Anti-LDS Bias

by Sharon

On Saturday, 17 May, LDS Church-owned Deseret News ran a story titled, "Anti-LDS bias running high" in which was reported the findings of a two-year study done by the San Francisco think tank Institute for Jewish and Community Research.

The survey, The Religious Identity and Behavior of College Faculty (pdf file of the complete report available here), was conducted online, gathering results from 1,269 faculty members from over 700 four-year colleges and universities. It was the second in a three-part series on the political and religious views of American faculty.

Deseret News reported:

Results of a two-year study released this week show one-third of university faculty nationwide have an unfavorable impression of Latter-day Saints, while an equal proportion of the general population holds a favorable view... among social sciences and humanities faculty, the "unfavorable" rating for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was at 38 percent.

The article made passing mention of the fact that the survey showed Evangelical Christians "were also viewed unfavorably," then went on to discuss the possible reasons that Mormons fared so poorly.

It seems reasonable that Deseret News, enjoying a large LDS readership, would highlight the study's results in relation to Mormonism. Yet it seems to me that the story's focus and emphasis on "anti-LDS bias" only fueled the general idea of continuing persecution many Mormons perceive as a major factor in their religious identity.

The result of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research study is really remarkable for what it reveals about faculty attitudes toward Evangelical Christians. The Institute's May 7th press release stated in part,

According to a two-year study released today by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), 53% of non-Evangelical university faculty say they hold cool or unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians -- the only major religious denomination to be viewed negatively by a majority of faculty. Only 30% of faculty hold positive views of Evangelicals, 56% of faculty in social sciences and humanities departments hold unfavorable views....

"This survey shows a disturbing level of prejudice or intolerance among U.S. faculty towards tens of millions of Evangelical Christians," said Gary Tobin, president of IJCR. "What's odd is that while a good number of faculty believe in a close, personal relationship with God and believe religion is essential to a child's upbringing, many of those same people feel deeply unfavorable toward of [sic] Evangelicals."...

A significant majority -- 71% of all faculty -- agreed with the statement: "This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics." By comparison, only 38% of faculty disagreed that the country would be better off if Muslims became more politically organized.

The report itself made the following point regarding attitudes toward Evangelicals compared with attitudes toward Mormons:

Faculty Hold the Most Unfavorable Feelings toward Evangelicals

Just one group elicited high negative feelings among faculty: Only 30% ranked their feelings toward Evangelical Christians as warm/favorable, with only 11% feeling very warm/favorable, the lowest ranking among every other religious group, and 53% said that they have cool/unfavorable feelings toward Evangelical Christians. Faculty feelings about Evangelicals are significantly cooler than any other religious group, leading Mormons as the least liked religious group by 20%. These negative feelings are noted across academic disciplines and demographic factors. (12)

The report is both fascinating and somewhat frightening. It's definitely disappointing to Evangelical Christians, though I'm sure these statistics come as no surprise to those who daily experience intolerance toward the Christian worldview. If you get a chance, read the conclusion of The Religious Identity and Behavior of College Faculty report (pages 85-88). These are interesting times in which we live.

Amazing Grace

by Sharon

Last Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune (27 April) contained "A call to grace" written by Tribune journalist Peggy Fletcher Stack. It's the story of Jonathan Hays, a newly ordained Christian minister serving in New Song Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Salt Lake City.

Rev. Hays is unique in that he's the first pastor in Utah's PCA Church that is from Utah. According to the Tribune article, the Senior Pastor at New Song said,

"All the other pastors have moved from other places," [Rev. Samuel] Wheatley says. "We need insiders [like Hays] who automatically understand the challenges of Protestant ministry in a predominantly Mormon culture. They know the true points of difference and true points of similarity between the two and what needs to be articulated much more clearly."

Rev. Hays fits the bill. Growing up very active in the LDS Church, part of a multi-generational Mormon family, Jonathan Hays began looking into the history of Mormonism while he was at college. He

...was troubled by some of what he read, particularly the practice of polygamy, which the LDS Church abandoned in 1890. He could no longer reconcile what he read with what he heard from contemporary Mormon leaders.

"I left the LDS Church, not to become something else, but because I didn't think I could be LDS anymore," he says. "I kinda had a phase of rebellion. I was upset that God would let me be part of something that wasn't true."

Coming into contact with Christians who had "a real relationship with Jesus," Jonathan began to long for spiritual life. He decided to go to church one Sunday morning, but not knowing where to go, he chose the church closest to his home.

"What I experienced there was amazing," he says. "I heard grace and I saw grace and it blew me away because I had never seen or heard it before. I knew going in there that I wasn't good enough. I had seen it throughout my life as I tried to be a good Mormon; I knew I couldn't do it."

That night he prayed his own version of the "sinner's prayer" -- that his life was "screwed up" and he needed help.

"I didn't know the right way to pray, but I saw Jesus and so I leapt for him," he says.

Well, Jesus, ever faithful, caught Jonathan Hays. I'm willing to bet Rev. Hays now sings Psalm 40, verses in which all the redeemed in Christ rejoice:

I waited patiently for the Lord;
He inclined to me and heard my cry.
He drew me up from the pit of destruction,
out of the miry bog,
and set my feet upon a rock,
making my steps secure.
He put a new song in my mouth,
a song of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear,
and put their trust in the Lord.

This is God's amazing grace.

O Sacred Head, Now Wounded

based on a Medieval Latin poem ascribed to Bernard of Clairvaux

O sacred Head, now wounded,
      with grief and shame
      weighed down,
Now scornfully surrounded,
      with thorns Thine only crown;
How pale Thou art with anguish,
      with sore abuse and scorn,
How does that visage languish,
      which once was bright as morn!

What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered, was all for sinners' gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior; 'Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favor, assist me with Thy grace.

My burden in Thy Passion, Lord, Thou hast borne for me,
For it was my transgression which brought this woe on Thee.
I cast me down before Thee, wrath were my rightful lot;
Have mercy, I implore Thee; Redeemer, spurn me not!

What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this, Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever, and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee.

Amen.

Should Christians stay in manipulative interfaith relationships?

by Aaron

Suppose you are in a dialog with someone over the most important things in all of reality--eternal life and the heart and holiness and the heinousness of sin and the glory of God and the nature of deity and the worship of the Creator and the promise of everlasting joy for believers and the future of eternal, conscious torment for idolaters. Whew. Important stuff, isn't it? What would you do if this friend told you that if you ever asked penetrating questions or seriously challenged his beliefs or made an embarrassing moral accusation against him that he would cut off ties from you?

To be frank, I would not actively seek to continue interfaith dialog with such a person, nor do I think anyone else should either. This kind of relationship is manipulative, and it fosters a fear-driven, tip-toeing, truth-minimizing interaction that hardly is constructive or edifying. It usually ends up in the dead-end alley of worldly, teacup dialog, the kind that obscures boundaries, suppresses any overflow of a passion for the glory of God, and conceals moral outrage against what is objectionable before our holy God. If Mormons and Christians want genuine dialog (and I know many of us do), then we should be prepared for the real thing. Otherwise, it's just a silly game.

Listening and understanding is very important, but as redeemed sinners we are also called to speak the truth in love. This is a far higher calling than casually sharing each other's perspectives for mutually increased personal understanding. We are called to speak the truth as truth, not as a mere human viewpoint. We are called to do this lovingly and courageously--with brokenhearted boldness, not with cocky impudence or superficial affability.

We are ambassadors with an urgent message. We are emissaries with the very word of God in our hands and at the tip of our tongue. Our King's message is not a suggestion. It is a call to repentance. It comes simultaneously as a plea from the heart of the caretaker of the planet and as an authoritative command from the sovereign of the universe. Humanity stands at the edge of the precipice. Either ever-increasing heavenly joy in the community of the saints or eternal punishment in the lake of fire await us.

As subordinates to the Great Commission we are called to give law to the proud and the gospel of grace to the humble. It is not an option to let our neighbor's conscience sleep. If he cannot see his own sin, we are to expose the deeds of darkness (cf. Ephesians 5:11) and shine the light of the law using the word of God. There are only two kinds of responses to this: repulsion or humility. Humility opens the door for a key opportunity to share the gospel. Repulsion means you'll probably have to move on.

As royal priests we are all called to what might spoken of as "supremacy evangelism": we are to proclaim the excellencies of the resurrected and exalted Christ--the one who is King, Creator, Judge, Savior, and God (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). This involves heralding the uniqueness of the divine majesty over and against the prevailing idolatry of our day. If someone essentially tells you that their idols are too sacred for open comparison with the great God of the Bible, do not believe them. No idol is sacred to our God, certainly not too sacred as to be torn down with his truth. People are precious in the sight of our God, but their idols are an abomination. Never forget this.

This of course can be done in a way that is flavored with recognizable humility and patience and love and genuine concern. In fact, it shouldn't be done in any other way (cf. 2 Timothy 2:24-25). But this doesn't mean cowering to the demands of those who want immunity from correction. No matter how affable a person is, demanding exemption from the scrutinizing and exposing light of truth is egotistical and arrogant. Instead of casting your pearls before such people, move on to seek out the people whom God has prepared to be humble recipients of the kingdom of God.

Oh Lord, please bless your people with fruitful, evangelistic dialog, both with the best of long-term friends and with strangers with whom we have no future certain contact. Help us to speak the truth to their conscience, and help us overcome the fear of rejection. Help us to do this in love, having prepared ourselves in prayer and having immersed ourselves in your word and having felt compassion on the lost. Help us not to be enslaved or restricted by the fear of losing the praise of man. But Lord, help us to be winsome and strategic so that we may maximize and elongate our opportunities to share the truth in love to those whose hearts are receptive.

Avoiding Pitfalls

by Sharon

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
-Romans 16:17-18-

Some years ago a non-denominational church invited a popular "Christian" group of musicians to make a guest appearance and lead worship. But there was a problem. Unbeknownst to the church leadership, this particular group of musicians held to a faith that did not affirm the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Rather than being "Christian," they fell into the category of "heretic"; therefore, according to the church's codified principles, these musicians could not occupy the pulpit or platform of the church.

The musicians, when questioned about their beliefs, dealt deceitfully with the church's leadership. They deftly sidestepped direct questions and answered others with carefully crafted sentences that employed liberal use of double entendre.

The church investigated the charges of heresy brought against the musicians over a period of several weeks, examining strong, documented evidence that clearly supported the allegations. Eventually, church leadership reached the conclusion that the charges were false. Ignoring the documented evidence they had seen, they reasoned thus: The musicians were nice folks, they sang of Christ, and they insisted they'd been falsely (and maliciously) accused; nice people who sing of Christ don't lie. Therefore, since these nice musicians were telling the truth -- that they were orthodox in their beliefs -- they were welcomed to lead worship at the church.

I was reminded of this experience today as I viewed a five-minute portion of a sermon by John Piper. Preaching on the Bible passage above, Dr. Piper explained that people who depart from true doctrine do not appear to us as monsters, mean and brash and pushy. Rather, the words Paul used in his description indicates false teachers win followers by appearing to bring a blessing. Their speech is pleasant, plausible and kind -- totally winsome. They are nice, gentlemanly, fair-minded and humble.

In the scenario I wrote about above, it was these sorts of attributes that won the day for the non-Trinitarian musicians. Unwelcome evidence was set aside in favor of enjoyable fellowship. One church leader explained, "I don't think they deny the Trinity. I've had dinner with them, and they are really nice people."

Sometimes what we want to believe has such a strong hold on us that we turn a blind eye to what is truly evident. Someone is nice, so we trust him. Someone is a pleasure to listen to, so we automatically accept what he says. Someone is fun to be with, so along we go; wherever he goes, we follow.

"Watch out for them," writes Paul. "Avoid them." Because they don't serve the Lord Christ; instead, they deceive the hearts of the naive (i.e., those who are undiscerning; those who ignore the evidence). It's a warning to be heeded for, as Jesus taught, "if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit" (Matthew 15:14).

I appeal to you, friends: Watch out.

To Be Thought Acceptable

by Sharon

The Daily Toreador out of Lubbock, Texas today posted an article intriguingly titled "A lesson on LSD." The author immediately comes clean:

Oops, sorry for that misprint in the headline. Actually, I'm not sorry. I did it on purpose to get your attention. So now that I have it, what I really wanted to give you was a lesson on LDS, or Latter-day Saints.

What follows is the oft-heard charge that non-Mormons don't know what Mormonism is, so the journalist, Taryn Chesshire, decided to provide a short lesson. Several points are discussed, but the one that seems to me to be the most germane is the "misconception" that "Mormons aren't Christian."

If any of you hold the same misconception, I'd like to ask you the same thing I asked that co-worker: "What is a Christian?"

I was under the impression a Christian was someone who believed Jesus was the son of God, he died for men's salvation and was resurrected three days after his crucifixion to join his father in heaven. Do I have that about right?...

If you're a Christian, Mormons believe everything you do.

Since it's impossible to know what everyone labeled "Mormon" and everyone labeled "Christian" believes, I think there's more benefit in discussing the religions instead of the individuals. But for the sake of this discussion, let's assume the "Christian" embraces historic, orthodox Christian theology, and the "Mormon" embraces the authoritative teachings of his prophets and apostles. Using this scenario, I take vigorous exception to the statement, "If you're a Christian, Mormons believe everything you do."

On the face of it, the Mormon and the Christian will both affirm Taryn Chesshire's statement that Jesus is the Son of God who died for men's salvation, etc. But anyone who understands the meanings of the words contained in that statement knows Christian/Mormon agreement goes no deeper than the syntax.

On March 12th a new Christian book will hit the bookstore shelves: By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification. Gary L. W. Johnson, adjunct professor at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, has contributed a chapter entitled, "The Reformation, Today's Evangelicals, and Mormons: What Next?" In this chapter Dr. Johnson discusses LDS Professor Robert Millet's book, A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints.

One of several doctrines Dr. Johnson addresses is the Christ of Mormonism. He writes,

Millet is unapologetic in his defense of Mormon theology. To begin, he explicitly rejects the cardinal doctrine of the Trinity, candidly admitting that Mormonism believes in "Three distinct Gods" (70) who are "three distinct personages, three Beings, three separate Gods" (141). In layman's language this is polytheism, pure and simple...

Despite Millet's insistence that his Jesus is the same one that we met in the pages of the New Testament, it is the other Scriptures of Mormonism that define him. This Jesus was born "as we all were, the spirit children of the Father" (20). This Jesus is a spirit brother of Lucifer (21). This Jesus is the Christ of Joseph Smith and is considered absolutely foundational to Mormonism (39). It is conceded that the Christ of "traditional" Christianity and the Christ of Mormonism are very different, and in substantial ways. Why? Because the Christ of orthodox Christianity is rooted in theological creeds, while the Christ of Mormonism "comes from the witness of a prophet -- Joseph Smith" (174). Contrary to Millet's claim that Christ is the central figure in the doctrine and practice of Mormonism (80), Joseph Smith, by his later admission, holds that place of honor (158). In fact, without Joseph Smith, there is no Mormonism (151). The Jesus of Mormonism is distinctively the Christ of Joseph Smith. The two cannot be separated. (By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, 196-198)

This brief look at Mormon Christology clearly exposes the fallacies in "A lesson on LSD." Our hypothetical Mormon does not believe everything the Christian believes; the two belief systems are really not compatible at all.

While I don't agree with the theology or conclusions of another LDS author, Joseph Fielding McConkie, I do appreciate his honesty in drawing distinctions between Mormonism and historic Christianity. He calls for public disclosure of the deep doctrinal differences between the two religions. Dr. McConkie writes,

This [First] vision stands as a refutation of the fundamental doctrines of a corrupt Christianity. It destroys the very premises upon which all the creeds of Christendom rest...

As Latter-day Saints we must know clearly where we stand. If our message is simply a reworking of key Bible texts for which we have gained some insights that others overlooked, then why not abandon the offensive notion that there was a universal apostasy, or that there is but one true church, and get on with the matter of mending fences with historical Christianity? If, on the other hand, we are serious in testifying that there was indeed an apostasy, that it was universal, that it included the loss of the priesthood and the saving truths of salvation and the knowledge of the very nature of God himself, then we must be prepared to stand alone. ...it is not common ground that we seek. We seek sacred ground, and upon that ground we must stand. (Here We Stand, 202-203)

This makes a lot of sense to me. So why is it we find that the vast majority of public comments from Mormons sound like the one in "A lesson on LSD": "If you're a Christian, Mormons believe everything you do"?

On page 6 of Dr. McConkie's book he asks a really good question of his fellow Latter-day Saints: "Should we trade our birthright to be thought acceptable by a corrupted form of Christianity?"

I wish the answer would be heard around the world.

Equally Unworthy

by Sharon

While we're on the subject of Mormon temples (see Mormon Coffee's last article), the February issue of Ensign magazine includes an article about the symbolism found in Mormon temples. Quoting LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe, the article states:

"In the temples all are dressed alike in white. White is the symbol of purity. No unclean person has the right to enter God's house. Besides, the uniform dress symbolizes that before God our Father in heaven, all men are equal. The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God." ("Looking Toward the Temple"; the Ensign cites Improvement Era, October 1962, 710, but the same article can be found online in the Gospel Library section of the LDS web site under Ensign, January 1972, 56)

The idea that all men (and women) are equal before God is biblical. Paul states as much in Galatians (3:28) and Colossians (3:11) where he says those who are sons (and daughters) of God through faith "are all one in Christ Jesus." But this isn't the equality symbolized by the white clothing in LDS temples; for, regarding LDS temples, there is a significant distinction between classes.

I'm not saying there's a distinction within the temple, but there's a definite distinction which precedes temple attendance; and Mr. Widtsoe includes it in his statement. Again, he said:

"The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God, the Father of their spirits. It is spiritual fitness and understanding that one receives in the temple. All such have an equal place before the Lord." (I have here completed the paragraph as it appeared in Mr. Widtsoe's original statement from the 1972 Ensign article)

The implication is that those who do not live righteously before God, those who do not qualify to enter Mormon temples (which includes a good percentage of Mormons), are not of "equal importance" and do not have an "equal place before the Lord."

As I see it, in Mormonism there may not be a distinction between the wealthy and the poor, the educated and uneducated, or the professionals and the non-professionals; instead, there is a distinction between the tithe-payers and the non-tithe-payers, the tea-abstainers and the tea-drinkers, the meeting-goers and the meeting-skippers.

This brings to mind Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14).

Temple-worthy Mormons clothe themselves in white in LDS temples to symbolize their purity -- their worthiness -- to be in the house of God. The fact that they have been approved to enter the temple means that they are not like other people. They have passed their temple recommend interviews which indicates that they are full tithe payers. They attend their Church meetings. They sustain and follow all their Church leaders. They obey the Word of Wisdom. They live chaste lives that are in complete harmony with the teachings of their Church. They keep their temple covenants. They wear their garments day and night. They are honest in all things. They affirm and believe that they are worthy (see Temple Recommend Questions).

In telling the parable, Jesus didn't have any praise for the one who was worthy, for the one who kept the law. Jesus said it was the sinful tax collector, not the law-abiding Pharisee, who went home justified. Jesus didn't seem to care one whit that the Pharisee paid his tithe while the tax collector (as was typical in his profession) engaged in frequent dishonesty.

This is what Jesus cared about: The tax collector, recognizing his sinfulness, cried out for mercy -- and he was granted mercy. The Pharisee, who set himself apart as one who was pure and worthy, who relied on his own impressive merits to please a perfectly Holy God; though righteous by the world's standards, he did not please God and went home still guilty in his sins.

The Bible tells us that "none is righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). "If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us" (1 John 1:10).

I'm not suggesting that Mormons think they're sinless. I don't think there are many people who do -- we know ourselves too well for that. But our human tendency is to minimize and/or justify our sin. We grade the level of "righteousness" we've achieved on a curve. "I'm not perfect, but I'm a lot better than that guy," we say.

And the Mormon temple, I think, plays right into that way of thinking: "I'm not perfect, but at least I'm temple worthy." Mormons go to the temple and put on white clothes head to toe that symbolizes their purity. They would never say it -- and I'm sure most would never think it -- but this is what it really symbolizes: "God, thank you that I'm not like other men. I'm more righteous than those folks outside. I'm more important to You than they are. I'm worthy."

The Pharisee boasted in his righteousness and was left spiritually bankrupt. His boasting -- his self-promotion of his "worthiness" -- was itself a display of his sin. Note that the Pharisee in this parable was not bragging to others. He was standing by himself, giving thanks to God.

But the tax collector did not even consider himself worthy enough to lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. He beat his breast while pleading, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" He needed a Savior, and he knew it. He admitted it. He begged for it. And he got it. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

In the parable both the Pharisee and the tax collector were equally unworthy, but only one recognized his need for mercy.

Mormonism claims the purpose of LDS temples is to provide everything necessary for the exaltation of those deemed worthy enough to enter; the temple is for Mormons who affirm and believe in the value of their own righteousness.

Antithetically Jesus promises, "everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Jesus or the temple. The choice is yours.

Are Christians More Concerned About Doctrine Than Obedience?

by Aaron

A friend once said,

"I think LDS see us this way though - more concerned about right belief than right living."

First, let me make clear that in the common Mormon mind, the alternative to this is being more concerned about right living than right belief. This thinking has essentially produced a kind of postmodernism that views their beliefs as largely just "practical" for helping them be "good people." This is the worldview from which many Mormons view religious criticism itself as unethical and "bashing" and mean-spirited. For many Mormons, just about any basic religion is inherently practical for right living and sincerity toward God, so none should be actively opposed. Missionary work is described as "adding" and improving upon the beliefs of others, not challenging or replacing them.

Second, in a way Mormons are right about us being "more concerned about right belief than right living," because Christianity is more about knowing and loving God than it is about treating people right. This may be a shocker, but think about the order of the two greatest commandments that Jesus gave. Christians inevitably do both. One of life's greatest ironies--an irony that I believe some unbelievers will dwell on forever in hell--is that we can only love people like Jesus wants us to once we have had our sins freely forgiven, and once our obedience becomes an outgrowth of our love for God. And how are we freely forgiven? By faith alone in the promises of God as they really are. And how do our hearts love God? By the focus of faith on the truth and beauty of who God really is. Faith, my friends, is theological, and, ironically, the best and only way to go about "right living" is to prioritize "right belief"--not just the right objective content of belief, but the right subjective heart-desiring, hungering, and thirsting faith that focuses on that right objective content (which is ultimately Christ Himself, as He really is).

Third, Mormons are only wrong about Christians being "more concerned about right belief than right living" if by that they mean we only care about right views of God, but care not at all about the works and obedience that accompany saving faith. The tricky thing is that the phrase "more concerned about right belief than right living" usually conflates two things, one good, and one bad. When challenged with the Christian passion and insistence on the right knowledge of God (replete with religious criticism of false views), Mormons often want to condemn both orthodoxy without obedience and orthodoxy-based-obedience altogether. The condemnation comes in the form of conflating both, and I think it ultimately stems from an unbelief in the power of the gospel (justification of the ungodly by faith alone in the promises of Christ) to change one's life. Paul anticipated their unbelief almost two thousand years ago in Romans 6:1 and 10:1-4.

But the Christian won't settle for this sweeping rejection of the primary and foundational role of "right belief." We will neither accept "right beliefs" without "right living," nor "right living" without "right belief." We believe in the power of God, through our "faith alone," to radically change our lives so that we become as the woman in Luke 7. She "wet [Jesus'] feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the [alabaster flask of] ointment," not to be worthy, and not to be forgiven, but because she was forgiven and because she knew the goodness of her Savior.

Christianity stubbornly refuses to accept any kind of love or obedience that isn't rooted in the right knowledge and faith and heart-desire toward who God really is, and what He has really promised.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8),

Aaron


Further reading:

Faith: The Link Between God's Love For Us and Ours For Others

Also available as an MP3 file

Three Passages That Should Impact Christian Evangelism and Public Dialog

by Aaron

Titus 2:15:

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority.

An ambassador for Christ should deliver the word of God with authority. The impression should be given that what is being communicated in scripture¹ is ultimately God's perspective, and that God seriously means what He says. An alternative is to speak in a way that tickles postmodern ears: "Well, this is my perspective."

Yes, as Christians we rightfully believe that, having been given the Holy Spirit, God's perspective has, in important ways, become our perspective. In other words, God has given us His word that we might share His perspective on reality. But if we continue to qualify our statements concerning Biblical truth as coming from "our perspective," we are doing our audience a disfavor and are probably dishonoring the authoritative nature of God's word. To our postmodern audience, this gives the impression that what we are saying is relative to our own minds and life-experiences. In other words, what we are communicating isn't a clarion call heralded from the heavens, but a personal perspective that bears no authority.

Secondly, this is the type of impression that seems to imply that increased mutual "understanding," "tolerance," and "acceptance" is a higher goal than urgent persuasion, repentance, and conversion. "Now is the day of salvation!" (2 Corinthians 6:2) What better communicates the urgency of salvation: authoritative communication of God's word which (at least implicitly) calls for a response of repentance? Or offering our own personal perspective on things?²

2 Timothy 2:23-26:

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting His opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I love Paul's balance in this passage. In some ways, I feel like this is impossible, yet in other ways, I am encouraged by what seems realistic. What seems impossible is the tightrope we must walk of a Christ-like, perfect integration of love for people and passion for God's truth. What is refreshingly realistic is Paul's expectation that Christians continue to teach and correct, and that by using such an approach we will bring "evil" from our "opponents" which we must "endure."

• We are not to be involved in "foolish, ignorant controversies" which distract us from focusing on things of primary importance. We should focus on the most important things: the nature of God and salvation.
  
  
• We are not to be given over to quarrelling. We should give people some breathing room, and not feel inclined to repudiate every false thing they say. This is especially the case in private one-on-one settings, where we have more of a context for patience.³
  
  
• We are to teach. This is different than simply "sharing our perspective." We are to teach God's perspective on things from His word. Christians have something to teach the world from God's word, and no matter how arrogant this seems to the postmodern culture, it is the ministry we have been given.
  
  
• We are to patiently endure their evil response. Paul simply assumes "evil" in response to "teach[ing]." Paul goes on to write,
  

  "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." (2 Timothy 4:2)
  

  
  The sort of patience Paul calls for comes from having corrected, taught and reproved. You don't need that kind of patience if you're simply sharing your "evangelical, personal perspective," because you won't get the same sort of response.
  
  
• We are to be kind to everyone and correct them with gentleness. We are to make it as easy as possible for them to see that we want the best for them. Mingled with our correction should be recognizable tenderness. The challenge is to do this even with people (influenced by postmodernism) that interpret correction itself as unkind. We should give no person a real basis for, before God's judgment throne, characterizing us as having been unkind. In one-on-one settings with strangers this might be as simple as giving another person a fair listen, shaking their hand and extending a warm greeting to them. In personal relationships kindness can be expressed by grieving with another person over their loss, doing small favors, or taking the time to be slow and careful in speech.
  
  
• We have theological opponents, and these are the people we are to correct. People who reject Jesus Christ for who He is and what He has freely promised are "enemies of God" (Romans 11:28). Jesus said that loving enemies was more radical than loving friends. Mormons may be our friends as neighbors and citizens and fellow parents, but they are not friends in Christ (cf. 3 John 1:15). If a Mormon feels as though he is no longer our theological enemy, then we have removed ourselves from the context in which Jesus wants His radical love to shine.
  
  
• The aim is the repentance of our opponent. This goes far beyond what seems to be the chief focus of contemporary interfaith, public dialog: "tolerance," "acceptance," and "mutual understanding." Our aim is that the other person would be convicted and sorrowful over their idolatry and unbelief, and turn to the God of the Bible. We want Mormons to be like the Thessalonian Christians. Paul said of them:
  

  "[W]e know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction... For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5,9-10)⁴
  

  
  
• We are to view these opponents as in the "snare of the devil." This should give us a sense of urgency, encourage us to pray for them, and cause us to be serious about the high stakes of their spiritual condition. Mormons who are not willing to embrace the Biblical portrait of Jesus Christ and clearly repudiate traditional Mormon doctrine on God have not yet been born again⁵. If they do not repent, they will go to hell with Satan and his angels. They are "following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2). Their works do not flow from the joy of having been freely accepted and justified by faith before a holy God. Like Paul testified of the zeal of the Jews, we can likewise testify of the zeal Mormons have for their church and for a significant kind of moral purity. But this does not lessen the tragedy of their condition, it rather intensifies it.
  

  "Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:1-4)

2 Corinthians 4:1-2:

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

Paul assumes that we are going to be tempted to "lose heart" and "practice cunning and tamper with God's word" as we give an "open statement of the truth." But since we have this ministry "by the mercy of God," and since God can shine a light in their hearts that causes conversion (vs. 3-6), we should stick to directly speaking to the conscience of the Mormon. We do this reminding ourselves that we are "in the sight of God," because in the sight of man we are tempted to please man. It is mercy that we Christians even have the opportunity to be about the ministry of the gospel. Why then would we ever tamper with God's precious word?



Notes:

1. Titus is specifically being told to use his leadership position to declare the apostolic admonition of Paul. Positions of leadership within the Christian church are themselves subordinate to the authority of the word of God, and in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter identifies Paul's letters as scripture.

2. This is why I believe that public dialog with false teachers should probably take the form of civil but passionate debate.

3. Ross Anderson of Wasatch Evangelical Free Church in Roy, UT, notes the difference of nature between public and private dialog:

"[I]n a private dialog, if something I say is misunderstood, I can probe the level of understanding, and correct the misunderstanding, by further discussion with my friend. But if I say something in a public setting that is misunderstood..., then that misunderstanding is cast into the open and spreads like leaves in the wind. I cannot go back to each person who heard those remarks to assess the nature of their misunderstanding or to make clarifications... [P]rivate civility and public civility are not the same thing. I can challenge my wife (or a close friend) about an issue in private, with kindness and respect, in a way I would not do in a public setting. Regardless of how kind and polite I was being, I would not choose a busy restaurant or the lobby at church to tell my friend that he has a problem with body odor. I would not announce in a microphone that his zipper is down. In other words, it's not appropriate to hold a friend accountable in public in the same way I would approach him in private. So [a public dialog with such a person] is not really a valid model of a civil discourse between real friends. Simply for the reason that it is public, there's no way it can model the depth of confrontation true friends sometimes have."

His comments seem appropriate for those who are not able or willing to engage in civil, public debate with someone. Such persons should keep their evangelistic relationships in a private, personal setting. Taking them public would be inappropriate, since, not willing or able to publicly debate or forthrightly correct, one is not able to hold the other publicly accountable for what is said.

4. We cannot be content or optimistic over Mormon neo-orthodoxy which lacks remorse over traditional Mormon idolatry and heresy. If Mormon neo-orthodox persons, who at least in their language seem to have adopted new doctrines, were truly cause for optimism, they would weep and cringe over the sorts of past statements LDS leaders made concerning God and grace and personal worthiness. As it is, they seem to have no shame over them.

5. This is in contrast with the view of Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, who sees a person like Mormon BYU professor Robert Millet as a fellow brother in Christ.

Light and Life

by Sharon

Even though Christmas is behind us, I'm not yet ready to let it go. Christmas brings such a wonderful, tender atmosphere. The warmth of family, the sparkle of lights, the renewed joy of the birth of my Savior. I love the Christmas carols and the candlelight worship service, all bringing Christ into focus -- where He always ought to be.

My favorite Christmas tradition in my home is the lighting of the "Christ candle." First thing on Christmas morning I read these scriptures:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-5)

Arise, shine; for your light has come! And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you. (Isaiah 60:1)

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12)

But the LORD will be to you an everlasting light, and your God your glory. (Isaiah 60:19b)

Then I light a pillar candle that burns throughout Christmas Day. The pillar represents Christ as my strength and essential support. The color of the candle, which changes each year, represents Christ's holiness and purity (white), Christ's sacrificial death for me (red), or Christ's steadfast promise of eternal life (green). The flame represents the everlasting light that is Jesus, given to the world at His birth. This burning candle reminds me and my family, during all the festivities and other traditions of Christmas Day, that God is with us -- Immanuel has come.

It was amidst this Christmas backdrop that I read an article in the LDS Church News titled "Christmas Gift."

On Saturday evening, Dec. 2, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve told Salt Lake Big Cottonwood Stake President Ellis Ivory that his stake "might receive the biggest Christmas present ever."

The next morning, President Ivory realized what Elder Ballard was talking about: President Gordon B. Hinckley made a surprise visit to the stake conference.

"It was a real gift to us," President Ivory said. "The members couldn't believe that he was there. Many were so emotional that they couldn't sing. It was by far the most tearful conference that has ever been in the history of our stake." (Church News 12/9/06, 5)

As reported in Church News, President Hinckley spoke to the LDS stake members about Church membership. He said:

• "…whenever you lead someone into the Church, you confer upon him or her blessings that can be had in no other way in all of this world."
  
  
• "There is nothing you can do that would bless the life of anybody that is more important than leading to membership in this Church."
  
  
• "…nothing will reel in greater happiness or bring more permanent and wonderful blessings, than leading someone into this Church."

According to the Church News report, President Hinckley concluded his remarks by speaking of the atonement of Christ as the "most important facet of all the facets of the gospel." As far as I can tell by reading Church News, this was the first time in his address that president Hinckley mentioned Jesus, and was but a very small part of the message.

Following President Hinckley, LDS Apostle Ballard told the congregation that it was a great blessing to be "schooled by the president of the Church and a prophet of the Lord," and that it is a privilege to "learn the great lessons" taught by President Hinckley.

Maybe because of it being Christmastime I'm more sensitive to this, but it struck me as strange that the focus and adoration of the LDS congregation were directed to the man Gordon B. Hinckley, rather than to Immanuel -- God with us.

It struck me as strange that a man claiming to be God's mouthpiece on earth used this opportunity to address the people by speaking primarily of the Church, rather than speaking first and foremost of Immanuel -- God with us.

It struck me as strange that a man hailed by millions as a true prophet of God taught that the greatest happiness and blessing available to mankind is LDS Church membership, rather than the incredible and unsurpassable blessing of Immanuel -- God with us.

In the early Christian church, just after teaching that "the Word was God" and "in Him was life, and the life was the light of men," the Apostle John wrote,

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. …the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him… (John 1:6-14)

A true prophet of God, sent to bear witness of Christ. Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest prophet of all (Matthew 11:11). While Gordon B. Hinckley bears witness of the LDS Church and the attendant blessings of membership, John bore witness of the true Light Who became flesh and dwelt among us.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! …I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God." (John 1:29, 34)

What an incredible message! What an incomparable blessing! Immanuel has come; God is with us.

Bound for Glory?

by Sharon

While reading the Book of Revelation I was struck by Jesus' words regarding the final judgment of those whose names are not written in the Book of Life:

…the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (21:8)

Jesus here draws a distinction between those who belong to Him -- those who will "inherit all things," who will forever enjoy Him as their God, who will be His sons and daughters -- contrasted with those who will not receive blessings but will instead "have their part" in the lake of fire. These will not receive eternal life in God's presence, but will receive the second death: eternal punishment.

The list of sinful behaviors and attitudes Jesus speaks of reminds me of another list, this one found in LDS scripture. Doctrine and Covenants says:

But [these] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus,… These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. (76:101, 103)

Several items on the biblical list and the D&C list match:

• unbelieving/received not the gospel
  
• sexually immoral/adulterers-whoremongers
  
• sorcerers
  
• liars
  

It sounds like both passages are talking about the same group of people. But according to the Bible, Jesus says these people will be finally consigned to the "second death" in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, while Doctrine and Covenants says these people will inherit glory in the Telestial kingdom of God.

Some Mormon leaders, including 10th LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, have suggested that sinners such as those listed above will spend limited time in the lake of fire and brimstone; they will be released as heirs of salvation after they have sufficiently suffered for their sins. However, Mr. Smith wrote:

Spiritual death is defined as a state of spiritual alienation from God -- the eternal separation from the Supreme Being; condemnation to everlasting punishment is also called the second death. In other words, the second or spiritual death,…is the final judgment passed upon the wicked… (Doctrines of Salvation 2:217)

In Mormonism there seems to be some variance of opinion on exactly what "second death" is, who is deserving of it, and how long it lasts. But in Christianity -- historically -- the second death has been understood to be final, permanent, and hopeless. In Revelation Jesus contrasts the second death with eternal life. Those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb receive the gift of eternal life, while those who have died in their sins receive their part -- the consequence of being an enemy of God -- which is eternal damnation.

But according to Mormonism, after the wicked dead come to their senses and repent, after they suffer for their sins for a sufficient time, they will receive an eternal home in glory. This glory, which they have earned by personally paying for their sins (see Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual Religion 325-325, 204), is described in LDS writings. The inhabitants of the Telestial kingdom will delight in an existence of far greater comfort and enjoyment than anything available on earth; a glory beyond mortal understanding. There will be no death, disease, infirmity, taxes, wars, bills or menial labor. The people will be free to socialize, travel and learn (Victor Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel,240-241). In fact, Joseph Smith reportedly said,

The telestial kingdom is so great, if we knew what it was like we would kill ourselves to get there. (see Richard Neitzel Holzapfel,The Heavens Are Open, The 1992 Sperry Symposium of the Doctrine and Covenant and Church History, 155)

According to Mormonism, those deserving of the Telestial kingdom have lived their lives in open rebellion against God. They have hearts that are hard and cold when it comes to Christ. They are not just misguided people who have given in to the temptations of sin more often than not; they have "refused to worship the true and living God" (LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 778).

Even if it were possible for dead people to pay their own sin debt by suffering for a finite period of time (it is not), after their debt is paid they remain what they have always been at their core: enemies of God. This is something Mormonism misses. It's not just about what we do, but about what we are.

Jesus did not come only to pay the penalty for our sins; He came to make us new creatures. He came to take away our guilt and bestow on us His righteousness. The Apostle Paul wrote,

• He made Him [Christ Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
  
  
• Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Because of Christ's righteousness, the sinner who places faith in Him becomes righteous before God.

Spending time in prison does not change a hardened criminal into a law-abiding citizen. During his prison sentence he works off his debt to society; he may even resolve to "go straight" in order to avoid future punishment. But he isn't changed from the inside out -- not unless God intervenes and makes him a new creature.

And being a new creature is what Jesus talks about in the Book of Revelation. He says,

Behold, I make all things new…It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (21:5-8)

Seeing how Jesus puts it, it doesn't sound to me like that second set of people are bound for eternal glory. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear.

The Gift

by Eric

All the hustle and bustle of the anticipated Holiday
      is quickly closing nigh,
And many frazzled shoppers can at last let out
      a collective great big sigh,

Their present-buying is done and all the
      cards are finally addressed,
The children have been put to bed as it’s time
      for them to get some rest.

Most of the world now awaits Santa Claus,
      he’s flying through the air,
He and his reindeer will deliver what all the
      elves have made to share.

So as everyone’s heads hit the pillows on this
      quiet Christmas Eve night,
Not a creature is stirring, and even the tiny mice
      are sleeping out of sight.

Many people are merely dreaming about what
      the Jolly Fat Man can lift,
Yet Someone more special is wanting to deliver
      a different kind of gift.

What kind of gift, you might ask? It’s something
      that can never get broken,
You would never have to wait in a return line,
      it’s much more than a token.

While the presents under the tree last usually an hour
      or two, maybe three,
What I am talking about goes on and on and actually
      right into eternity.

But just like the fake Rolex on the corner many
      charlatans want to imitate,
They will say this “gift” is what you work for,
      hurry up before it’s too late.

What if I pull out my wallet when I get a gift,
      what would the giver surmise?
No, we understand that a gift is a gift,
      this should not be a great big surprise.

And this is the way it is with the Babe
      who came to us in a smelly old stable,
Yet how unfortunate that so many consider this
      to be just an annual fable.

Immanuel, given to us two thousand years ago
      cannot be purchased in a mall,
This one--born, lived, and died before He was resurrected--
      offers a Gift to all.

Truly if we open up our hearts and receive this Gift --
      Jesus Christ to the earth,
There is nothing I consider more valuable
      or anything that has a greater worth.

Without the Father’s grace, mercy, and love,
      all of us share an eternally bad fate,
But receivers of the priceless Gift, it’s heaven we get,
      how amazing we now rate!

So this Christmas Eve, when everything is finished
      and you lay your heads down,
Remember the Gift given to those who believe,
      this is what they call Paradise Found.

Of the Father's Love Begotten
by Aurelius Clemens Prudentius (348-413 AD)

Of the Father’s love begotten,
Ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the Source, the Ending He,
Of the things that are, that have been,
And that future years shall see,
Evermore and Evermore!

O ye heights of heaven adore Him;
Angel hosts, His praises sing;
Powers, dominions, bow before Him,
And extol our God and King!
Let no tongue on earth be silent,
Every voice in concert ring,
Evermore and Evermore!

Christ, to Thee with God the Father,
And, O Holy Ghost, to Thee,
Hymn and chant and high thanksgiving
And unwearied praises be:
Honor, glory, and dominion,
And eternal victory,
Evermore and Evermore!

Total truth? Or is everything relative?

by Eric

A warning cry that some theologians and apologists have made for more than a decade involves what has been called "Postmodernism." Theologian Norman Geisler points to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 as the end of Modernism (which he says began with Nietzsche's "Death of God" movement at the turn of the 20th century) and the beginning of the "Death of Truth." For many, especially in America, there is no such thing as "absolute truth." Rather, there's "your" truth and "my" truth, and the two can both be "true" depending on one's perspective.

This week I saw Postmodernism in all its glory as I served on a U.S. District Court case that involved a U.S. Border Patrol agent who shot an illegal alien accused of throwing a water bottle-sized rock at the agent. After listening to four days of testimony, a group of 12 of us were ushered into a side room to begin deliberations. Nobody wanted to be the jury foreman, so I volunteered because I believed I could help keep the jury organized and on target.

It took us about two hours to make a decision on four of the five counts, which seemed to be pretty clear-cut for most of us. Now we were down to the last felony count, assault on a federal officer. According to the testimony, the defendant and three other aliens were caught in the heavily-polluted Tijuana River by five Border Patrol agents as they were attempting to make their way into the U.S.

At first vote, it was six for guilty, five for not guilty, and one undecided. We pored over the evidence, which included:

• three officers saw the defendant pull a rock out of the thigh-deep water and lift it up to throw it at the officer, who then shot the alien in the arm with his service revolver;
  
• four people--including one of the aliens--had testified that the defendant put his hands in the water, which he denied ever doing;
  
• the integrity of the defendant was doubtful, as he lied many times before in previous arrests and contradicted himself more than once on the witness stand.
  

After a full day of deliberations, we voted again: eight for guilty, three for not guilty, and one undecided. But I knew we were in trouble in ever reaching a unanimous verdict when I had the following exchange with one of the "not guilty" female jurors (Juror 5):

Me: Why are you saying that the defendant is not guilty?

Juror 5: Because, from my perspective, he never had the rock.

Me: But three officers saw the rock. The defendant's hands were definitely in the water, which the alien behind him in the river even admitted. His testimony on the stand showed that he was lying about other facts, and his own lawyer testified in his closing statement that his client had a checkered history and was not a 'model citizen.'

Juror 5: From your perspective and the perspective of the officers, the defendant had a rock. But from his perspective as well as mine, he did not. The evidence differs depending on your perspective.

Me: Are you even suggesting that truth differs depending on perspective? Is it even possible for the defendant to have a rock and not have a rock at the same moment of time? Wouldn't this violate the 'law of non-contradiction'?

Juror 5: As far as I am concerned, your truth is your truth, and my truth is mine.

Immediately, I knew that this first count was history and would have to be thrown out of court (which it eventually was by the judge). There was just no changing this juror's mind about her perspective on truth, as she even admitted to us that all the evidence in the world wouldn't change her mind about her feelings.

This scenario reminds me a lot of Mormons who insist that their feelings can be trusted, even if they contradict the facts. More than once I have been in conversation with a Mormon who has admitted, in one way or another, that the information I presented showing Mormonism as contradictory to the Bible sounded true. However, the mantra more than once goes like this: "I've prayed about the Book of Mormon and know it's true." This is in total disregard of the information that was just presented.

When truth becomes relative in a jury deliberation, it appears that a defendant could both commit a crime and not commit a crime at the same time. In the world of religion, one's feelings can supersede the known facts. The evidence becomes secondary to the feelings and personal opinions that a person might have. What a scary world this has become!

A God-fearing people

by Sharon

I've been reading in the Book of Revelation. I've been quite affected by the imagery of God as recorded by the Apostle John. We find God seated on a throne covered in radiant color and glory, surrounded by myriads of myriads of angels and elders and other living creatures, falling before Him in worship. They tell us He is holy, holy, holy. They cast their crowns down before Him. They sing His praises night and day. This is a picture many of us hold closely in our hearts. But there's more.

Revelation also gives us this:

From the throne came flashes of lightening, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire… (4:5)

The creatures in heaven speak with voices like trumpets and thunder. By God's command they call out horses and riders who bring judgment to the earth: war, famine and death. They kill with sword, pestilence and wild beasts. They bring earthquakes and gales; every mountain is moved and the sky is rolled up like a scroll. By God's will the trumpets are blown and the earth is showered with hail and fire mixed with blood. Stars fall from heaven like blazing torches; an eagle flies overhead calling, "Woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth…"

Another angel flies overhead proclaiming "an eternal gospel." He says,

Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water. (14:6-7)

Yet another angel warns that those who don't fear God and give Him glory (i.e., those who align themselves with the enemy of God),

…will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…" (14:11)

What rich and frightening imagery. Picture this scene and realize that God, in the midst of it all, is not dwarfed or obscured by these magnificent creatures and mighty events. He remains the overpowering Presence and focus of both heaven and earth.

I think most of us like to think about God in a far less fearsome way. We cling to His tenderness, His mercy, His image as Abba, Father. We say, "God is love; God is forgiving." This is true, of course. But we tend to emphasize these attributes of God and ignore His awesome power and His inherent wrath.

If we truly recognized God in His fulness, if we understood not only His love but also His judgment, we might understand what it means to fear God. If we truly feared God, who would dare to speak lightly or carelessly about Him?

Consider this from an LDS man who occasionally emails me:

The real reason that faithful Latter-day Saints cannot accept Evangelical-Protestant beliefs is simple, because your god is a LOSER…. For you, the choice is heaven or hell and either choice you make is made from fear and ignorance. Ultimately, this means that your god is a SADDEST and a LOSER.

Obviously, faithful Latter-day Saints do not share your same dismal view of deity. I think it's truly a shame that you don't have a more clearer description of your Creator and the Plan Of Salvation.

As for Latter-day Saints, our LOVING God came to seek and save that which is LOST. For us, this just happens to include EVERYONE.

This man seems to cling to certain attributes of God while neglecting others. If we truly feared God, who would dare to mock Him?

Consider these words spoken by Joseph Smith about the biblical God worshiped by Christians:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow -- three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. …All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God -- he would be a giant or a monster. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372)

Or this:

I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the Gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth -- diamond truth; and God is my 'right hand man.' (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:78, emphasis retained from the original)

I tremble to think of "the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger."

A poem by Stephen Crane comes to mind:

A Spirit Sped

A spirit sped
Through spaces of night;
And as he sped, he called,
"God! God!"
He went through valleys
Of black death-slime,
Ever calling,
"God! God!"
Their echoes
From crevice and cavern
Mocked him:
"God! God! God!"
Fleetly into the plains of space
He went, ever calling,
"God! God!"
Eventually, then, he screamed,
Mad in denial,
"Ah, there is no God!"
A swift hand,
A sword from the sky,
Smote him,
And he was dead.

The Book of Revelation reveals our fearsome God, a hater of sin and idolatry, a dispenser of fierce and righteous judgment. Yet at the same time He is our Rescuer and Redeemer who says,

Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." (21:3-4)

As John ended his recording of the Revelation, he cried out in joyful anticipation, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus!" I'm ready for that day. Are you?

A living message to a dead world

by Eric

"Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God." --Acts 19:8

Some would say that making an overt apologia ("defense") for the Christian faith is something that is ineffective and thus should be avoided. In this Postmodern culture, a Christian who insists on exclusive truth (i.e. "there is only one way to God") can too often be written off as narrow-minded and possibly even bigoted.

Does anyone know the origin of such an idea? It can't be the Bible since God's Word clearly shows that we must use every means available whenever we share the Gospel. After all, didn't Jesus himself say that we are supposed to be "wise as serpents but innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). This comes by the power of God, as Paul told the Corinthians that the way He went about sharing truth was not with overly wise philosophy but with the power of the Spirit.

He wrote, "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power" (1 Cor. 2:4). He added in verse 13 that "this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words."

Yet in Acts 19 Paul is caught in up the Spirit, "arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God," at a Jewish synagogue. This was his typical MO during his missionary journeys, as he usually headed straight to the synagogue upon arrival at a new city. How often he was beaten up and almost killed for his unpopular tactics! In fact, he says in 2 Cor. 11:16ff that five times he received "forty lashes minus one"; he was thrice beaten with rods and stoned; and he ended up in prison frequently, often because he was willing to take a stand and not water down the truth. Wherever he found himself, whether in a public square in Athens with philosophers (Acts 17) or disagreeing with Peter about a principle involving doctrine (see Gal. 2:11ff), Paul was not afraid to made a public stand for the truth.

So what has happened in the 21st century? Why do some Christians say they don't want to offend anyone and thus become shy when it comes to telling others about the truth of God's Word? Except for those Christians who consider themselves Pluralists (Universalism, which is the belief that all people eventually make it to heaven) or Inclusivists (the idea that Jesus can be found in other religions and sincerity earns heaven), most evangelical Christians are Exclusivists, saying that anyone without a relationship with the Jesus of the Bible is headed toward an eternity of separation from God. If Exclusivism is true, then anyone who touts a don't-rock-the-boat mentality and couches their words carefully so they don't (God forbid!) offend someone is willing to hide words of eternal life.

But if the Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, and Mormon are headed to an eternity of complete separation from God, don't we have a responsibility to tell them about the Gospel message?

I like Ray Comfort's evangelistic tactic (see Way of the Master), as he uses the law of God to show how inadequate the sinner is before an all-holy God. Using a system he calls "WDJD," he starts off by asking people, "Would you say you are a good person?" More often than not, they will say "yes." Then comes the tough question: "Do you keep the 10 Commandments?" It is fascinating to see how people react, as most reply, "Of course I do," since they've never murdered or committed adultery. They are, they think, good people, much better than the sinners who kill and cheat.

Comfort then follows up with these questions: "Have you ever hated anyone? Have you ever lusted? Have you ever stolen anything?" At this, the person realizes that he's been caught and has fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Comfort has found that getting a person lost before providing him/her of the gospel message results in a better opportunity to get him/her found by the Master.

Is this tactic offensive? As long as we are patient and loving--no finger pointing or screaming is needed!--I believe people will understand the sincerity that motivates Christians like Comfort to unabashedly share their faith. One interviewer connected with Comfort's organization asked a dozen different people who had just heard about this plan of salvation if they were offended. "Of course not!" the answer came back time and again. While they might not have agreed with the Christian's reasoning or were not ready to become Christians, they understood that the main motivation of the person witnessing was to help them, not tear them down.

For those who could get offended ("How dare you say there's only one way to God"), Galatians 4:16 puts it very clearly when Paul wrote, "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" We tell the truth because we care about people. To not tell a person in a burning house about the consequences of remaining in the house would be considered neglect.

So if anyone tells you that it's not politically correct to give a clear gospel message to a lost world, just ask them for a biblical precedent where Jesus, Peter, or Paul didn't make the most of the opportunities they were given. I doubt they'll find anything that suggests we ought to neglect telling others the Gospel message lest we may cause them to become offended.

The most criticized book

by Eric

Along with about 60 of my senior students from the Bible classes that I teach at a private Christian high school, I recently traveled to three different religious venues for educational visits. We visited a conservative Jewish synagogue, a Hare Krishna temple, and an Islamic mosque, spending two hours at each venue. We had visited the Mormon Battalion Center in Old Town, San Diego several weeks before.

While driving home after the Sunday afternoon mosque visit, I suddenly realized how the groundwork for all four faiths was the same. This commonality goes beyond the fact that all three deny that Jesus was God in the flesh, that they think justification before God requires effort on our part to achieve, or that they teach how a person must belong to their faith in order to get the best God has to offer.

Let me give you some hints by providing you with real quotes of these leaders:

Mormon: “We believe it’s true, but we can’t be sure it’s translated correctly.”

Jew: “It can’t be trusted historically. I believe in its spiritual nature, but I’m not foolish enough to believe in stories like the Creation account [the rabbi is an Evolutionist] or Noah.”

Devotee: “Christian leaders took the word reincarnation out of it at the Council of Constantinople in AD 550.”

Muslim: “Its stories about Jesus were written so late that we can’t be sure they are really true. In addition, Paul so tainted it with his personal philosophy.”

Can you guess what the “it” was? Were they talking about the Book of Mormon? The Talmud? The Bhagavad-Gita? The Qur’an? Guess again. In fact, all four spiritual leaders found time in their lectures to criticize the Bible and the lack of reliability they said it had. What is strange is that three of the four men (the Mormon, Jew, and Muslim) made a special point to tell the students how much they like the Bible!

Fortunately, our students have been well grounded on the pertinent issues surrounding the transmission of the biblical text. When I politely corrected the Krishna devotee about his facts and explained how it would have been impossible to have taken reincarnation out of the biblical text in AD 550 since we possess complete copies of the Bible that were copied several hundred centuries earlier, he fumbled around before finally admitting, “Well, I’m no expert on the Bible.”

I felt like saying, “No, sir, you’re not, but maybe you ought to do a little more study before stepping out on a limb and making statements to my students that have no basis in fact.” As for me, I am willing to put the Bible next to any of these religions’ writings, none of which could stand up to the historical/critical tests like the Bible. After all, it is the B-I-B-L-E, and that’s the book for me!

Insurmountable Debt

I was reading Matthew 18, the parable of the unforgiving servant. I was really struck by this:

"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt." (Matthew 18:22-27)

I don't know why I've never thought about it before, but today I recognized what Jesus was saying.

A talent was equal to about 20 years' wages for a laborer. The servant in the parable owed a sum equal to 200,000 years' worth of labor. Let's put that into 2006 dollars. If a years' salary was $30,000, the servant owed his master $6 billion!

Jesus' point in using such a huge sum in the parable was to show us how utterly impossible it is for us to pay our enormous sin debt. Though the servant implored his master to be patient until the servant could pay up, the master knew better. Where would a servant ever get that kind of money? The master had pity on the servant and graciously cancelled his debt.

This all got me to thinking about Mormonism and the way Latter-day Saints understand their sin and God's grace. I can't count the times I've read and been told by Mormons, "We don't believe in salvation by works alone. We believe that good works are necessary, but not enough. We do all we can, but still fall short. That's when God's grace kicks in. Jesus makes up the difference."

LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks said it this way: "When we have done all that we are able, we can rely on God's promised mercy…He is our Savior, and when we have done all that we can, He will make up the difference…" (October 1993 General Conference, quoted in Church News, 1 April 2000, page 14)


A friend of mine uses a boat analogy when talking with Mormons about salvation. An individual's good works are the planks of wood that make up the hull of the boat (salvation). Latter-day Saints believe the grace of God given through Christ is the pitch that fills in the cracks between the planks, making the boat safe and seaworthy. But there's a problem here.

Take a look at how God describes natural man in Romans 1:

"They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." (Romans 1:29-31)

You see, the sin debt for each of us is enormous! Six-billion dollars. Two-hundred-thousand years' worth of labor.

Some might say, "Well, we have eternity to work it off. We can do it if we just have enough time." Sorry, folks. The master in Jesus' parable is already entitled to all the labor his servant can provide. The debt owed is above and beyond normal labor. It is impossible to pay.

And what makes us think that anything we do would be pleasing and acceptable to God anyway? Look again at the qualities He finds in us! How can our sin-tainted good works be used to build a sound boat? In my friend's analogy the truth is that the planks of the boat are all rotten. There's nothing there firm enough to be patched by God's grace. Instead of floating on the water this boat sinks like a stone—and takes anyone relying on it to the bottom of the sea.

No, there's nothing we can contribute to the building of our boat. Like the servant in Jesus' parable, our only hope is grace and mercy. God must provide both the planks and the pitch. And He does. Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!