Perfection and "Gar"

Saturday last I spent at Manti, and only spoke with a single individual. His name is Timothy Martin of Watchman Fellowship, an anti-Mormon group which is also "anti" other non-traditional Christian and non-Christian groups. So they make their living attacking other faiths.

Tim spent much of Friday and then Saturday explaining to me that as a Mormon, we are bound by the teachings of the D&C and Book of Mormon to keep the commandments, and that ANY sin results in ALL of our past sins being heaped upon us in a flood of condemnation for our gross disobedience. Though I showed him this was NOT the teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, who on page 361 of his book Miracle of Forgiveness notes we continue to repent and receive forgiveness throughout out lives for our day to day follies, and likewise are totally forgiven of those major sins of which we completely repent, he persisted. He claimed that since God cannot look upon any sin with any degree of allowance, our daily sins would necessarily exclude us from salvation. He ignores the most obvious statements from the scriptures, which he said were the only measure of official LDS doctrine even if LDS leaders, including Joseph Smith, said that the context of such requirements to "keep the commandments" was not perfection in execution but the attitude and desire and general commitment to live the commandments and repent in those circumstances of failure. He said we essentially made a mockery of the weekly sacrament, since we committed to living all of the commandments during the sacrament. I pointed out the sacrament prayer says we are "willing to" keep his commandments, but it is understood that we all continue to fail though we intend to do our best not to sin. Thus we believe it is by grace we are saved after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23), that all we can do is have faith in Christ to forgive us and repent of our sins (Alma 24:10-11), that we are obligated to keep the commandments and repent as we commit sin (1 John 1:5 - 1 John 2:6).

That we must get to a point of not only not sinning, but having no desire to sin is undeniably part of LDS doctrine. Such a state is not only rare, but virtually impossible to see how a mortal could reach that state. Thus Joseph Smith spoke of the path to exaltation as one which is like a ladder which cannot be reached until long after we leave this life. However, that need to keep the commandments and repent as we fail does not bring upon us ALL of our past sins, nor negate the covenant between Christ and ourselves. He is our Saviour. He does not expect us to be perfect in actual deed, but the Bible describes seven people as being "perfect" in the keeping of the commandments. Did they "sin"? Of course they did. But they are described as "righteous" and "perfect".

So are we, as we live the covenant we have with Jesus, which includes exercising faith, living the commandments, and repenting of our sins. "Be ye therefore perfect (Gk: Telios: Complete), even as your father in Heaven is perfect."

So Tim through an interesting test at me. During the course of the conversation he mentioned that I am someone who has apparently studied LDS doctrine and history and Greek. I said I have. As he left, literally the last thing he said to me was, "Bob, what does the greek word "gar" mean?" I said, "Why do you ask? In what context?" He replied, "Just what does it mean?" "I said 'because'."

Technically it can mean a lot of things, in various contexts. For, And, Because. Actually a bunch of words used to translate it. But what was the point of asking. I can only guess that it was his version of a 'pop quiz' because I routinely respond to people throwing out "the original Greek" that I too have studied Greek. In fact I took 1st year Greek TWICE from Salt Lake Theological Seminary. I also quickly tell people I am no Greek scholar, never pretend to be, and frankly am not that good at it. But what it allows me to do is use the tools of the trade with understanding. I have a very limited vocabulary and couldn't teach the grammar to save my life. But that is not the same as saying I don't "get it". I do.

Had I answered incorrectly, I suspect there would be a comment about my Greek abilities being a hoax. Since I got it correct, I am guessing we won't be hearing about it. But these conversations are never about the "real" Greek. If they were, they wouldn't be Trinitarians. OK, that is opinion. But ignoring the meaning of John 1:1-2 in the Greek is a much bigger problem than whether I am an expert.

Anti's In Manti

For about the 6th year now, I am in Manti, Utah during the LDS Manti Pageant. This event draws far more anti-Mormons and "missionaries to the Mormons" than any other event in the Church. Typically there are around 120 individuals in the streets around the Manti Temple attacking the faith of the LDS faithful and guests attending the Pageant. I of course say "attacking the faith of the LDS faithful" because their "message" is that Mormons are wrong and should become any flavor of Christian but Mormon.

I have blogged previously on just how unBiblical these "Christians" are in their approach, so I won't belabor that point now. What I find funny is how I am being received by the various Anti's I engage. Whenever I start to talk with someone I don't know, someone walks up to them and either says directly to them or whispers in their ear, "He is an LDS apologist, don't waste your time." I respond that I see this as a great missionary opportunity since these people at least claim to be interested in Biblical truth.

Last night I spoke with Leonard, the ex-Mormon who claims he really was active before he read a booklet which got him on track to leave the Church. I have seen the booklet and sort of scratch my head. Now Leonard talks about believing the Bible, but doesn't know it very well. Cases in point: We were discussing "faith only" salvation, and that it cannot be lost. I note Heb 5:8-9 says that Jesus is the savior of those who obey, which means we obviously have to do more than just believe. Moreover, Mark 16:16 says you must have faith and be baptized, and even more pointedly 1Pet 3:21 says it is "baptism which is now saving us". He actually gets incredulous and doesn't believe the verse in 1 Peter is real until I show it to him. So then he insists that it is not water baptism being discussed. I point out Peter specifically says it is not because of the water washing away the dirt which is saving us, but the response of our conscience to the Spirit. He says "see". HELLO!! He is specifically saying water is involved, but it is not the washing away of physical dirt. I love it when folks think they have this stuff figured out without bothering to study it.

I was speaking with a small group of LDS and non-LDS men, and one non-LDS guy was quoting from "The Miracle of Forgiveness" to try and make some points about how you must forsake all of your sins. I had been preparing to do a sort of fireside conversation down here with anti-Mormon Aaron Shafovaloff specifically on "The Miracle of Forgiveness", and I had my book with me. So I pointed out to the young man that Kimball makes it clear that our progress is expected to include day to day follies, as stated on the last page of the conclusion, but that he is focusing on getting past serious sin and gradually overcoming our less serious issues. He then asserted that we would be in a position of losing our salvation every time we sin and get our sins back to us. I said that while it is possible to lose our salvation, it is not the LDS view that simply sinning destroys our salvation, so long as our desire is to press forward.

He disagreed that we could lose our salvation (my inner voice puzzling "don't they read the scriptures?") So I reminded him that Galatians 5:4 does in fact say that they have "fallen from grace", with the context being they have ceased to obey the Gospel by going back to the Law, and have therefore lost their salvation which is in Christ. He questioned if that verse really meant losing salvation in the Greek, and told him it did. He said "Have you read it in the Greek?" "Yes", I said. "In the Greek, you have read it?" "Yes, I read Greek, I don't have it with me, but I have read it in Greek, and it does mean fallen from Grace."

At this point a guy named Tim jumped in, after a guy walked up to the young man I was speaking with and warned him about me, (I am sooooo dangerous to unstudied anti's :-) ). Tim wanted to prove that Kimball and McConkie taught that you must be perfect in this life to be saved. This is clearly not LDS belief, but this line of conversation always devolves into a discussion of my own sinful nature, and my position that God will forgive me because my attitude is one of wanting to do what is right, and trying to live to that standard, understanding that while I will fail at times, my repentant attitude coupled with my consistent general living of the Gospel is good enough. He wanted to argue that position, but at that point I saw some of my family, and excused myself and visited with them until the pageant began. It was a great night for the pageant, and I stayed to watch it. It was very good.

I plan to put a couple of small flyers together on eternal security and faith and obedience, and so long as the rain lightens up, go have some fun.

The Language of Love (literally and filthy)

At the weekly gathering of anti-Mormons who meet after Shawn McCraney's show, a couple of new people were there. A father and son, they had been members of the LDS church, but no longer were. We had about 45 minutes of very pleasant conversation about work and family, and as they were getting ready to leave, I mentioned I was an active Mormon. Immediately the son commented how "F-ed up" I must be, and while his father asked questions about things related to the temple which he didn't really care to hear an answer, the son kept saying things like "if we were in a court of law you would lose". As I pointed out they were misquoting the first of the ten commandments, (they kept saying the 1st commandment said there are no other gods, instead of we should have no gods beside god, a significant actual and historical difference), they insisted I stop using the Bible to show they were misquoting the Ten Commandments, the information on Melchezidek in Hebrews, and Stephen seeing God and Christ in Acts 7. Instead the son, Maurice, got more and more agitated to the point he looked like he wanted to fight. I pointed out how unChrist-like his demeanor was, and he started shouting, to the point the restaurant staff told him to be quite, as he left using the f-word repeatedly to describe how stupid I was.

Well, I am stupid. But I am pretty sure those words weren't the language of love Jesus intended us to use on our fellow men.

There was the typical bully attitude in all of this as well. Maurice said several times I should go on Shawn McCraney's show and be displayed as a fool. While I have no real desire to be on Shawn's program, Shawn has stated several times publicly he won't have knowledgeable Mormons on his show, and I am told he told some folks I know privately that he would never have me on his show. So Maurice's dream trouncing event of me by Shawn will fall into unrequited desire.

For the record, several of the other Christians around me were mortified by Maurice's conduct, and apologized for his behavior. Reed commented that he felt I certainly had won that exchange. There really is no winner in this kind of exchange because nothing is accomplished.

Ex-Mormon Leonard's Eternal Insecurity About Authorial Intent

At the weekly gathering at Village Inn of the Shawn McCraney "Heart of the Matter" post-show studio audience, about 12 or so folks showed up last night. One fellow I have met before named Leonard was there. I was sitting at the far east end of the table, and Leonard walked over to ask me how it was that I would knowingly violate the sacrament covenant each week. I noted that the sacrament prayers don't say that we will never sin, but rather that as we kept the commandments and took upon ourselves the name of Jesus, we would have his Spirit. Leonard first asserted that we did covenant to not sin, and so I started to quote the blessing on the bread, and Leonard joined in, but with the confusion, I recognized I stumbled so I turned to the BoM and got the text of the prayer in front of me. Leonard said "I know the prayer, I had to memorize it verbatim," to which I replied "Then you have forgotten it verbatim, because you got it wrong." We then read the actual prayer, and he acknowledge that the text doesn't require one not to sin, but then he asserted that the LDS god is like a yoyo, since his Spirit comes and goes based on our personal obedience. I told him that was very much a scriptural position.

Leonard is of the opinion that once one is saved, one cannot lose their salvation. Therefore it is impossible for someone to lose the Spirit, or be condemned to hell, after becoming a born again Christian.

I turned to Hebrews 10:26-29 to demonstrate the New Testament does in fact teach that we can be saved and then lose our salvation. Here is the relevant text:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Notice in verse 26 the author of Hebrews says "after we have received the knowledge of the truth", there is no more sacrifice.

I asked Leonard what sacrifice is that in reference to. He said "you know", and I said "Christ?", and he said "of course". I asked if there was any sacrifices after Christ's atoning sacrifice. He said I was missing the "authorial intent". He said there was no additional sacrifices, but that the verse is about unsaved people, not saved people.

Here is why this is important. If it is about unsaved people, the false doctrine of eternal salvation being assured by a single act of a sinner accepting Christ is not threatened. But I pointed out the author of Hebrews uses the word "we". Not thee or you. He includes himself.

If the author of Hebrews includes himself as someone who could "willfully sin" to the point of troddening the sacrifice of Christ under foot, then manifestly someone filled with the Spirit (since scripture is "god breathed")and "saved" by any standard, could lose their salvation. Thus this passage demolishes the concept of eternal security as taught by Evangelicals.

Back to the story.

Leonard said "How many times does it say "we" and mean the unsaved? You don't understand the authorial intent." I had my computer with me, so I said, "Let's check". I then did the search, and it turns out in Hebrews 10, the word "we" is used 5 times spread across four verses. I told him "5 times". He said he meant in the whole Bible.

What? In the whole Bible? Doesn't that violate even the most basic of Biblical interpretation principles? I said the context mattered, let's read how the author of Hebrews uses the word.

Leonard said I wouldn't understand the authorial intent, and he walked off saying "this is such an old conversation", to which I said "Come on, you're losing the argument so you are leaving." He walked off, and I read the four verses with the folks sitting by me, and they agreed.

"We" means "us" in Hebrews chapter 10, according to the context, and not "them".

Which is why Leonard walked away with his two kids. His explanation is manifestly false if one actually reads the text of the Bible.

Authorial Intent is the equivalent of arguing that one's personal theories are more important than the text of the Bible itself, and it is what allows a person to ignore changing their beliefs when confronted by passages which contradict personal theories.

For Leonard, "Authorial Intent" is only to be applied if the Truth conflicts with his personal hobby. In this case, the "Author" is Leonard.

Mormon Coffee Closes Discussion on Free Speech with Mormons

This is a weird thing for me. I had responded to a post about Mormons and Evangelicals debating, and how I find Evangelicals who "reach out" to Mormons are usually unBiblical in their approach, and are generally unChristian as well. I accidentally addressed it to Aaron Shafovaloff, when it should have been directed to Sharon Lindbloom, both of Mormon Research Ministry (MRM). If you like, you can see the exchange here.

What's weird is that I only posted once, and wanted to apologize for mislabeling to whom my remarks should have been directed. Instead, after deflecting the substance of my comments by demonstrating precisely my point which was: Aaron doesn't preach what he believes, but tries to contrast what he believes against what he says Mormons believe; They then discontinued further comments.

The truth is Aarons characterizations of LDS doctrine are precisely at issue here. He has notions about LDS doctrine around forgiveness of sin (You must be perfect in your behavior, says Aaron, or else LDS leaders say you will go hell), perceptions of scripture (Mormons don't really believe the Bible so much as tolerate it as an unauthoritative trick play), and my personal spirituality (he knows I am not born again through some means, which allows him to therefore consider me a target for his form of preaching), all leads him to ignore the Bible's message on proselyting: Gentle, respectful, and go away if they don't want to speak to you.

Instead, I got this response:

And I [Aaron] don’t share the notion that any public criticism of Mormonism in street preaching is automatically uncivil or disrespectful. It’s part of the task of calling you to repentance. You don’t like that, and it seems you never will until you are born again, and until then you’ll keep defining “civility” and “respect” as that which excludes public, heralding criticism and calls to repentance.

I of course never said ANY public criticism of Mormonism is uncivil. In fact, I cited two people who are decidedly NOT in favor of Mormonism as examples of how to act consistent with the Bible.

Moreover, I don't have a problem responding to a call to repent. Since Aaron presumes to know my heart, he feels equally confident expounding upon my sins and pride. The point is not his "right" to call me or anyone to repent. He has that right. The point is the way he does it is not scriptural for post-crucifixtion Christians.

Which brings me to Sharon. Apparently they decided that discussing Evangelical and Mormon proselyting styles was not a topic they wished to continue receiving comments on. Sharon made a response, essentially saying that Acts 17-19 and 2 Tim 2:23-25 supported their behavior at MRM, and then they turned comments off. So let me respond here, at some considerable depth (sorry for those of you rolling your eyes in the "here goes dad again" fashion).

Sharon,
I don't know what you see in Acts 17-19 that you find supports public attacks on other faiths by Christians, better known as "Confrontational Evangelism" among its advocates. I have written on the subject before, but you drove me to dig to try to find if I had missed something by the confident manner you through out these chapters to support such abuse of liberty. So I have written a comprehensive list of every missionary opportunity contained in those three chapters, which I will attach below. To say the least, I am still scratching my head. Where do you find even a single incident to support the idea that going to people who don't want to talk with you, or attacking the faith of others, is present anywhere in these passages? The words 'repent' and 'repentance' each occur only once in these three chapters, and they are done in speeches NOT addressed to any particular person (see 17:30 and 19:4) or even the people as a whole standing presently in the crowds. Indirectly, yes, but not so someone would take particular notice of an attack on their faith. Instead, in the 13 missionary vignettes contained in those three chapters, we find Paul leaving EVERY TIME he engages people who resist him. Not just "usually", but every single time. In fact, Paul taught publicly for 2 years during this period in an open lecture hall where only people came who wanted to learn about Christianity.

As I note in example 13, after 3 years of living in Ephesus, the people who accused Paul of attacking their belief in idols were unable to produce a single witness to testify of Paul attacking the goddess Diana. NOT ONE. Yet we have Aaron proudly describing his contrasting method using wrongly contextualized passages from Isaiah to show how he is fine describing his faith in terms of what the LDS faith is not. This is the very opposite of what you claim is contained in these three chapters. Now for the list:

1. Acts 17:1-9 Paul’s preaching is exclusively about Jesus, nothing noted about attacking the Jews or anyone else.

2. Acts 17:10-15 Famous Berean Jews. But they welcomed Paul. And he teaches Jesus, not that they are stupid.

3. Acts 17:16-18 Paul is said to argue with Jews and others in public. But what does verse 18 say he proclaims? Polytheism, since he described Jesus being resurrected and the Gospel. He does not say anything against their beliefs. In fact, Paul obviously says nothing about their beliefs at all, since they interpreted his teaching through the lens of their understanding of the gods.

4. Acts 17:19-34 Famous Mars Hill, where Paul was invited to speak, (did you notice that Sharon?) and he proclaims the “Unknown God”, Jesus Christ. His message is the Gospel and the resurrection. His recorded proclamation to repent (vs.30), to those in the audience who invited him to speak, is in no way directed as a personal attack or even an intrusion at their event. He was, after all, the invited speaker, not just a self-appointed proclaimer.

5. Acts 18:1-7 Paul goes to Corinth, and argues with the Jews in the synagogue that Jesus is the Christ. He stops when they become completely unwilling to listen, and vows to never go back to teaching them. In other words, if they don’t want him, he doesn’t go to them.

6. Acts 18:7-17 Paul teaches many converts. Acts does not ascribe any particular message of what Paul is preaching, but the Jews say he is persuading people to worship God in ways not prescribed in the Law. So his message did not attack the Law or Jews, but advocated a belief outside of the Jews understanding.

7. Acts 18:18-21 Paul goes to Ephesus, and is, again, INVITED to speak in the synagogue. In fact, they want him to stay longer.

8. Acts 18:22-23 Paul travels to Caesarea, Jerusalem, Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the members of the Church. In fact, in his letters back to those regions, there is no indication that he attacks any other faith. He simply teaches Jesus and the Gospel.

9. Acts 18:24-28 Apollos, having only been imperfectly taught the Way of God, Paul’s friends Priscilla and Aquila hear him launching on the Jews, and take him aside to correct his understanding. Guess what? He then only refutes Jewish misunderstanding by demonstrating Jesus is the Messiah from the scriptures.

10. Acts 19:1-7 Paul teaches some folks who thought they had joined the Church that they didn’t have it correct, and taught them about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

11. Acts 19:8-10 Paul speaks and argues persuasively in the synagogue in Ephesus. When they stubbornly refused to believe him, he leaves. He then holds discussions (yes, that is the word in the NIV) in a lecture hall where people interested could come and hear. This was in the fashion of modern college instruction settings where a professor could lecture and respond to inquiries from those in attendance. Not a "drive by" confrontational preaching setting, but those interested could come.

12. Acts 19:11-20 A vignette is inserted to show the power of God. Paul blesses handkerchiefs, which are then taken to the sick, and they are healed. The incident of the sons of Sceva is told, as well as the conversion of many as a result of hearing of this powerful story. I like how the devils laugh at the sons' lame attempt to use the name of Jesus.

13. Acts 19:21-41 Perhaps the single clearest example that Paul NEVER teaches against other faiths. This is where pagan silversmiths realize the huge impact on their business as Paul racks up thousands of Christian converts. So they riot, claiming Paul and his group are teaching that “gods made with hands are not gods” (vs. 26, NRSV). They dragged two of Paul’s traveling companions to the theater, and there the town clerk sets the record straight. He disbands the crowd by telling them that in fact Paul and his people “are neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess,”(vs 37, NRSV) and says they must bring charges in court or risk punishment for disorderly conduct. The bottom line: After 3 years of living in Ephesus, they could not find a single witness who could say that Paul had ever said anything against the local goddess, Diana/Artemis. Think about that. He taught in an open lecture hall for two years to anyone who would walk in, and they could not find a single witness to confirm he had taught against any specific belief. He had only taught Jesus.

Sharon,
You also seem to totally miss what Paul is instructing Timothy in 2 Tim 2:23-26. First of all, you don't seem to want to accept what verse 23 is saying: Don't engage in strife. Next, Paul tells them to avoid arguing and verbally fighting. "A slave of the Lord ought not to fight" (Literal Greek translation) seems pretty obvious. But the word "fight" means to battle, as in at least two soldiers facing off against each other, and in Biblical usage means to engage in "fighting, quarrels, strife, disputes" (BDAG, page 622, entry "mache"). Paul uses the verb form of mache from verse 23 in his next statement quoted above in verse 24, commanding Timothy "not to fight".

You also seem to miss the obvious lesson from Acts 17-19 captured in 2 Tim 2. Timothy was with Paul at Mars Hill and most all of the 13 incidents contained in the 3 chapters you cite vainly for support. Timothy knows what Paul means by contending for the faith. He is with Paul almost constantly for the rest of Paul's life, starting in Derbe in Acts 16:1. Aside from two letters addressed to him, Paul cites Timothy as being with him in 8 of his letters (Romans, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, Philemon). He is even mentioned in Hebrews. That leaves just 3 letters composed by Paul where Timothy is not explicitly mentioned as being with Paul; Galations, Ephesians and Titus.

Timothy knows that when Paul says "not to fight/quarrel", he means don't attack another man's faith. In fact, when Paul says to avoid entertaining foolish disputes and to respond patiently, Timothy knows Paul means to keep teaching the Gospel. Because he saw that, and that is the language Paul uses. He doesn't say "Draw contrasts between the truth of our faith with the lies of others to provoke arguments." NO. He says the exact opposite: "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments because you know they produce quarrels...Those who oppose [God's bond servant] he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of truth."

Paul notes to the Corinthians that he was sent "not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Cor 1:17). So that complicated, compare and contrast style Aaron believes is correct is not how Paul did it, since it negated the Cross. But Maybe Aaron is more powerful, learned or insightful than Paul, and need not follow his example. It could happen. Sure it could.

Every time Paul talks about preaching, 100% of the time the message is about Jesus and the Gospel, and never is preaching intended to start a debate about the other person's faith. It is always a debate about Jesus. Talking about Joseph Smith is exactly the kind of satanic preaching Paul describes as foolishness. If you really believe we have the wrong system of beliefs, tell us about yours. That is the Biblical model.

This is another case where I believe people such as MRM simply indulge their personal lust for argument, and ignore the plain teaching of the Bible through self-serving filtering of the words of scripture. It is literally inconceivable that Paul, who ALWAYS walks away from religious strife if his presence is not wanted or if he cannot stick to preaching the Gospel and Jesus, and has had Timothy at his side for most of the years of this example, right from the verses you mistakenly cite, and he commands Timothy "not to fight/quarrel" over silly questions; to repeat, it is inconceivable to any rational reading of Paul's letter to think he is giving his OK to confrontational evangelism or seeking out people to offend the masses through holding of signs with offensive slogans, even if you think the slogan is true. Remember, three years of teaching among pagan worshippers of Diana, and not a single instance of him negatively commenting about the prevailing religion. And we have this of his interaction in the Jewish synagogue's and the temple:

Acts 24:12 And they neither found me [Paul] in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

Timothy was there with Paul in Ephesus for nearly all of the three years as near as we can tell. He was with Paul in Jerusalem when Paul is defending himself. Is Paul lying in front of those with whom he has travelled for years? If so, then Paul is lying for the Lord, right?

MRM, in my opinion, simply doesn't understand scripture. Which is why MRM is unqualified to call me or anyone else to repentance: They don't know what to repent from or change to. False teachers, however, will call night day, and try to lead from the light to the dark. Thus it is easy to show from MRM's representatives' statements alone that they are the ones who have "another Gospel", even without determining the truth of Mormonism. You can't teach falsehoods about scripture and have any spiritual authority.

That is what I wanted to say, if they had not turned the comments off on their article about the free exchange of ideas between Mormons and Evangelicals. Funny, huh, that they accuse the Mormons of being thin skinned about criticism, but they turn the comments off when the discussion swings against them. Hmm. What do we call that when we assume we don't have to live by the standards we demand from others?

Bob

Mormons Have Another Jesus: The Biblical One

I am going to take the suggestion of one of those who recently commented to address the topic of the accusation that Mormons have another Jesus, different from traditional Christian faiths.

President Hinckley noted that we as Mormons DO have a different Jesus than Traditional Christianity. (June 20, 1998 Desseret News)

His point is the real Jesus is not revealed in the creeds or dogmas of Christianity. The real Jesus revealed Himself to Joseph Smith at the beginning of this dispensation. This is consistent with the Biblical teaching that "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1Cor 12:3) He is not known or discovered in the Bible or through pious reflection. He is only known via revelation.

Depending upon the attitude of the person I am talking with, I will measure the way I basically tell them they have the unBiblical Jesus, and I am OK having "another Jesus", as long as mine is the one described in the Bible.

When the Bible writes John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," I am hard pressed to reconcile the traditional Trinitarian beliefs that Jesus is also that one True God. When Stephen says "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God,"(Acts 7:56), I cannot find a logical way to reconcile the fact that Jesus is specifically said to NOT be God, so how can he be the Trinitarian God? It is logically impossible for a thing to be next to itself. If it were possible, then we could play the games like asking if God can create a rock to heavy to lift, or if there is a number too high for him to count to.

At the end of the day, Mormons believe in the Jesus of the Bible without any modifications of who that person is. We also believe he continues to communicate with man. If a Trinitarian is honest in a conversation, they will have to admit that their beliefs are not the obvious product of scripture, and history tell us that up until the 4th Century, believers were not necessarily those who held a Trinitarian point of view. Though Trinitarians like to say their beliefs are the logical conclusions drawn from the evidence of scripture, without a Trinitarian point of view one would never formulate such a conclusion. Philosophy outside of the Bible created Trinitarian insights into the Bible. I am specifically a Christian because I believe in every explicit aspect of the Nature of Jesus as taught in the Bible. He is the literal son of God. He is my one and only Savior. He is divine, and yet wholly separate from God the Father. There is one God the Father. Jesus Christ is Lord and son of God. These points do not require a belief in the Trinity to believe the words penned in scripture.

So I contend they made "another Jesus", and I follow the one we learn of in the Bible.

Suggestions?

I would be interested in going into topics the regular readers of this blog might be curious about. I have been trying to focus, as always, on active anti-Mormon issues being kicked around and their doctrinal implications. I will continue that vein if I no one has a specific topic. But I wanted to be sure those who may have issues come up who want a less nuanced or poised response from me have a chance to ask.

Let me know, or point me at issues you would like to have commented upon.