The Mormon double standard when it comes to evangelism

by Bill

Let's cut to the chase. Evangelical Christianity and the Mormon Church are both very much interested in winning others to their way of thinking. On this there is no argument. The Mormon Church sends out tens of thousands of full-time missionaries to try and convince potential converts that Christianity experienced a "Great Apostasy" and that this was remedied by what they call the "restored gospel" given through their prophet Joseph Smith. Of course, the only way you can experience this "restored gospel" is through the LDS Church.

Clearly the goal of the Mormon missionary is to baptize the potential convert into the LDS Church, which necessitates them abandoning their current church and much of what they currently believe theologically. I actually appreciated Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks' candidness when he said,

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches. But we have differences, and those differences explain why we send missionaries to other Christians..." ("Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1995, p.84).

Fair enough. But here's the rub, Mr. Oaks. When Christians respond in kind they are automatically labeled "anti-Mormons" and demonized. It is assumed that they are motivated only by bigotry. Oh my.

Recently several Christian ministries and churches joined together to distribute hundreds of thousands of DVDs that clearly and lovingly explained the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. The DVD carefully explained what LDS leaders have taught in order to give the viewer a more informed opportunity to properly evaluate LDS truth claims. In fact, much of the DVD contained statements taken directly from LDS sources. Under normal conditions I would think this is how the Mormon doctrine of "free agency" should be practiced, but that is not at all the case.

While Article 11 in the LDS "Articles of Faith" states that Mormons believe that all men should be allowed to worship how, where, or what they may, this is not how things are in reality. Proclaiming the gospel and offering people clarity is a part of Christian worship. Our devotion to God includes proclaiming His message of forgiveness and to expound on what is true as opposed to what is error. However, when we do this, the Mormons react like we just set their foot on fire. I guess the right to proclaim what you believe to be true (which automatically assumes something must be false) is reserved only for those who are members of the LDS Church. It sure seems that way.

The Mormon Church put out an official statement which said in part,

"When Latter-day Saint missionaries visit homes or engage others in conversation, they studiously avoid criticism of other faiths."

If that is true then the missionaries are not doing their job. Page seven of Preach My Gospel (the new missionary manual, 2004) states that missionaries are to "help investigators see the patterns of apostasy and restoration" and "help people recognize that the Church is not just another religion." Helping a person conclude that his church is apostate is not a criticism?

Missionaries aside, what about all those kind comments from LDS leaders over the years?

News pieces in Salt Lake City decried the efforts of these horrible "anti-Mormons." One news cast accused some Christian participants in Arizona of being part of a "hate group"! How dare these "mean-spirited" Christians even hint that Mormons should leave their church! My friend, greater hypocrisy cannot be found in all of Zion, for what Mormon missionary does not want to lead a person out of their present church and into the Mormon Church? If they deny it, they are lying, pure and simple.

Over the years I have had several Mormon missionaries come to my home and I have always treated them with respect and dignity. I have also had pieces of paper taped to my door announcing upcoming functions at the local ward building. I've even had a couple of 12-year-old Mormon deacons come up to me asking for my "fast offering." At two different movie theaters I've been approached by Mormon missionaries and never once have I fired off an angry email to a mission president or stake president demanding that they "leave me alone!" because "I already have my religion!" I fully recognize that they have their right in this wonderful country to believe whatever they want, even though that belief pegs me as a part of an apostate Christendom that adheres to abominable creeds and abases itself before the "mythical throne of a mythical Christ" (as one late Mormon apostle said).

Pardon me, I forgot that Mormons don't criticize other faiths.

If Mormons can't seem to understand that all of us have a worldview that we'd like others to share, and that this passion for truth causes us to tell others, then I have to really wonder what motivates Mormon missionaries. Perhaps I've been wrong to assume that they are motivated by love and concern. Maybe they are just "doing their time" to please their parents or church. If Mormons can't even consider that our motivation is based in love for them as people, then why do they feel we are obligated to assume the same for them?

Nah, to hear the many complaints from Mormons over this DVD, I guess my role as a Christian is to just silently sit back and let only the Mormons do the talking because in their mind it is "unchristlike" to do anything else.

Funny, I don't recall Jesus doing that.

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.

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.

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 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.

Mormonism and Spiritual Experience

A couple of weeks ago (July 8th) LDS Deseret News printed a column by staff writer Jerry Johnston. He told this story:

Not long ago I was visiting a woman from Mexico who had been praying about joining my own church, the LDS Church. She said the Virgin Mary came to her in a dream and told her she should remain a Catholic.

My first thought was God must have seen that it was me shepherding her along a spiritual path and decided he had a better chance of getting religion into her life through the Virgin Mary.

My second thought was I had to respect her spiritual experience.

Those who believe in the spiritual realm, I think, must not only trust their own spiritual experiences--whatever they may be--but they must also trust and respect the spiritual experiences of others. If you don't do that, you become an ugly oxymoron, you become "spiritually superior."

I told the woman she should trust her heart. Given her family ties, personal history, her commitments and temperament, God knew best what was best for her.

Mr. Johnston is refreshing in that he recognizes the need to be consistent. If you go about telling people that the way to know truth is to ask God for a sign, then you must accept the outcome.

Mormonism teaches the way to know truth is to seek just such a spiritual sign. Mormon missionaries tell people to pray about the Book of Mormon: Ask God in the name of Christ if the book is true; and if the petitioner is sincere, asks with real intent, and has faith in Christ, God will allegedly make the truth clear by the power of the Holy Ghost (Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4).

But in my experience most Latter-day Saints, unlike Mr. Johnston, will not take "no" for an answer. When I explain to Mormons my own experience of prayerfully reading the Book of Mormon, since the answer I received was that the Book of Mormon is not true, they typically respond in one of two ways:

• They tell me I was not sincere in my prayer; or
  
• They instruct me to continue praying, asking for confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true, until I get a different answer (i.e., that the Book of Mormon is true)
  

But the fact of the matter is, the Moroni 10:4 prayer is unbiblical in and of itself. The Bible never tells us to pray to know whether something is true. It tells us to search the revealed Word of God in order to know truth. A Mormon's "yes" answer to the Moroni 10:4 prayer is no more or less valid than a non-Mormon's "no" answer. Truth is not confirmed by spiritual feelings (often reported as a burning in the bosom by Latter-day Saints); it is brought to light by testing truth claims against God's Word (for example, see: 1 John 4:1, 6; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Lest you get the wrong idea, my own "prayerful reading [of] the Book of Mormon" did not follow the Moroni 10:4 model. This revelation usually produces an "Aha!" moment in my Mormon friends. But I did read the book, start to finish, with a sincere hope to know the truth. I did pray each time I picked the book up and each time I set it down. And I prayed continually as I read. I asked God for discernment. I asked Him for wisdom. I asked that He keep me from deception. I asked for a sound mind so I would understand what I was reading. I read with an open Bible sitting beside me, searching the Scriptures while testing the truth claims of the Book of Mormon against them. God answered my prayers; by following the biblical instructions to test all things I received the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. But most Mormons will not accept my testimony.

In the story from Deseret News Mr. Johnston accepted his friend's visionary dream of the Virgin Mary as a direct answer from God to her prayer. He told the woman to trust her heart, though from his perspective it meant she would remain in a false church worshiping a mythical Christ (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 269). Somehow Mr. Johnston was able to understand this as God's best for his friend.

The Bible, however, has this to say about trusting one's heart:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool; but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." (Proverbs 28:26)

"And He said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. Far from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:20-23)

Trust your heart? Bad advice. Evil things come from the unregenerate hearts of men and women. Instead, trust the Lord. Obey His command to walk wisely and you will be delivered.

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!