctrine to the LDS people. Namely, if Christ is required for salvation, what happens to all the millions and billions of people who have lived and died without ever having heard of Christ? Either they are damned, which is unacceptable according to our understanding of a loving God, or they are saved because they did as good a job as they could with the knowledge they had. But if one can be saved in such a manner, why bother ever teaching anyone of Christ? Mormons believe God has provided a means for everyone to hear and choose to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Notice Christ said to the man on the Cross "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise," yet upon his resurrection 3 days later he said "I have not yet ascended to my father." So if Jesus hadn't been to his father, is paradise a different place than where his father is?

Many Christians understand this to mean that "I haven't been to see my father in my resurrected body." We understand that between the time of death and the Resurrection, the spirits of men go to paradise and await their resurrection. Those who have not heard of Christ are there preached the Gospel. (1 Peter 3:18,19; 1 Peter 4:6). Again, different interpretations, but how to tell which one was intended?

"It is believing that Christ:
1) Is God sent to earth
2) Lived a sinless life
3) Was sacrificed as an offering for sin despite this sinless life
4) Rose again because of His sinlessness and offers us salvation through grace if we believe.

That makes one a Christian. Then, when you recognize the fact that you are receiving a gift you don't deserve, you have the desire to do all you can to help others find it and to thank God for it."

Then by your definition, Mormons are Christian. We believe all those things, unless you intend 4 to mean that we must believe in him to receive his grace, and nothing more. In that sense, Mormons are doing too much. You may be interested in this talk by a Mormon Apostle called "Have You Been Saved?"

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,89-1-26-23,00.html

(Make sure the full address gets in your browser or it won't work since these comments don't have hyperlinks...)

Let me know what you think.

for your well thought out responses and respectful tone...I have been a bit busy to get into this very important and interesting discussion...It will take some time to answer what i think of the link you put in there, I haven't read it all yet, but despite my slowness, I am interested in continuing this

I just barely noticed that you had posted here. Townhall used to email me that people had posted a comment on my blog, but it they haven't done that recently. I came here to read and update a post I wrote, and saw comments on lots of postings that I didn't even know were being read...

... I'll have to keep a better eye out for that so people don't think I am ignoring them...

Thanks for this well thought out and documented post. I have also enjoyed your comments on other Romney and LDS threads. Keep up the good work.

You visited my blog back in Dec and I should have responded. I have a good acquaintance from my AF days (I'm retired) that was Mormon and we had some interesting discussions. On deployments, our chaplains would offer meeting space for him to have the LDS services so I assume he was not just the average joe in the pews. My main disagreement with LDS is the "apparent" placing of the Mormon "denomination" (for lack of a better term) doctrine above Christ. I have the same problem with Lutherans, Baptists, etc. who do the same thing including the Roman Catholic and Orthodox denominations who place Peter's (Cephas) apostolic teachings above Christ; counter to 1Cor1 admonitions against such.

Personally I would rather have Romney, with his ethical background from Mormonism, than those who claim other Christian denominations with ethical background based on liberation theology.