The preaching of the cross is foolishness . . . to Mormons.

garden-of-gethsemaneThe Mormon organization has no problem with Masonic symbols, occultic symbols, and even inverted pentagrams adorning their temples, but they draw the line when it comes to that offensive cross. The two most common ‘excuses’ they provide for their aversion to the cross are:

1). “The cross is a pagan symbol.”

And the pagan symbols in Mormonism are not pagan? Not to mention the pagan practices that go on inside.

2). “We wish to focus on Jesus’ life, not His death.”

Ah, in this one statement Mormons reveal that they have absolutely no idea the true purpose of Christ’s coming to earth nor what it meant for Him to become a propitiation for the believer’s sins. Neither do they understand the fundamentals of the Christian faith or the very Gospel itself. For the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. How can you possibly “focus on His life” at the exclusion of His death . . . the very reason He came to earth (Mark 10:45)?

The preaching of the cross is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile (1 Corinthians 1:23) but it appears to be both to the Mormon.

Mormons not only have an aversion to the symbol of the cross like a vampire to a crucifix, but Mormons have an aversion to what the cross represents. Just like Satan who desires nothing more than to avert the sinner’s gaze away from the redemptive work accomplished by Jesus on the cross, Mormons attempt to direct the attention of their followers away from the redemptive work accomplished by Jesus on the cross as well. For example:

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ took upon himself the sins of all mankind.

Gospel Principles

Page 70

1997

The night preceding His crucifixion, Jesus Christ . . . . took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world.

Milton R. Hunter

The Gospel Through The Ages

Page 182

1945

Jesus, therefore, preceding crucifixion, had His last great struggle, while in mortality, with Satan and with death and came forth victorious.

Milton R. Hunter

The Gospel Through The Ages

Page 183

1945

If you’re believing in a “savior” that bore your sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, then you’re believing in one of the many false Christs that the True Christ warned us about, and you are still dead in your sins and will face the righteous, holy, and eternal wrath of God when you die.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22), but Mormonism would have you believe that the Garden of Gethsemane was where Jesus bore our sins and that His ‘sweating’ (not ‘shedding’) of blood had something to do with our redemption. The context of ‘shedding of blood’ is not an expelling of some blood in your sweat, but that of death. I am in no way diminishing the suffering of Christ in the Garden, but it was not the place where He atoned for our sins.

The foreshadow of Christ throughout the Old Testament was of the death (shedding of blood) of a worthy substitute (e.g. the animals killed to ‘cover’ Adam and Eve’s nakedness, the ram in the thicket in place of Isaac on the alter, the blood of the lamb on the doorposts in Egypt, etc.). All of these required the death of an animal, not merely the loss of a little of its blood.

If this corrupt doctrine of LDS were true, then the Mormon “Jesus” could have essentially atoned for the sins of mankind the first time He scraped His knee playing as a child, or the first time He cut His hand while working as a carpenter.

Although nowhere in Scripture can even the idea be found that Christ paid for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, this doesn’t stop Mormonism from teaching this heresy.

But what saith the Scripture?

And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. - 1 Peter 2:24

crucifixion

But Mormonism is not content with diverting your attention away from the finished work of Christ on the cross; they also blasphemously attack the very efficacy of the sacrifice of our precious Savior!

Are you aware that there are certain sins that a man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does no avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?

Joseph Fielding Smith

Doctrines of Salvation

Volume 1 Page 133

Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine and taught in all the standard works of the Church.

Joseph Fielding Smith

Doctrines of Salvation

Volume 1 Page 135

But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment.

Bruce R. McConkie

Mormon Doctrine

Page 92

1966 Edition

We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is for the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people; not but that the blood of Christ will cleanse from all sin, all who are disposed to act their part by repentance, and faith in his name. But the original sin was atoned for by the death of Christ, although its effects we still see in the diseases, tempers and every species of wickedness with which the human family is afflicted.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 13 Page 143

1869

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in [the] future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets.

Joseph Smith

History of the Church

Volume 4 Page 211

It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time?

Joseph Smith

History of the Church

Volume 4 Page 212

Christ did his part to atone for our sins. To make his atonement fully effective in our lives, we must strive to obey him and repent of our sins.

Gospel Principles

Page 75

1997

Christ’s atonement makes it possible to be saved from sin if we do our part.

Gospel Principles

Page 75

1997

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 4 Page 54

1856

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not destroy them.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 4 Page 53

1856

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did under the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 4 Pages 53-54

1856

No matter how current LDS apologists try to spin it, the fact is they do not believe that Christ’s sacrifice (in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross) was sufficient to cleanse you from all of your sins. They continue to believe the blasphemous doctrine that you must still do something on your behalf to merit God’s favor. Former LDS prophets have even gone so far as to teach that the shedding of your own blood is required for remission of sins. This is known as the Doctrine of Blood Atonement and is one of the many LDS doctrines that modern-day Mormons have tried desperately to distance themselves from (you can find out more about this utterly Satanic doctrine here and here).

However, one only needs to look as far as Holy Scripture to see the error and folly of this false gospel of Mormonism. The same God who can redeem Israel from all her iniquities (Psalm 130:8) can surely redeem sinners from all of their iniquities. In spite of Mormonism’s claim that there are “some sins” that men can commit that the blood of Christ cannot atone for, the inspired Word of God tells us the exact opposite:

But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. - 1 John 1:7

Jesus gave Himself to redeem us from every lawless deed (Titus 2:14) as we are justified and saved from the wrath of God by His blood (Romans 5:9). Reconciliation was accomplished by the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross (Colossians 1:20) and we are redeemed not by perishable things, but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19).

In spite of what the false teachers of LDS would have you believe, Christ’s sacrifice was not only sufficient to put away sin (Hebrews 9:26) and obtain eternal redemption through His blood (Hebrews 9:11-12), but it was done once and for all (Hebrews 7:26-27).

So when a Mormon comes to you bringing their long laundry list of things you must do to be saved, remember that Jesus paid the debt, it was sufficient, it is finished, and “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:10-18)!

Jesus came in order to take away sins (1 John 3:5) and yet Mormons say He did not accomplish this. Who are you going to believe? A false organization led by false prophets, rife with false prophecies all pointing to a false “Jesus” and a false “gospel,” or the holy and inspired Word of God that has stood the test of time?

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. – 1 Corinthians 1:18

See related: The preaching of the Gospel is foolishness . . . to Roman Catholics

20 thoughts on “The preaching of the cross is foolishness . . . to Mormons.

  1. Not to mention the fact that, according to Gospel Principles, Jesus’ blood didn’t actually pay for our sins, but merely passed them off to a different creditor (see chapter 12).

    Do Mormons not understand that without Christ’s death, there would be no resurrection, thus no exaltation?

  2. A JW came to my door a few weeks ago and defended his cult by claiming the JWs were better than “the Mormon cult”.

    Many thanks for this review of critical heresies of this worldly successful cult of good citizens.

  3. I’m curious, how many times in the bible did the Christ say worship me by the cross? And, if the cross was so relevant, how is it that Constantine witnessed the XP in the heavens rather than the cross.

    And, since when does the recognition or acceptance of the cross delineate the true Christian? Is that practice very Christian?

  4. Matthew 16:24–“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”

    Luke 14:27–“And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.”

    Galatians 5:10-12–I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

    Galatians 6:14–But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Ehpesians 2:16–that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross.

    Philippians 2:8–He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

    Philippians 3:18–For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.

    Colossians 2:14–having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

    Hebrews 12:2–looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross.

    Traveller,

    The words of Christ, of Paul, and of the writer of Hebrews reflect the centrality of the Cross of Jesus Christ. No, of course we do not worship the cross. But by the same token, to ignore it and dismiss it and to even be ashamed of speaking about it (as Mormons are ashamed) is to deny the work of our Lord on our behalf, and to count the blood He shed as a common thing.

    Notice in all these verses, the central point is the cross–not Gethsemane. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus came to shed His blood at Gethsemane. Nowhere does it say that He atoned for our sins at Gethsemane. But, as Paul said in Galatians 6:14, we are to glory in the cross of Christ.

    And I would have to agree with CD concerning Constantine. I wouldn’t put it on par with Peter on the rooftop.

  5. CD/FP

    I appreciate the response, but just as indicated Christ never said to worship it, his authors later did. They said it at a point when the book was being codified into a central practice, not as a manuscript of what had come before.

    The interpretation is exactly that, and when different sects of the same faith start to assume authority over another, tends to dilute the efficacy of the whole. Do you think the Christian of the 2nd century would see this as a worthwhile discussion? Whether one group believes the same say as another? The argument to me seems like a straw argument to draw divisiveness to the same practice.

  6. The interpretation is exactly that, and when different sects of the same faith start to assume authority over another, tends to dilute the efficacy of the whole.

    The Mormons do not hold the same faith we do. They believe in a God who is nothing more than a glorfied man, and a Christ who had to “become a God” by obedience to “eternal ordinances and principles.” That is not true Christian faith. The true Christ was, always has been, and always will be God. Therefore, Mormons oppose the truth of God. Period, paragraph.

    Do you think the Christian of the 2nd century would see this as a worthwhile discussion? Whether one group believes the same say as another?

    You’re kidding, right? You have to be joking.

    Paul wrote the book of Galatians to warn the people to return to faith in Christ ALONE, because a group known as Judaizers had been teaching that they needed Christ AND their works of the Law. In short, because there was a group who were not believing the same way as the true church.

    Paul wrote the book of Colossians to debunk the claims made by the Gnostics, that some crazy angel (rather than Christ) had done the work of creation. In short, because there was a group who were not believing the same way as the true church.

    He wrote his first letter to the Corinthians because there was a group of people who were bringing in pagan rituals to the house of God. In short, because there was a group who were not believing the same way as the true church.

    John wrote his first epistle to address the teachings of those same Gnostics, this time to refute their teaching that Christ did not have a physical body. In short, because there was a group who were not believing the same way as the true church.

    I appreciate the response, but just as indicated Christ never said to worship it, his authors later did. They said it at a point when the book was being codified into a central practice, not as a manuscript of what had come before.

    Hmm, I would be interested to see where this theory comes from, and where you found this. Would you be so kind as to show us where you found this? Was it from a Mormon publication?

    I, for one, do not worship the cross itself, and neither do any of us here at DefCon. We only worship the One who died upon it for our sins….

    Do you?

  7. It would appear that, based on its importance in your version of Christianity, the cross is indeed a source of your adoration and worship, if only as a symbol of your worship of what you believe Christ did on it.

    I also find it ironic that you can’t see that Paul himself was just a missionary and organizer who took what Jesus started and brought it to a wider audience. His letters were castigating his early followers for not following HIS brand of Christianity in the same Pharisaical manner that you rail against Mormons.

    Who qualified Paul to organize the church the way he did, in the face of a multiplicity of different versions of Christianity in existence at that same time!?! You are taking the works of a single individual and saying they represent the whole of Christianity just because these letters were thrown together and published the same way down through the centuries!?! Why can’t we hear more of what Peter had to say? Or Matthias? You know, the people who actually WALKED with Jesus…not just a johnny-come-lately like Paul?

  8. gazelem said: It would appear that, based on its importance in your version of Christianity, the cross is indeed a source of your adoration and worship, if only as a symbol of your worship of what you believe Christ did on it.

    You’re free to believe what you’d like, but if your beliefs don’t measure up to the Word of God as it is uniquely contained within the 66 books of the Holy Bible then it’s your beliefs that are in error and not the Bible. We adore what Jesus Christ did upon the cross and we worship Him, our Great God and King. There aren’t “versions” of Christianity, there’s only one true Body and Bride of Christ – the church invisible – which is comprised solely of God’s elect children, redeemed by His blood from the curse of sin and spiritual death by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, to the praise and glory of the Triune One True and Living God alone, forever and evermore.

    gazelem said: I also find it ironic that you can’t see that Paul himself was just a missionary and organizer who took what Jesus started and brought it to a wider audience. His letters were castigating his early followers for not following HIS brand of Christianity in the same Pharisaical manner that you rail against Mormons.

    Paul was an Apostle who received his commission directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Paul had no less and no more authority than any of the other Apostles. He was sent forth to proclaim the Word of God, and he – under inspiration – wrote portions the authoritative and infallible Word of God as it is recorded in the Holy Bible. Paul’s Gospel was Jesus’s Gospel because as Christ’s Spirit-filled emissaries, His “sent ones” the Apostles taught with the same authority as Jesus Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit testifies to this truth in the Bible, and since the Holy Spirit is God He cannot lie, therefore if you are contradicting the teaching of the Apostle Paul you are guilty of contradicting the Holy Spirit and rejecting the Word of God. This means you are guilty of calling God a liar which is blasphemy.

    gazelem said: Who qualified Paul to organize the church the way he did, in the face of a multiplicity of different versions of Christianity in existence at that same time!?!

    See reply above, there is, has been, and ever will be only one “version” of Christianity which is the historical, orthodox, Biblical Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (the REAL Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible, not the counterfeit anti-christ Jesus of Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.)

    gazelem said: You are taking the works of a single individual and saying they represent the whole of Christianity just because these letters were thrown together and published the same way down through the centuries!?!

    No, we’re trusting in the whole counsel of God as He has uniquely revealed Himself within the 66 books of the Holy Bible of which one portion is the Holy Spirit inspired writings of the Apostle Paul.

    gazelem said: Why can’t we hear more of what Peter had to say? Ask God, it’s His Word not ours. Or Matthias? See previous response. You know, the people who actually WALKED with Jesus…not just a johnny-come-lately like Paul? See prior explanation of who the Apostle Paul was.

    Why do you reject the written Word of God and desire something other than He has provided, gazelem? Why do you reject His teachings and rail against those who trust in Him alone? What compelled you come here and leave such an angry and derisive comment reviling God’s Word and those who trust in it?

    I would be remiss if I didn’t inform you that based upon the contents of your comment here it is clear that you are without Christ and without hope and that you presently abide under the wrath of the One True and Living God, the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe and that you are commanded by scripture to repent of your rebellion against Him.

    In Christ,
    CD

  9. Greg said: I appreciate the response, but just as indicated Christ never said to worship it, his authors later did.

    Really? Where? I’ve never seen this commandment in the scriptures. Would you be so kind as to provide chapter and verse? Thank you!

    Greg said: They said it at a point when the book was being codified into a central practice, not as a manuscript of what had come before.

    The 66 Books of the Holy Bible represent the very Word of God, authored by the Holy Spirit, and written down by human instruments as they were moved by Him. There is no internal contradiction within the scriptures. In fact they clearly and consistently point toward the glorious Triune One True and Living God, the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe, and His unspeakably merciful and infinitely gracious redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ.

    Greg said: The interpretation is exactly that, and when different sects of the same faith start to assume authority over another, tends to dilute the efficacy of the whole.

    There’s one Head of the church, and that’s Jesus Christ the Lord. But if you’re implying that Mormonism is a “different sect” of the “same faith” (i.e. true, Biblical Christianity), then you’re sorely mistaken. Mormonism is – as FP has rightly pointed out – an altogether different religion which stands wholly apart from historical, orthodox, Biblical Christianity. It isn’t a “sect” of Christianity, it’s the cult of Joseph Smith.

    Greg said: Do you think the Christian of the 2nd century would see this as a worthwhile discussion? Whether one group believes the same say as another?

    Yes. See FP’s short list of Biblical examples in his reply for more detail – and there are many more that could be listed besides. According to the overwhelming testimony of scripture the early church, including the Apostles themselves, were deeply concerned about this type of discussion.

    Greg said: The argument to me seems like a straw argument to draw divisiveness to the same practice.

    That’s fine, and you’re perfectly within your rights to have an opinion, but please understand that your opinion doesn’t line up with the Word of God has He has uniquely revealed it within the 66 books of the Holy Bible, and therefore Bible believing Christians are perfectly within our rights – and in fact we are duty bound – to utterly reject the subjective opinions of men in favor of the objective truth of the testimony of scripture.

    In Christ,
    CD

  10. masonictraveler said: I’m curious, how many times in the bible did the Christ say worship me by the cross? And, if the cross was so relevant, how is it that Constantine witnessed the XP in the heavens rather than the cross.

    Christ never explicitly said “worship me by the cross”, just as He never said “believe the Bible”, or “God exists as a Triune Being”, or “don’t engage in beastiality”, yet all these things (and much, much more) are clearly implied and easily demonstrable by the whole counsel of God as it is uniquely contained within the 66 books of the Holy Bible.

    The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. To them it is an offense and a stumblingblock, but it is the power of God to those who are called (1 Corinthians 1:18-29). As for Constantine, the normative rules of faith and worship for the true Christian are defined by the contents of the Holy Bible, not the fevered high-noon fantasies of sinful men.

    masonictraveler said: And, since when does the recognition or acceptance of the cross delineate the true Christian? Is that practice very Christian?

    Yes, see sentence #2 in the response above.

    I hope this helps.

    In Christ,
    CD

  11. gazelem,

    If you have a problem with what Paul wrote, then you really need to take it up with God, for He is the one who commanded Paul to write what he did. Perhaps God should have asked you what to tell Paul to write to the churches of His dear Son. Or have you not considered that? That it’s not a case of “several different brands of Christianity,” but rather there was the One True Church and a whole bunch of counterfeits.

    Besides, are you going to counsel God? “Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has taught Him?”–Isaiah 40:13.

  12. First, let me thank you for addressing my concerns at all. I realize that I am a guest here and my sarcasm aside, I really enjoy the dialog and hearing your side of things.

    Secondly, I really take issue with your “One True Church” and “no other brand of Christianity” dogma. I am a cultural Mormon and after having been raised in an environment that repeats that very mantra, I choose to jettison that thought process altogether as specious.

    Historically speaking, there WERE various brands of Christianity or Paul would have had no reason to write his letters chastizing the various regional sects. If there was only “one” church, why is it that your version of worship is valid over, say the Catholics who have been in existence since the 2nd century?

    To say there is “one” true Christianity is to deny history and is intellectually dishonest. It implies a contiguous and recognizable tradition has been passed to us from ancient times. It wasn’t.

    Additionally, your “66” books of the Bible argument also gives me reason to pause and think about the books in the Bible. Why does a book like Songs of Solomon, or Deuteronomy hold as much value to you as say the Acts or Corinthians? This would imply that Solomons’s sometimes explicit love songs hold as much value as the words of the apostles!?! Seriously?

    Thanks,
    gazelem

  13. gazelem,

    Thanks for stopping by. I will attempt to answer a few of your questions as I am sure 1 or 2 other editors will be able to add to what I share.

    1. We are thankful that you are willing to stop by. Many only come to snipe a few times and disappear into the ethereal mist of the web.
    2. When we speak of “One True Church”, we are not addressing a particular building where a group of people meet on a Sunday for worship. However, there are plenty of passages dealing with the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in both a universal aspect as well as a local body of true believers.
    3. You are correct that there were various brands of “Christianity” dating all the way back to the 1st century. However, Paul was not writing his letters to “various regional sects” of Christianity. He wrote to local bodies of true believers who were being persuaded at times by false teaching which sought to infiltrate the true church. Paul’s purpose was never to bring these groups together. On many occasions he informed them that they were to remove themselves from these false teachers and even stated clearly that those who were preaching a different gospel (even if it was an angel or another man) were to be accursed.
    4. The problem with many (including yourself) is that you want to include the Catholic Church. Putting aside what they would have the world believe about their history, the Catholic church did not actually begin until the emperor Constantine decided he was going to baptize his citizens (forcibly I might add on pain of death). He chose to take the parts of true Biblical Christianity and mix it with the pagan worship that was rife throughout the Roman Empire (a problem called syncretism and is rife within the RCC today along with many other religions).

    I must go for now, but will try to address the other questions later today.

    The Desert Pastor

  14. Iw ould second everything DP has said, especially You are correct that there were various brands of “Christianity” with the word Christianity in quotation marks. Just because something sells itself as Christian doesn’t make it so.

    gazelem, I would also second DP’s thanks to you for being willing to engage in an honest discussion, and not just drop a drive-by comment like many do.

    One thing you said in your last comment peaked my interest. You said I really take issue with your “One True Church” and “no other brand of Christianity” dogma. I am a cultural Mormon and after having been raised in an environment that repeats that very mantra… It’s interesting because anytime a Mormon comes on here, and we raise the issue that the LDS claims to be have the “restored gospel” and is the “one true church,” they always say they don’t believe that, Mormonism doesn’t teach that, etc. And of course there is the old “We Mormons don’t bash other religions.” Out of curiosity, where were you raised, and what kinds of things did they say about us non-LDS?

  15. I grew up and live in the Pacific NW.

    If any Mormon says they don’t believe that theirs is the “one true church”, then they are lying or severely misguided about what Mormonism is about. Ask them what their scripture D&C 1:30 means if not that…(see http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/1/30#30)

    They do speak the truth about not overtly bashing other religions however. Mormons never teach a fig about other churches in classes, seminars or conferences. They are taught about Mormonism only. This stark difference has often perturbed me about other breeds of Christianity as that cannot be said of them. There are often classes (or blogs, heh) advertised where your whole point is to “expose Mormonism” or “witness to a Mormon”…ie “bash the Mormons”. It seems wrong somehow.

    That said, the Book of Mormon is pretty overtly anti-Catholic, reflecting the 19th century view of Catholics. Mormons will now say the scripture calling a unnamed “whore of all the earth” refers to Satan’s influence, but it is pretty obvious what it refers to (see http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/14/10-12#10).

    I should say that I am an active (but unbelieving) participant in a local Mormon congregation. It is my culture and it functions more as a social club that filling any real spiritual need for me. I am still in search of a religious philosophy that works for me…that lives and lets others live without a need for hypocritical criticism of other sects.

    Thanks again for the dialog.

  16. Thanks for that link gazelem. It was a very interesting article. Very interesting indeed.

    It shows the fluidity of LDS doctrines, traditions, and beliefs. So many changes, alterations, corrections, and turn-abouts have occurred since Mormonism’s inception it’s hard to keep up with them all.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses also suffer from this problem as well. In fact, they too had no issue with the cross and even Christmas in their earlier years.

    That’s the problem with “continued revelation.” It always changes from generation to generation to suit those in power at the time. However, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

    Thanks again.

    Sincerely,
    – The Pilgrim

  17. gazelem,

    While I can appreciate the sentiment you expressed when you said I am still in search of a religious philosophy that works for me…that lives and lets others live without a need for hypocritical criticism of other sects–in fact it’s one I used to hold when I was younger, thinking that Mormons were Christians, that JW’s were just out to interrupt my quiet Saturday morning, and that even Muslims and Buddhists were just finding their way to their own “Heaven” (or whatever after-earthly paradise they were searching for).

    However, that is not a possibility when it comes to following Christ. Consider some of the statements He made. “I AM the Way… NO ONE comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). “Narrow is the way and strait is the gate that leads to life, and few there are that find it” (Matthew 7:15). “All others are hirelings. I AM the Good Shepherd” (John 10).

    What we do is not “hypocritical.” It is a command from God Himself through the apostles (Paul, Jude, Peter) and through His own Law. Remember what God’s first commandment was. “You shall have no other gods before Me, for I am a Jealous God…” When men go about seeking to build a “God” that suits their own liking, they are indeed worshipping a “God” other than Almighty God. We who know Christ are to show them the truth so they may know the truth, and also to warn others to avoid these false “Gods.”

    See, worshipping a “God” who has been invented according to the whims and desires of men in an effort to find their own way to God is no closer to worship of the true God than the Muslim worship of Allah, the Hindu worship of Vishnu, or the Wiccan worship of trees and rocks. As Paul said in Roimans 1, they worship the creature rather than the Creator.

    That’s why we do what we do. To make known the One True God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent.

  18. Pilgrim, I hope you don’t mind if I hijack the comment thread for a moment. I was going to post this an an article, but the human memory being what it is, there are some details I don’t quite recall exactly, so I’ll just list a few key points

    My wife and I had a couple of Mormon missionaries come to our door the other night. Two young ladies (Sister Lewis and Sister Crockett) knocked on the door about 8:30. This was my first time ever having them come to my door, and for the first few minutes I was shaking trying to flip my Bible pages. Of course, they had all their canned answers from their teaching manuals. One girl did most of the talking (and boy, how that one could talk! She said she had been a missionary for 2 yrs, and she acted like she has heard all of our answers before) while the other one was more quiet but would offer a few comments once in a while.

    One of the first things I asked them was where Jesus paid for our sins. Any guess as to their answer? That’s right! Gethsemane! I took them to Colossians 1:20–“and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” Of course, they mentioned Luke 22, where Christ sweated drops of blood. When I asked why none of the NT writers–Paul, Peter, John, James–associated Gethsemane with the payment for our sins, the subject quickly changed.

    Another time when they were quick to change the subject was when they brought up the issue of “agency.” This is the Mormon concept that we, in our fallen state, can choose to do good. I took them to Romans 3, where Paul lets it be known (in no uncertain terms) that there is nothing in us that wants to follow after God.

    But here was the real stunner: when I was discussing the nature of God the Father–of course, they believe He has a body of flesh and bone–and I asked them, “Think about Muslims. They don’t know the true God.” Response: “Yes they do. They worship the God of Abraham.” Then some attempt to explain about Ishmael and and the birthright and all that. So, yeah, Mormons think that Muslims know God! Anyway, she said, “We let people worship in their own way,” my reply was “Do you think God allows that?” Silence. “Well, they say they worship the God of Abraham.” I followed with, “OK, If I say that I worship almighty God, but I think that this tree stump is almighty God, am I really worshipping God? And didn’t Jesus say we must worship God in spirit and in TRUTH? And in John 17:3, He said, ‘This is eternal life, that they know You, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom you’ve sent.’ Now, if they do not know the true God, they can’t worship Him in truth, and thus they do not have eternal life.”

    At any rate, I did manage to share the gospel–to teach them that we are fallen, sinful creatures, that it was Christ’s death that paid our sins, the reality of Hell, and that Christ wiped out our sins as if they never existed (Psalm 103:12). All in all, I think I may have dropped a few seeds in their hearts to make them ponder some things. I do know this: I need to be better prepared for any other time God puts someone like that in my path. So please pray that God’s word would do its work, and that they would know the one true God, that they may worship Him and glorify Him.

  19. Great post!

    I think you have thoroughly exposed the non-Christian realities of the Mormons.

    Nice work!

    I’d like to reprint this post on my site in the not-too distant future, if you wouldn’t mind. (with full credits to you and a link to your site)

    Thanks, very much!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s