Lots of "" "" :)




A Mormon's respectful response to being called a "Cult" or "not Christians" - (This is really good.)
.by on Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 7:39am.Dear Pastor Jeffress (of First Baptist Dallas),



I’m just one of the millions of people who saw and heard on TV news shows your statements that “Mormonism is a cult” and “not a part of orthodox Christianity”. As a faithful lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I felt a strong reaction to those statements, as you might imagine. My remarks here are only my personal thoughts, but I assure you they are heartfelt.



My reaction was twofold. First, I saw your remarks as an unfortunate “below-the-belt” swipe at Mitt Romney in the hopes of advancing your own favorite political candidate. While you certainly have the right to do that, I think many Americans join me in feeling that such a move was beneath a prominent religious leader such as yourself.



Second, as a devoted believer and follower of Jesus Christ I was saddened that you felt the need to speak out against my faith and beliefs. I’m sure there are those who think it was done with malice, but I’ll try to do the Christ-like thing and give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you’ve just been misinformed about “Mormonism” as many others have been.



But it might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with part of what you said, although perhaps for different reasons than you might imagine.



You said that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian” (and by association myself and the other six million-plus Americans who are Latter-day Saints). But I believe you need to be more specific. There are many different kinds or “flavors” of Christians. I agree that the LDS people are not Baptist Christians or Evangelical Christians or Catholic Christians, etc. I will even agree that we’re not part of “orthodox” or “traditional” flavor of Christianity, if by that you mean the post-Nicene church that became the “universal” or “catholic” version of Christendom.



I believe my faith to be the original church of the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and yes, those who were first called Christians in Antioch, - that same church now restored in these latter days. So I call myself a “latter-day Christian", with theological roots that precede the “historical” or “orthodox” version that was the product of the various councils and creeds. That “orthodoxy” eventually became so corrupt and so apostate that the Reformers broke away from it in protest of its having “fallen away” from Biblical truths (2 Thess. 2) and “changed the ordinances” (Isa. 24:5) so that the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) was no longer recognizable as the church that Jesus organized.



There were many enlightened Christian thinkers and theologians in history who, like Joseph Smith, believed that Christianity had become apostate and that a restoration of the New Testament church of Christ was necessary. John Wesley the founder of Methodism wrote:

It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased; . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens . . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, pp.26-27



As I’m sure you well know, John Smythe the founder of the Baptists first left his position as a Church of England minister and joined the Separatists, but then dissolved his congregation to re-form it as the first General Baptist church among English expatriates in Amsterdam in 1609. He felt that the “historic” or “orthodox” Christianity of his time had wandered astray, especially with regard to the apostate doctrine of infant baptism. Those first Baptists were considered a “cult” by many Protestants in the “traditional” Christian denominations that persecuted them unmercifully.



Around 1640, Roger Williams of Providence, Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist church in America refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that there was:



… no regularly‑constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor could there be until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming, I am seeking.

(Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)



If I understand your words correctly your definition of a Christian (and that of most Evangelicals) is a pretty narrow one, far different from the standard meaning found in most dictionaries. Personally I think anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and as his/her personal Savior who died for our sins and was bodily resurrected on the third day is a Christian. C.S. Lewis described such people as “mere” Christians.



But your narrow definition would exclude anyone who:

1. Does not believe in a closed canon of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

2. Does not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

3. Believes in living prophets and apostles as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believes in continuing revelation from God to man.



I could go on. I’m very familiar with the standard arguments against “Mormonism”.



But the Bible says that believers in Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). I would respectfully submit that those Christians:

1. Did not believe in a closed canon of scripture. (some of the New Testament had not yet been written.)

2. Did not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. (it would not be written for 300 years)

3. Believed in living apostles and prophets as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believed in continuing revelation from God to man.



So if you’re going to say that Mitt and I are not Christians based on those reasons, you’ll have to say that the believers in Antioch were not Christians either according to your definition.



You said in your Hardball interview that “Mormonism” is a “cult” because:

1. “Mormonism came 1800 years after Jesus Christ”

2. “Mormonism has its own human leader, Joseph Smith”

3. “it has its own set of doctrines”

4. “it has its own religious book, The Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible”



Your exact following words were: “and so by that definition it is a theological cult”. You made a weak distinction between a theological cult and a sociological one, but most people will not even notice that fine differentiation. It was obvious to any sophisticated viewer that your main goal was to keep repeating the word “cult”. It’s such an inflammatory buzz word that I’m sure your goal is to use it as often as you can to scare people away from “Mormonism” without seriously considering our theology and our beliefs. It’s a word used to end or avoid discussion, not to foster it. As a Latter-day Saint I welcome the opportunity to “stand ready to give a reason for the faith that is in me”, but those who sling around the word “cult” with respect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seek to cut off debate rather than to encourage dialog. It’s as though they are afraid of an open and honest discussion.



But following your own definition of “cult” for a moment, I’d like to respectfully submit that:

1. Roman Catholicism came 300 years after Jesus Christ.

2. Roman Catholicism has its own human leader, the Pope (or Peter if you accept the Catholic claims that he was the first Pope)

3. Roman Catholicism has its own set of doctrines (Mariology, transubstantiation, priestly celibacy, veneration of “saints”, indulgences, etc.)

4. Roman Catholicism has its own religious books (9 deuterocanonical more than those found in the Protestant Bible – also used in Eastern Orthodox churches)



And even your own Baptist flavor of Christianity in some ways fits your definition of what makes a cult;

1. “Baptistism” came 1609 years after Jesus Christ

2. “Baptistism” had its own human leader John Smythe – a Church of England minister (see footnote below from the website of the Baptist History and Heritage Society)

3. “Baptistism” had its own unique doctrines, including the “believer’s baptism” of adults.

4. “Baptistism” was considered a cult by the “orthodox” or “traditional” or “historic” Christian denominations of the time. In fact Baptists suffered severe persecution from other Christians who believed in the “mainline” doctrine of infant baptism prevalent in that era. Thousands of Baptists were martyred for baptizing adults.



One of the dictionary definitions of a cult is that is a small isolated group that is out of the mainstream. That certainly does not apply to my church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest religion in America, and the second largest Christian church in Washington, Oregon, and California (after Catholicism). You mentioned that there are 15 million Southern Baptists. By 2012 at the present rate of growth there will be more Latter-day Saints than that.



Pastor Jeffress, in order to be consistent and truthful you would have to admit that the same definition you’ve used to brand “Mormonism” a cult applies at least in part to Roman Catholicism and “Baptistism” as well. Are you willing to say that on national television? I would hope so. I would hope that you’d want to be totally consistent and truthful.



Thank you for your time. I’m attaching a summary I wrote of what I believe happened to “the faith once delivered to the saints”. There was a great apostacy that fundamentally changed the New Testament church of Jesus Christ into something so different that those Christians at Antioch or Peter or Paul would not have recognized it in the Dark Ages that came upon the earth. (Amos 8:12) That apostacy required the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:21 to occur before Christ’s return. That restitution or restoration of original Biblical Christianity was what was looked forward to by Roger Williams.



I testify to you that that restoration has come, and the original Christianity is back on the earth in its fullness as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you would like to investigate these claims I’ll be happy to “bring forth my strong reasons” for “the faith that is in me.” I would welcome a thoughtful dialog.



Cordially yours,



Robert Starling

A Latter-day Christian



(footnote to above reference to John Smyth)

BHHS -- Baptist Beginnings http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm



The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution. John Smyth was a minister in the Church of England. As a student and later as a pastor and teacher. … By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a "covenant," rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.

.

Yep...a friend posted this too and I responded privately. It does get old doesn't it?

I'm glad he gets parts of the history of early X-tianity.

Too bad, he doesn't dig deeper to see that Mormonism has almost nothing in common with early X-tianity. And the parts that it does have in common seem far more coincidental than thought out.

It really bugs me when evangelicals call mormonism a cult, but they have no idea what cults are and how they work. They just talk about how their jesus is better than mormon jesus. Just once I would like to see someone call mormonism a cult and then mention things like the temple ceremony including penalties, the brainwashing done through fast and testimony meetings, the way church lies about its history to members and investigators, etc. And those are just a few examples of cultlike behavior. It'll probably never happen, but I can dream, right?

Exactly.

Apologies to Powerman 5000:

"This is what it's like when pretend world's collide!"

Such a waste of time on both men's parts. Forget the sick and hungry and destitute...we have malls to build and telling on each other with threats of going to 'Daddy'.

"My rulebook from Daddy is better than your's!"

So stupid.

It's nothing more than arguing which flavor of ice cream is better. There's no new knowledge to be gained from the discourse, and it doesn't do anything more than to re-affirm the opponents own positions.

Aren't circle jerks fun?

Ain't it a funny thing? The traits of a cult were not discussed at all!

"I’m just one of the millions of people who saw and heard on TV news shows your statements that “Mormonism is a cult” and “not a part of orthodox Christianity”. As a faithful lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I felt a strong reaction to those statements, as you might imagine. My remarks here are only my personal thoughts, but I assure you they are heartfelt."

Here is the what he left out.


1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪12. The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

The whole treatise is a distraction. They say mormons aren't christian because mormons do not believed they are saved by grace, but through works. That is the current general definition of christianity.

So what if you go back and define X, Y and Z? What the hell does that have to do with anything? It drives me bonkers! And as others have noted, this treatise (which I have seen posted ad nauseum with different names attached) never mentions characteristics of a cult. The entire thing is a distraction that has nothing to do with, dispells or disputes the claims for which it is purported to respond.

From Keith Walker, Evidence Ministries:
Although I have not seen this particular article, it is nothing new. The author is using a clever tu quoque fallacy. This fallacy looks like this;



Pastor Jeffress calls Mormonism a cult based off of X reasons,

Pastor Jeffress is also guilty of the same X reasons,

Therefore Pastor Jeffress reasons for calling Mormonism a cult are false.



The author also uses a straw-man fallacy. A straw-man is taking the position of another person, twisting it and then using your own arguments to defeat the caricature of the original position, not the original position itself. The author purposefully misses the point of Pastor Jeffress and then offers his own answers as the only solution.



Aside from pointing out the fallacies of the author, I would simply say that Christians have NEVER believed that they can become Gods populating their own planets with their spirit children. There is absolutely NOTHING in ancient Christian literature which defines Christianity in this way. There is nothing until Joseph Smith enters the scene in the 19th century. If Smith is restoring original Christianity, then there would have to be some sort of record before Smith which can be compared to the restoration documents. If there aren’t any, then we are left to believe Smith. He is the only guarantor of his claim. That is circular reasoning.



If you want to understand the world view of Mormonism, in my opinion the best article to read is actually written by the LDS Church. You can read it on our web site here. http://www.evidenceministries.org/2011/08/what-is-the-significance-of-mormon-temples-within-mormon-theology/

After reading this, there

While the cult thing has it's own issues, I think the Christian thing is nothing more than a pissing match between the mainstream and Mormonism.

For years LDS were content to separate themselves from the rest of Christianity. LDS leaders rhetorically attacked Christianity as lost, apostate and as the Church of the devil. The FV accounts and the BoM do the same thing. The pre-1990 temple film openly mocked and attacked a christian pastor showing him as an employee of Satan.

Now the Church wants to allowed back into the Christian tent at least in name and it's not going well so LDS are crying foul. But they do this while still maintaining— albeit more quietly— the foundational belief that the mainstream is apostate Christianty. It's pure hypocrisy. How is this any different than Xtians saying LDS aren't Xtian? Crazy.

I have no dog in this race but find the spectacle amusing.

A funny side note is that LDS get all mad about being excluded from Christianty while they attempt to exclude FLDS from being included under the term Mormonism.

It's funny that quotes from famous "other sects" founders about the "real" or "early" church are listed without realizing the irony that Joseph Smith did the same damn thing, so, as said before, it's a pissing match. J. Smith was simply doing what most other protestants were doing, the biggest difference being he said the God-meister told him in person.