ouketi egO (No longer I)

The Fo-Mo Chronicles: Thoughts on hearing from a "General Authority"

2009-10-28T17:37:00.000-07:00

I thought the following comment from The Fo-Mo Chronicles: Thoughts on hearing from a "General Authority" was an excellent description of the difference between the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit and the Mormon role of the Holy Ghost as represented in a recent talk by a general authority:

"[The talk contained] [n]ot a hint of the Biblical doctrine of being born again through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is relegated to a baptismal gift, given after baptism to be a helper so we know which works we need to perform and which sins we need to repent of so we can clean ourselves."

Creating other worlds?

2009-08-06T20:33:00.000-07:00

I apologize that I have long since lost the link to the original blog post and comment (I think it was Mormon Coffee. Here is a comment that I made in response:

HankSaint said: "show me where in our Meetinghouses, General Conferences, Sunday School Classes, Standard Works, where we teach any of these principles [creating our own worlds as Gods]"

I agree that critics of the Church may sensationalize these doctrines, but as a life-long member of the Church, I and others have discussed the veracity of each of these doctrines one or more times in our Meetinghouses.

For example, I don't know how many times in Elders Quorum or High Priest Group we have joked about how things would be different on the world(s) we create. Heck (oops my Utah upbringing showing), I remember that Camilla Kimball (wife of the late prophet Spencer W. Kimball) once commented about her fear of snakes and that on her world there would be none.

I don't know how many times I have sung in our Meetinghouses the hymn "O My Father" which says it is only logical that we have a Heavenly Mother.

etc, etc.

Again, the tone of the critics can be over the top but it might be explained by their shock at doctrines that are so contrary to Biblical teachings.

I hope I can always give "an answer to every man...with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15) but to deny that these doctrines are not part of the fabric of Mormonism is wrong. Some of them may be a thread; others may be whole cloth.

Should the LDS Church keep records of past disciplinary councils?

2009-07-29T12:58:00.001-07:00

This is my comment to a blog post on Mormon Matters about whether the LDS Church should keep a record of past disciplinary councils for its members in light of the idea that God forgives and forgets.

I agree with Latter-day Guy that the practical reasons for keeping this information in certain cases are compelling, especially to limit the church's liability and to protect possible future victims.

However, from a spiritual, doctrinal perspective...

Why would we expect the institution to forgive and forget when that is not what the D&C teaches that God will do?

The statement in D&C 58:42 applies to those who have forsaken (never repeated) those sins. For those who are repeat offenders, it all comes back to haunt them:

"And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God." (D&C 82:7)

So, I am not surprised that the Church does not expunge these records because it doesn't believe God will either. Since we are natural man and are doomed to repeat them, let's keep them on file as evidence, if needed.

After becoming an evangelical Christian after more than 4 decades in the LDS Church, this doctrine--in hindsight--is a most devastating and depressing condition and is counter to the Grace of Jesus Christ (Jeremiah 31:34; Isaiah 43:25; Ephesians 2:8-10 to quote a few).

We will never be perfect here on earth. But rather than count that against us, God has imputed His righteousness to His believers through the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24-28). By faith we are justified and thus freed to do good works without fear that if we stumble our works were all for naught.

Bottom line: Faith save us and gets us to heaven. Works determine our rewards in heaven. A lack of perfect works does not disqualify us.

I know this is nothing new to those who frequent the bloggernacle but even an EV feels compelled to bear testimony once in a while.

Do you have to be Mormon to get into heaven?

2009-04-22T05:13:00.001-07:00

I posted a response to a comment on the blog Mormon Matters about the topic Does the LDS Church claim to be “an exclusive conduit to God”?

Matthew Chapman said:

"Just a quick point of perspective. The vast majority of vicarious work will not be performed by “Mormons” - it will occur during the millenium, at which time “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” must technically cease to exist as an organization. After all, by that time the “Latter Days” will be over and done with."

Growing up in the church I was never taught the church as an organization would go away during the millennium but that Christ would rule his kingdom/church personally on the earth.

"Brigham Young taught that there will be nonmembers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living on earth as well as members. There will be two great works for members of the Church during the Millennium: temple work and missionary work" (Gospel Principles, Unit Nine: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, 44: The Millennium, 282)

Why do Mormons bristle when Evangelicals say that LDS believe that you have to be baptized a Mormon to get into heaven? The prayer for the proxy confirmation following vicarious baptism specifically confirms the dead as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mary as Partner in Salvation

2009-02-28T07:17:00.000-08:00

Here is a comment I posted on Mormon Coffee about a comment on the post Joseph Smith as a Passport into God’s Presence

falcon said:

"This concept of Joseph Smith punching the ticket to heaven would be right up there with something as absurd as Catholics teaching that Mary the mother of Jesus having to give the OK to get into heaven…….which they don’t teach BTW"

Actually, one of the messages to come out of the miracles at Fatima and Lourdes is that Mary is a partner in salvation. In a French publication that I picked up as an LDS missionary in France the statement is made:

"Elle (Marie) est aussi la co-rédemptrice, la co-salvatrice."

Mary is considered the co-redeemer and co-savior by those who revere these apparitions.

I was researching this because while teaching the First Vision I was often challenged whether other "visions" in history--such as Fatima and Lourdes--were authentic. As a young and ignorant missionary (most of us were dumb and not necessarily deceptive), I could only say that it depended on what was revealed in the event. If it conflicted with scripture, then it was not of God. Only now, do I see the irony as it relates to Joseph Smith.

Getting on With My Life

2009-02-28T06:44:00.000-08:00

Here is another comment that I posted on mormon matters about the post "Every exmember a missionary."

Jen said:

"It is hard for me to understand why a person who has left the church feels a need to keep hanging on to it by talking about it and spending time debating all the issues. It seems a better use of time and life to just drop what isn’t working and to find what does and then live life."

For me, there are two reasons: My friends and family who still remain in the church whom I love deeply AND because truth matters.

I know that many Mormons sincerely seek to heed the admonition to come to Christ (2 Nephi 25:26) including my own children who are still LDS. However, Mormonism--by its own definition--teaches a different Christ than the traditional church (JSH 1:19). That distinctiveness was reiterated by President Hinckley in 1998 (click for Church News article).

The Bible teaches that a correct knowledge of the nature of God is paramount to salvation (John 17:3) and Joseph Smith agrees: "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God" (History of the Church, 6:305).

I hope that I am never guilty of criticizing LDS people for their sincerity nor the experiences which lead them to their faith. But I must put everything to the test (1 Jn 4;1; 1 Thes 5:21) for the sake of my own salvation and preach the true gospel for the salvation of others (Romans 10:10).

For me, that is "getting on with my life."

Every exmember a missionary?

2009-02-28T05:21:00.000-08:00

Here is a comment that I posted on mormon matters about the post "Every exmember a missionary."

Andrew S. said:

But I am still put in this strange position…where I become the liaison for the church and for the LDS doctrine. And then I realize that because I am viewed as a somewhat reputable source despite my warnings otherwise, even as an exmember, I still am a missionary of sorts.

I can relate to this. I have had the opportunity many times to share my story of leaving the LDS church after becoming a born-again Christian. But when my audience hears that I was a member for 47 years, they change the subject from my story of finding God's grace to a question-and-answer session about Mormon doctrine.

For example, I was a guest on the radio program Truth Talk Live not long after my conversion. In the first segment, I shared my testimony of Grace. But for the rest of the hour the callers wanted to know about Mormonism, so I fielded questions just as you have been talking about. I was honest and fair and corrected a few misconceptions about the church. (The host thought that people paid to have vicarious temple work done for their ancestors much like the Catholic indulgence.")

Some of them were quite pointed and one guy even wanted to talk Adam-God theory. I summarized the questioning by saying this: There is enough in the basic, canonical Mormon Doctrine to engage LDS and those who are investigating the church. We don't have to resort to "fringe" doctrines to show that the LDS Church is not "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30)

For example President Hinckley's statement that the LDS church does not worship the same Jesus as traditional Christianity is fertile ground for discussions about God's true nature.

I find it vital to continue to keep my pulse on the church's doctrinal positions through their publications because I know that I will be asked about them by people who know I used to be a member and they can trust that I will give them a straight answer.

Falling from Grace?

2009-02-27T05:11:00.000-08:00

I posted this comment on Latter Day Saint Woman in response to this comment.

peacethroughgrace said:

"One cannot lose their salvation, if it was a true surrender to Christ Jesus."

When LDS, I feared what all LDS do: sinning again means all those former sins come back to me (D&C 82:7). Not until I received God's grace did I understand that trusting Him meant He and His grace are sufficient to wash away my sins even if I occasionally fall back into them.

LDS believe one falls from grace by sinning (D&C 20:32). Yet Paul makes it clear that you fall from grace by trying to make works the way to please God to obtain His salvation (Galatians 5:4; Galatians 2:21; Romans 11:6).

Grace is not cheap; it is priceless.

Don't forget our first love!!

2009-02-21T18:24:00.000-08:00

The Bible study I attend at work is studying Revelation. I posted the following comment on their blog about the letter to the church at Ephesus.

I can relate the church at Ephesus with some friends that I have in the blogosphere. I am active with a number of blogs that include former Mormons or who are involved in evangelical outreach to Mormons. But I fear that too often the point becomes to prove Mormonism wrong without including the greater message--the gospel of Jesus Christ.

To the Ephesians, Jesus said "you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars...Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love." (Revelation 2:2-4)

If we do not lead people to Christ--only lead them away from their false prophets and gods--I don't know that we do them any long-term good. See Matthew 12:43-45.

True repentance

2009-02-18T07:10:00.000-08:00

I posted a comment on Latter Day Saint Woman to this post: "Your Heavy Burden of Sin Has Been Removed!"

The other analogy I heard quite often was that sin is like pounding nails into a board and repentance is like pulling them out. Of course, the problem is that it leaves a hole. So, the moral is do not sin in the first place so "your board" won't be damaged.

(I know that this is more a cultural teaching than a doctrinal one. Click here to see an article about Jeffrey Holland debunking this one. But it is not uncommon thinking among the saints.)

When I was LDS I taught and was taught in so many ways that sin leaves damages--not just temporal consequences of sin, but that you never fully recover spiritually unless you forsake that sin completely.

For example, I was incorrectly taught that the Prodigal Son never did regain his inheritance when he returned. The Father's statement to his righteous son is used as proof. Marion G. Romney says the Prodigal never regains his inheritance because the "‘father’ himself cannot undo the effect of his son’s refusal to learn wisdom in time to preserve his inheritance..."

But Grace is not a pie and the more someone else gets the less we get. The text shows the Prodigal was returned to full fellowship and a full inheritance including immediate legal status as the trustee of the estate (he was given the father's coat and ring which sealed wax on legal documents).

Notice how the Prodigal DID NOTHING except turn back to the Father to win his father's favor (grace not works) . True repentance means a turning around (an attitude, a change of heart) not a process that must be played out. Otherwise, it would never end because the possibility of "re-sinning" would be there until death and resurrection.

Often, church members were taught that perfection was obtained by overcoming (perfectly forsaking) one sin at a time until you got them all like stepping-stones: "If we can live one gospel principle perfectly today, we can live two principles perfectly tomorrow. Perfection in one thing can act as a stepping-stone to perfection in something else."

In reality, the Lord does not remember (list, enumerate, count against us) those former sins even when we fall back into them occasionally. Of course, if the pattern of that sin was never interrupted, I believe the original re-birth probably was not authentic.

John MacArthur, one of my favorite Bible teachers, recently gave an awesome radio sermon on the story of Saul and the destruction (or lack of total destruction) of the Amalekites. I believe it is a good description of how born-agains such as I can claim to be saved from sin yet still commit sin. How we can repent and still not be perfect.

"...this is a tremendous insight into God's attitude toward sinners and His holiness and wrath against sin. But I want to use it just as an analogy, if I might, this morning. It is an excellent illustration analogically of the sin that remains in the believer's life. When you were saved and I was saved there was at that moment a crushing defeat of sin...a crushing defeat. From one end to the other, east to west, north to south our sin was crushed. But we still have remaining sins.

"There are some Amalekites running around loose in every one's life. We all have our Agags. And the problem in our Christian lives is not that sin has not been defeated with a crushing defeat, it has but there is still remaining sin. There are some loose iniquitous Amalekites in all of us. And though there was a great and glorious and triumphant defeat at the time of our salvation, there is the necessity that the remaining sins be hacked to pieces or they will revive, they will plunder our hearts and sap our spiritual strength. We cannot be merciful with the Agags of our life. We cannot be merciful with the remaining sins in our life or they will turn and create an insurrection and a rebellion to attempt to destroy us."

But the victory was gained, nonetheless, when Jesus accomplished the work and Satan was crushed. Praise God!!

Dude Where's My Keys?

2009-02-14T04:13:00.000-08:00

I left the following comment on the blog I Love Mormons about this post Dude Where's My Keys?

faithoffathers was quoted:

"LDS interpretation of these verse [Matthew 16:16-19], in my opinion, is the only one that makes sense and provides the cohesive context for why these concepts are placed together. 1. Spirit of Revelation of Christ 2. Establishment of Church on a foundation 3. Keys of authority. Other interpretations break up these verses into different topics. "

When I was an LDS teacher (gospel doctrine, Elder's quorum and High Priest group), I also taught this progression of the concepts, that each statement builds on the other. However, I have come to realize that each statement is built upon the first. Each one points back to the original question and thesis: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v.16).

Let's look at each statement and discover that the antecedent in each case is v.16 not the statement which immediately precedes it

Statement: "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it" (v. 17)

Immediate antecedent: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona"

Correct Antecedent: The "it" of verse 17 is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

Conclusion: The Spirit of Revelation (as faithoffathers puts it).

Statement: "upon this rock I will build my church" (v. 18)

Immediate antecedent: "That thou art Peter"

Correct Antecedent: The "this rock" of verse 18 is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

Conclusion: Establishment of Church on a foundation (as faithoffathers puts it) is upon Jesus' "Christ-ness," if you will, and not upon Peter the man (or his office as the Catholics would insist).

Statement: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (v. 19)

Immediate antecedent: "gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

Correct Antecedent: The "keys of the kingdom of heaven" of verse 17 is "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

Conclusion: Keys of authority (as faithoffathers puts it) to open and shut the doors of the kingdom based on the testimony of the divinely-given knowledge that Jesus is the "Christ, the Son of the living God" not based on man-made ordinances and ceremonies.

John MacArthur teaches that binding and loosing (v.19) are about forbidding and permitting entrance based on testimony that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." The keys are authority based on revelation.

"Then Jesus said, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind [forbid] on earth [shall have been forbidden] in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose [permit] on earth [shall have been permitted] in heaven.' The apostles' decisions would reflect the will of God." (Christ Displays His Glory)

"In other words, when you say to someone...'You won't repent, you're bound in your sin,'heaven is in agreement with that. You're doing on earth what has been done in heaven, like the disciples' prayer says. And if you say to someone, 'You know, I want to tell you, because of your confession of faith in Jesus Christ and your affirmation that He's your Savior and Lord, your sins are loosed from you, you are forgiven,' and when you said that you know you're saying on earth what heaven has already said. So here we are, this great eternal plan is being worked out that God ordained before time began with the Son and heaven is on schedule with it and we get to be the earthly gate keepers who act in harmony with heaven. What a privilege." (I Will Build My Church)

Councils and Canon

2009-02-12T19:43:00.000-08:00

I left the following comment on the blog Mormon Coffee for this post Fruits of the First Vision

RalphG said:

"As far as the Councils, yes they were set up to remove what was seen as heretical teachings - but in order to define what was heretical they had to come to an agreement as to what they wanted as standard teachings first. There were a few parties/theologies involved and the ones with greater support and louder voices won. After the creed was drawn up, anything else was then considered heretical. According to one webpage I have read there were at least 3 factions (deity theologies) represented - Arius was one. What would the Christian movement be like now if his party had the greater influence?"

As a gospel doctrine teacher for decades, I was adamant about allowing only the standard works and the conference addresses as lesson material in my classes. You will find, especially in blogs like this one, that LDS will rally around the canon as the only ground on which they want to engage. I don't blame them. And I feel that there is enough "fertile ground" in the LDS canon in which to engage the spiritual battle, as it were.

So why are attempts by the traditional Christian church to define a canon, whether it be scripture or doctrine, unlike the LDS method? They are similar:

1 - The law of common consent. The LDS canon is the canon because members have accepted it and have bound themselves to it. The councils were meant to arrive to a similar agreement. R.C. Sproul points out that the Latin term recipemus (which means "we receive") is a common thread. Doesn't this sound like raising the right hand, figuratively speaking? "What the church said is that we receive these particular books as being canonical, as being apostolic in authority and origin, and therefore we submit to their authority."

2 - Opposing views. My understanding as a member of the LDS church was that the vocal nature of the councils seemed to eliminate the divine. But, LDS history is not short of "louder voices" who won. But LDS would say that God's hand was in those arguments. Louder won not because it was louder but because it was right? Why can we not say that the right won out in the councils?

Both LDS and traditional Christians claim divine intervention. Both groups had their detractors. For example, Emma Smith was one. "What would the [Mormon] movement be like now if [her non-polygamist] party had the greater influence?"

Triune is Simple; Trinity is Beautiful

2009-02-12T19:04:00.001-08:00

As a Mormon, I was always taught (and I myself taught to others) that the Trinity was almost a comical notion. For example, I am old enough to remember when the temple ceremony included a character (caricature, rather) of the traditional Christian preacher who espoused this pernicious doctrine. Jeffrey Holland said in a recent conference address, "that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible."

I don't why it is hard to comprehend, or at least acknowledge. The LDS seem to have no problem understanding eternity but I find that hard to get my mind around it. Eternity is not just a really, really, really long time. It is timeless. It doesn't start; it doesn't end. Even LDS scriptures states "the Lord's course is one eternal round" (D&C 3:2) I find that harder to fathom than the simple statements about the triune God. I believe in eternity, but I can't picture it. Why should the Trinity be different if the Word of God supports it?

Now, I realize there are some complex statements about and attempts to define the Trinity. But I think they make the same mistake as those who dismiss it.

Click this link to see a simple presentation of the Trinity. I like its simple, clean layout. The points are few and clear. The meat of the issue is behind the links to hundreds of scriptures that support it.

This is the Trinity. Not complex. Not complicated. But greater than anything we can comprehend.

Where Have I Been?

2009-02-12T18:47:00.000-08:00

So sorry!!

It has been a long time since I've posted here. My wife and I have been busy with real life and hanging out in other areas of the blogosphere:

I am managing a blog for the bible study group at his work. We are currently studying the Book of Revelation and having a fun time doing it.

I also author a blog to share my thoughts about the Sunday School lessons at our church, Elkin First United Methodist.

And I spend a lot of time at the Mormon Coffee since I am is a former Mormon and want to be part of the outreach to the LDS people (although I wish I had time to comment more there also).

Kirsten has transferred to the local office of the counseling group she works for. No more commute--YEA! She is also involved with the confirmation class at the church. She feels like God is using her, and the excellent youth minister we have, to reach these kids for Christ.

Kirsten and I are both involved in the evangelism team at church. I am the team leader this year and so there is a lot of planning going on.

So, I apologize for letting our lives carry me away from my blogging home. I am back, I promise.

2009-01-13T18:49:00.001-08:00

I posted the following reply to a post on Mormon Coffee claiming that critics of the Book of Mormon haven't read it.

I have probably read the Book of Mormon 20 times in my life. This includes, of course, Sunday School lessons on the Book of Mormon every four years. As a Gospel Doctrine teacher, I have taught a part or a full year of the course three different times. I even took the Book of Mormon class twice at BYU (by choice not because I had to retake it).

In fact I continue to read it today. (I am just starting on the book of Alma and look forward to reviewing that book's discussion of being born again ("this mighty change in your hearts") and compare it with my experience since coming to Christ through grace not works.

I must admit that the Book of Mormon is an enigma. I know that many non-Mormons who have read it find it difficult to stay awake but I thought it was a good read. The book contains good stories and some good counsel and a sincere attempt at expounding truth. Sometime I will have to relate my experience with the Book of Mormon on the night of September 11th.

But the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be.

* There is no archaeological evidence of "the ancient inhabitants of the Americas" described in the Book of Mormon.

* The Book of Mormon is not "the most correct of any book on earth" given the revisions with doctrinal significance and the anachronisms.

* The Book of Mormon does not contain "the fulness of the everlasting gospel" . Other essential doctrines of salvation needed to be included in other books in the LDS cannon. The Book of Mormon does not include important salvidic ordinances such as modern temple ordinances and does not endorse the practice of plural marriage which was taught in early Church history to be required for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

There are other reasons and I know that Mormons will dismiss these as the "same old tired" attacks. I know the defenses against these critiques of the Book of Mormon. I used them often as a Mormon including a two-year mission in France. But once I learned to trust the Bible rather than discount it, I could not square the Book of Mormon with what the Bible said.

The bottom line for me: The Bible is the Word of God; the Book of Mormon is a book that talks about God.

Moroni's promise says to ask "if these things are not true." I believe the Holy Spirit tells me it is not. That is, not the Word of God.

I hope that I am never guilty of criticizing or "mocking" LDS people for their sincerity nor the experiences which lead them to their faith. But so many people of different religions claim personal revelation to support their view (in fact, I just did and I hope you find my testimony just as sincere).

But I must put everything to the test (1 Jn 4;1; 1 Thes 5:21) for the sake of my own salvation and preach the true gospel for the salvation of others (Romans 10:10).

Are Mormons Christian

2009-01-12T19:39:00.000-08:00

The following is my reply to a post on Mormon Coffee by an former Mormon discussing the question "Are Mormons Christian?"

Katrina,
I relate so much to your kind words. The difference in my life after truly understanding (and receiving) God's grace is hard to describe; but you have made a valiant attempt.

I too was an active, temple-worthy Mormon (with a stake calling). Like you, I have a firm grasp on the Mormon theology. I have studied it, taught it and defended it. I left the LDS church not because I had a problem with the church's history or doctrine or culture or because of serious transgression or because of being offended. I left because after more than 40 years of trying to overcome trials and burdens (many of my own making) the Lord showed His love unconditionally.

Then, I experienced a renewing of the mind that melted away so many of the apologetic arguments that tried to justify Mormon doctrines and practices. Of course, such a change included getting into God's Word through His Holy Spirit. (Yes, many non-Mormons can and do base their testimonies on a divine witness in addition to exercising their God-given intellect).

For example, Mormonism teaches that "the Lord...should not come to redeem them in their sins but to redeem them from their sins because of repentance" (Helaman 5:10-11). And Mormonism requires you to forsake your sins before it is considered repentance. Hence you are not redeemed until you stop sinning. I was on the spiritual treadmill never feeling like I could achieve the goal.

How beautiful is God's true grace where we can be redeemed while we are still sinners (Romans 5:8) and be saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10) which follows true faith (not precede it nor qualify us for that grace).

Now, I don't intend to rekindle the works versus faith debate. Although Mormons think that the question is simply semantic and the LDS church shares the traditional Christian orthodoxy on salvation, the day-to-day living that results from the traditional Christian approach is incredible. You have to experience it to understand it. And obviously you have, Katrina. Praise God for that.
A senior missionary couple visited the other day and asked me "Knowing everything you know, how could you walk away?" I told them I did not feel that I was walking away from something; I was walking toward something. What an understatement!

Walking away

2009-01-03T16:24:00.000-08:00

A senior missionary couple visited me Friday to invite me back to church. It was not their first visit. They had dropped by unannounced in November to invite me to the ward Thanksgiving party. They came by a couple of weeks later to drop off the "Lamb of God" DVD (which is an hilarious story by itself where my wife was scared because people were coming to our house in the woods late at night when I was not home).

Then they called me and set an appointment to come by on Friday. It was a very amicable visit. The sister missionary started out by saying that she felt a different spirit about me when we first met. I guess that meant I didn't seem to be a mean anti-Mormon beast.

We talked for about an hour. I shared my born-again story and discussed doctrinal differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism. It did not devolve into a Bible bash. But God guided me through important points that helped them understand that I had no choice once I found grace but to leave the LDS Church.

Near the end, the Sister asked me, "After going on a mission and serving in the Church so long, how could you walk away from it?"

I said. "I don't feel like I am walking away from anything. I feel like I am walking toward something." (I know, understatement of the decade!!)

The Elder added that he had tried to go inactive twice in his life when he got "fed up" but could not stay away. He said he could not understand how I could leave knowing what I would be missing.

But, I said to him, you were walking away because you were angry or hurt or something like that. You came back because you had nothing else. I did not leave the LDS Church because of sin, or hurt feelings from other members, or even because of doctrine and history (although since being born again the "renewing of the mind" has certainly given me the discernment to know the truth).

I am walking to Jesus not away from men (John 6:67-68).

Priesthood today?

2008-12-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

The following post on Mormon Coffee (actually split in four parts) is an excellent discussion of why the priesthood is not needed today as Christ fulfilled the need. The author's conclusion: "To re-introduce priest and temple in the sense of the LDS restoration is to undo Christ’s unique mission"

Part 1

Amanda, I like your style. The Priesthood of Christ is one of those big-ticket themes of the Bible that’s easy to miss if we’re not careful to read scripture from the viewpoint of those who wrote it. Releasing the Bible back into its native environment is hard work for us, not least because we don’t see Priest and Temple operating as they did in Biblical Times. We’d rather keep the Bible as a domesticated pet. But its rather like keeping a Cheetah on a chain in the back yard; we’ll never really appreciate what it truly is until we see it sprinting after Springbok on an African plain. The writer of Hebrews tackles this particular subject head-on. His principal concern is to persuade Jewish believers not to lose confidence in Christ by reverting to a reliance on the law. He argues that the law points to Christ because his audience was in danger of getting it the wrong way round. The term ‘the law’ is the subject of some debate among theologians. My conviction is that it is short-hand for ‘the law and the prophets’, or the system of religion including scripture, priest and temple. To the NT Jews like Paul, ‘the law’ was both something that they did and it was something that was done to them. For example, Paul claims that he was a product of the law and he supported and promoted it, as did all the good Pharisees of his day

Part 2

The problem was that the law didn’t deliver. It wasn’t a case of optimizing the people’s observance of the law – the Temple that Jesus visited was a well-oiled machine that was the product of generation upon generation of devoted effort. The Gospels record Jesus’ acknowledgement of the success of the Pharisees in applying the law to the tiniest detail (Matt 23:23). Despite this fantastic enterprise, and despite the fact that it was ordained by God, its failure was apparent in several outcomes; there was no Davidic King (1 Kings 9:5), Israel was under occupation and still in a kind of exile (Ex 6:6-8), the land was not healed because it was full of demons (2 Chron 7:14), the physical cloud of God’s glory was not present in the temple (2 Chron 7:1), the corrupt behavior of the priesthood demonstrated that God’s law was not written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). All of these were promises derived from God’s covenant with Abraham, but none were a reality in NT times. In short, God was not present among his people as promised (2 Sam 7:25-26). So, the question behind the NT was this; if the system had failed, what was it all about? The answer, according to the NT was that law was not an end in itself, but it foreshadowed the real deal (Heb 10:1), the mission of Christ. Thus Paul writes that the law testifies about Christ (Romans 3:23), it brings us (specifically the believing Jews) to Christ (Gal 3:24) and that Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). In other words, the purposes and intents of scripture, priest and temple are brought to a climactic conclusion in the life and ministry of Christ himself.

Part 3

This idea was sealed upon the minds of the early Christians by the sacking of Jerusalem and its temple in 70AD. To them, God had rolled up the former things like an old cloak that had served its purpose. The old system of priest and temple was spent; its job was finished, like an old wineskin (Matt 9:17). The priestly ministry of Christ is worked out at Calvary, in which he had taken the blood of the new Covenant into the true Holy of Holies and “obtained an eternal redemption for us” (Heb 9:12). If the OT priests and temple were a kind of ‘dress rehearsal’, then this was the real deal. There’s no longer any need to repeat the rehearsals, which is why Christians no longer practice animal sacrifice. Prior to getting married, you’d probably do a wedding rehearsal. Having done the wedding proper, you don’t go back to the rehearsals again and again. If you did, people might think that you’re constantly getting out of the covenant you’ve made with your spouse and they would quite rightly question whether your arrangements had anything to do with marriage at all.

Part 4

By his work at the cross, Christ has done all that was needed to inaugurate the New Covenant and he has done all that us needed to implement or apply it. He has done it when the best of us failed. He is the Great High Priest who has gone into the heavens, and when we are in him we enter with him into the presence of God himself. The curtain is now torn, the way is now open, we are now fully and perfectly reconciled to God. What’s more is that in Christ, God’s people truly fulfil their vocation as a royal priesthood and a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9). Our mission differs from Christ’s only in this respect; he brings mercy and we benefit by receiving it. Too often, the idea of priesthood has been used to claim that only one ‘ordained’ or anointed class has the right to mediate between man and God, whereas the NT view is that priesthood is all about being a living demonstration of God’s mercy. The LDS view does in fact run contrary to this notion. Given that so much LDS theology is garnished from orthodox sources (albeit by a ‘pick and mix’ method), the only distinctive of the “restoration” was the restoration of the priesthood. Fundamentally, this says that the Gospel cannot function without an earthly priesthood and the earthly priesthood does not exist unless it can trace its mandate to Joseph Smith jnr. The explicit LDS position is that there is no access to God other than through this “restored” priesthood; we cannot enter into an LDS temple without the intervention of the LDS priesthood. If we can’t get into the temple, we can’t get to God. Its as if the curtain were sewn up again. To re-introduce priest and temple in the sense of the LDS restoration is to undo Christ’s unique mission. It is to fall into the error that the writer to the Hebrews warned his audience against.

http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/the-main-claim-of-mormonism/#IDComment12129246

http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/the-main-claim-of-mormonism/#IDComment12129255

http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/the-main-claim-of-mormonism/#IDComment12129260

http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/the-main-claim-of-mormonism/#IDComment12129269

Is it un-Christian to criticize Mormonism?

2008-12-05T18:30:00.000-08:00

I posted a response to this comment posted on Mormon Coffee.

Andrea replied:
you can't be serious. The Latter-Day Saint Church is all about coming to Christ. It's part of being a Mormon. I have a strong testimony of Jesus Christ and serving Him. I am doing a research projoect for school and when I come across these "chip-on-the-shoulder" ex-mormons, I can't help but wonder why they have such negative feelings for other Christians if they claim to follow Christ themselves. I grew up in the church and was inactive for many years. Do you know what I found out there in the world? Here a little and there a little. It took a few years of being stupid to realize I was wasting my time away from God and His TRUE CHURCH. You can pick it apart if you want to, but is that really helping you toward salvation? The answer is no. May the spirit touch your heart and bear witness as it does, that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Have you read the articles of faith? It talks about believing the scriptures as far as they are translated correctly. So, pray and ask if it's true.

My response:
I know that many Mormons sincerely seek to heed the admonition to come to Christ (2 Nephi 25:26) including my own children who are still LDS. However, Mormonism--by its own definition--teaches a different Christ than the traditional church (JSH 1:19). That distinctiveness was reiterated by President Hinckley in 1998 (click for Church News article).

The Bible teaches that a correct knowledge of the nature of God is paramount to salvation (John 17:3) and Joseph Smith agrees: "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God" (History of the Church, 6:305).

I appreciate your testimony and hope that I am never guilty of criticizing LDS people for their sincerity nor the experiences which lead them to their faith. But I must put everything to the test (1 Jn 4;1; 1 Thes 5:21) for the sake of my own salvation and preach the true gospel for the salvation of others (Romans 10:10).

Mormon Critics are sexual sinners?

2008-11-24T18:41:00.000-08:00

"No offense, but why is it that so many ex-mormons turned public critics experienced their epiphany leaving the church through experiences involving sexual sin?"

I posted the following comment on Mormon Coffee in response to the above comment made immediately following a comment I had posted. (Was this directed at me? At least one other on the blog thought so).

Praise the Lord that He chooses to give sinners an epiphany "while they are yet sinners" (Romans 5:8).

However, I agree with you that far too many outspoken critics of the LDS church live their lives inconsistent with God's commandments. We are all sinners (Romans 3:10), but many of these critics openly declare their lack of faith in anything after leaving the church.

I am sad that they choose to blame God for having been LDS and they replace the church with another set of false teachings or with a lifestyle counter to God's Word. I think they are worse off because of it (Luke 11:24-26).

That is why I try to seek out former LDS members who have come to Christ by His grace. They are examples to me not because they are perfect but because they have entered into the Lord's rest (Hebrews 4:10-11).

Can Man Become God? Have we always been God's children?

2008-11-24T17:14:00.001-08:00

NOTE: This post was originally posted on my other blog, Grace Under Pressure, in August 2008.

Kirsten gave me a book recently called "Now, That's a Good Question" by R.C. Sproul. It is a Q&A book that is a great survey course in Christian doctrine and worldview. It is not an apologetic book like Hank Hanegraaff's Bible Answer books which are great for defending the faith.

God's attributes

On page 6, Dr. Sproul is discussing the phrase "God is love." His comments got me thinking about the nature of God and how man may be created in the image of God but he cannot become God.

Dr. Sproul says, "When we talk about the attributes of God, we're referring to those characteristics that describe God's being [God is love]. When we describe [a person's] attributes, we usually make a distinction between a person and his attributes. For instance, you may say your mother is patient, but you wouldn't say that your mother is patience."

"But God is different from your mother in that it was God's being that defined attributes in the first place...God is His attributes."

I would add that man can have those same attributes but cannot be those attributes and therefore man cannot be nor become God.

Are we created or begotten?

This also reminds me of C.S. Lewis' discussion of creation versus begetting. In his book, Mere Christianity, his reasoning leads me to understand that God created man and placed him on this earth but God did not beget man.

"To beget is to become father of; to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies...But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A man...may make a statue which is very much like the man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man."

"What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is [Matthew 5:9; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26; Revelations 21:7]. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God."

Jesus is the only Begotten of the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16; Psalms 2:7; Acts 13:33-34; 1 Jn 4:9). Not man, not angels (Hebrews 1:5-7).

Burning in the bosom and spirit of contention

2008-11-17T15:53:00.000-08:00

I am posting my response to a comment from a post on the blog Mormon Coffee. I am posting it here because my comment exceeds their word count limit (probably a good hint that I should be more brief, huh?)

falcon wrote:

To "my total amazement, given all the information available to the contrary, Mormons still cling to that special feeling that only comes from God that confirms that what is false is true. I don’t get it!"

I think it boils down to two "feelings."

One, the burning in the bosom (D&C 9: 8) that a Mormon interprets as the Holy Ghost testifying of truth.

Two, the "spirit of contention" (3 Ne. 11: 29) that a Mormon will say exists when someone questions the church.

After being born again, I have a new insight on these feelings.

First, let me say that for a Mormon or a traditional Christian, learning to heed the Spirit is essential in our walk with God. But as a born-again Christian, I have also come to rely on the objective and reasonable measure of the Bible to test the spirits (1 Jn. 4: 1) that I feel/felt.

In hindsight, I can see where I have let my heart deceive me (Deut. 11: 16).

For example, one night after I had been born again, I was emotional while watching Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. (Come on. Admit it. You tear up, too.) And I realized that this emotional response was the same response I got when a testimony-building experience occurred in my life. My heart got the best of me in both cases.

As for the spirit of contention, I compare it to the feeling I get when I am in trouble. I think about being caught for speeding, the time I was caught shoplifting when I was 12 or losing my temper and cussing out someone who did not deserve it. (These are things that have drastically curtailed since finding grace—but that is for another post).

The terrible gut feeling is the same kind of reaction I used to get when reading material critical to the church. It is the same panic; the same sense of desperation. How Mormons react to this varies.

It was after I was on the debate team in high school, that I was able to suppress that feeling. I started having the apologists response to my gut--which was to find any plausible argument that would make it go away.

For most Mormons I know, arguing it away will not work and only makes it worse. So, they resort to bearing their testimony. And the more fervent they speak it, the more they hope it will dissolve the argument and eliminate the bad feelings.

Of course, there are some Mormons who don’t try either of those remedies. They will feed off the argument and become hostile. Nothing to be gained by engaging them.

Joseph Smith’s Genesis 50 Additions

2008-11-16T17:11:00.001-08:00

This post on Mormon Coffee is an excellent example of using a well-reasoned, respectful argument against a particular doctrine of Mormonism.

I am of the opinion that there is enough of the central, canonical Mormon doctrine on which we can "hang our hats" in our outreach to Mormons and those who are investigating Mormonism.

We don't have to resort to name-calling nor do we need to prove the church wrong by pointing to fringe doctrine that may or may not be historically accurate. Mainstream Mormonism and the church's "accepted" history contain plenty of ground on which to engage.

Trying to work my way out of misery

2008-11-11T16:59:00.000-08:00

My conversion from "salvation by works" to "salvation by grace alone" came after years--no decades--of trying harder and harder to overcome my sinfulness and my guilt because I was not perfect.

John MacArthur's radio sermon today reminded me of that. Here is an excerpt of his sermon that brought back memories of my attempts to gain self-worth through taking on lots of responsibilities (once in college, I had 5 different callings at the same time).

Has God Ever Sinned?

2008-11-07T06:43:00.001-08:00

Here is an interesting video (mostly audio really) that presents the idea that a Mormon God was once a man who may or may not have sinned during his mortal life.

The topic is set up with the famous Mormon phrase: "As man is God once was." The Mormon interviewed does a good job articulating his position.

I think most Mormons would fall into two schools of thought: God either lived a sinless mortal life (like Jesus did when He was on earth) OR God was a sinner like all other mortals but was made righteous by his redeemer (whoever that was).

For Christians, the debate on these two points is irrelevant because God has always been God.

Are Mormons Born Again? - Intro

2008-11-06T21:30:00.000-08:00

The two posts that follow are my comments on the subject "Are Mormons Born Again" presented on the radio program Truth Talk Live on September 16, 2008.

Here is the description of that show from the Truth Talk Live website:

"On today’s show Stu interviews Author and radio host Shawn McCraney. Mr. McCraney wrote the book titled “I was a born again Mormon.” He is also the talk show host of The Shawn McCraney Show airing on our Salt Lake City affiliate AM 820 KUTR! For more information please visit: http://www.bornagainmormon.com/book.htm."

I was confused with Shawn's approach--one can be born again yet continue "to have an association with the Mormon Church"--so I posted a couple of comments.

Often, I call into the show but on this day I felt that I should post to organize my thoughts and because Shawn would never let anyone finish their thoughts.

Are Mormons Born Again? - Part I

2008-11-06T21:26:00.000-08:00

This was my first post about the program that day.

Former Mormon in North Carolina Says: September 16, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I was born again last year after more than 40 years in Mormonism. My exit from Mormonism is a story of grace, pure and simple, not unlike Shawn’s. I did not leave the church because of its history or its doctrine–although I was certainly aware of its problems. (In fact, I was am amateur apologist who worked as a researcher at BYU during college).

However, God called me OUT of the church into his grace. Staying in the church would have meant “set[ting] aside his grace” (Galatians 2:20-21).

A key aspect of being born again is a renewing of the mind. All of the Mormon apologetic arguments and justifications melted away for me. However, I appreciate and understand that it takes time to unlearn this “other gospel” of Mormonism (Galatians 1), but the place to do it is NOT IN the Mormon church.

Helping born-again Mormons “appreciate and support positive aspects of church membership” (Shawn’s website) is not what Paul had in mind when he said “[If] we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8 KJV).

The Greek word for accursed is anathema which also means “a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed.” It is not Biblical, I believe, to think that “integration of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into the existing body of Christ” (Shawn’s website) is possible nor desirable.

There are other Bible verses (that I am sure will be quoted by others here and on the program today) that make it clear that we need to separate ourselves from the false doctrine of Mormonism. I think it is naive of Shawn to think that born-again Mormons can “simultaneously (but politely) reject any doctrine or practice contrary to biblical truth and authentic Christian beliefs” (Shawn’s website).

For one thing, once a member starts speaking (no matter how politely) against the doctrine and the leaders of the church, they will find themselves on the outside (ex-communicated). So, what value is there to remain in a church that is not what it claims and try to remain safely silent for fear of losing a cultural identity that should have been shed at the time of being born again?

Why not exit the church to be free to praise God and share Christ’s grace with those with whom we recently associated? Staying in the church, I believe, stunts our witness to current members.

Are Mormons Born Again? - Part II

2008-11-06T21:17:00.000-08:00

This second post was in response to someone who asked me to identify myself as someone other than “Former Mormon from North Carolina.”

David Says: September 17, 2008 at 9:36 am

“Former Mormon from North Carolina” here.

My name is David. I grew up in Provo, served a mission in Paris France, graduated from BYU, lived and worked in Utah until I moved to North Carolina in 1993. I come from a four-generation Mormon family (five if you include my children). I served in many leadership roles (High Priest group leader, Bishopric) and taught nearly every kind of class in the church (Sunday School, Primary, etc.)

I am not unsympathetic to the difficulty of pulling away from the culture and organization of Mormonism especially in Utah. Personally, I have not attended the Mormon church since I was born again. My wife comes from a long-line of Methodist ministers so we attend that demonination (yes, I recognize some irony there).

However, just months after I was born again, my son and his wife had a baby boy (my first grandchild). I traveled to Utah and while I was there the baby was blessed (a sort of Mormon version of christening to those not familiar). Now, I chose to attend the service but I did not “stand in” (even though I was technically still a member of the church and held the Melchezidek Priesthood). Now, many would say I should not have attended at all on the principle that I was supporting a false religion.

I can also be criticized for not zealously trying to evangelize to my children who still remain LDS. They know where I stand and we have discussed some things but I have not been hard-sell. So, I understand the emotional battle here.

But I think to promote changing the Mormon church from within is not a gray area. And to think that a new Christian can grow and thrive despite remaining in the church is dangerous. I find the message on Shawn’s website (I have not read the book) confusing. He seems to promote staying in church (although he eventually left it) yet he offers recommendations for non-Mormon places to worship in Utah.

Is Shawn’s message just to ease out of it or to stay in it to reform it?

What did Jesus say? His message was not unclear. Luke 9:

57 As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”

58 Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

59 He said to another man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”

60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”

62 Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

National Conference on Christian Apologetics

2008-11-06T20:56:00.000-08:00

Kirsten and I are really excited about this conference coming to Charlotte this weekend. Last year's conference was an awesome line-up of some of the best defenders of the Christian faith. This year should be even better. Click on the graphic for more information.