Are Christians Mormons?

Joel Osteen, minister of America’s largest church, joins David Barton among others Christian leaders, in believing that Mormons are Christians:

Megachurch pastor, best-selling author and perennial optimist Joel Osteen has good news to share.

“I see faith in America at an all-time high,” he told editors and reporters at The Washington Times on Monday.

Yes, people are struggling, but “our message is so much about hope,” said Mr. Osteen, whose weekly television services are seen by 7 million people in the U.S., as well as by people in almost 100 other countries. . . .

Mr. Osteen expressed admiration for home-state Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry — “I pray for his candidacy, I pray for him as a friend” — and disagreed with another pastor who said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is “not a Christian” because he is a Mormon.

“I believe that [Mormons] are Christians,” Mr. Osteen said. “I don’t know if it’s the purest form of Christianity, like I grew up with. But you know what, I know Mormons. I hear Mitt Romney — and I’ve never met him — but I hear him say, ‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’ and that’s one of the core issues.

“I’m sure there are other issues that we don’t agree on. But you know, I can say that the Baptists and the Methodists and the Catholics don’t all agree on everything. So that would be my take on it.”

via Osteen: Americans’ faith at ‘all-time high’ – Washington Times.

The usual question has been “are Mormons (or some of them) Christians?”  I think we should turn that around:  “Are Christians (or some of them) Mormons?”

There are lots of people today in churches and in various ministries that are dismissive of historical Christianity and care nothing for theology.  They don’t care about the Trinity and they never say anything about the Incarnation.  They focus on attaining a happy life in this world.  They are moralists.  They have a ramped-up civil religion.  And they think Christianity is mostly about having a certain kind of family.   Isn’t that Mormonism?

So without thinking that Mormons are Christians, I do think some people who think they are Christians are actually Mormons.  Is that fair to say?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Mike

    Not really a surprise.

  • Mike

    Not really a surprise.

  • larry

    Muuusstt reeesisst. Too weak!

    Politics aside in order to not confuse the two kingdoms and leaders; tis a conundrum is it not, really its not. I mean he does say the right words, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’” and we don’t ‘read a man’s heart’. I mean that short little ditty is a Christian confession in words. In fact that short little confessional ditty is confessed by many and all.
    It is what it is behind the words that matter, the doctrine, not just the words. What is meant behind “believe”, “son of God”, “my savior”. A non deity Jesus could be said to be “the son of God” per se. Jesus the guide to fulfill the law could be said “is my savior”, “shows me the way”, etc… Just like what is meant behind words like “faith alone”, “grace alone”, “scripture alone”, “Gospel”, “baptism”, “is”, etc…

    This is a more extreme and crass example of heterodoxy mingling and creedless Christianity or even a creeded Christianity that then turns the words of creeds into other meanings whereby they can say, “us too!”. To a degree with different meanings behind the words a Mormon could almost confess the Apostle’s Creed per se, but the Nicene Creed puts a kibosh on such a continued confession because its words add descriptors to what is actually meant by “son of God” (begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, being of one substance with the Father through Whom all things were made). I’ve heard Mormons say “we are Christians just not Nicene Christians”. Well, that is in reality a confession of NOT being a Christian because the Creed was designed to actually confess what IS Christian rooted in the Word of God itself. How many “Christians” confess this Creed, to not do so, or the Apostles Creed is to concur with heresy and false doctrine. The NC confesses, “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” taken out of Ephesians. And that means we are not to look for another baptism, not re-baptism physically to sure up a mode or when issue and not a ‘spiritual baptism’ along side, in front of or many moons afterward or as a reality or thing signified to match up with “the sign”. That’s what that confession in the Nicene Creed means.

    The question is not really is/are X (person/persons) Christian/Christians, but is what they confess Christian or otherwise false just mimicking the words. Rome says grace, but does not mean what the Lutheran confessions mean on the issue. Just like “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’” says the same thing in words but means something entirely different, as does “this is My body” and so forth.

    Here we see in a crass or rather “leading edge” of continued degrading falling away from the faith that starts waaaaay back with the subtle and slow relinquishment of other doctrines considered to be “not so essential” or little notable difference. The Mormon/general Christian breech if you will is simply a crass version of the more subtle doctrinal amalgamations. Many see behind the, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’” confession and know how to spell it out, but then suddenly they enjoy such ‘mormon type’ blinders when it comes to other articles of faith and suddenly they “Romney up” in like fashion on these doctrines and in principle are doing the same thing. They see why they cannot commune with in spite of Romney’s “clear” confession, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’”. They know why they cannot attend his “churches” (i.e. wards). Yet again they enjoy the benefits of this type of argument when they deny in subtle mish mashing of words on other articles of faith.

    Thus, when such as Romney or any Mormon confesses, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’”, why should one not accept them into their doors/confession/denomination/worship? After all we are not saved by “passing a test”.

  • larry

    Muuusstt reeesisst. Too weak!

    Politics aside in order to not confuse the two kingdoms and leaders; tis a conundrum is it not, really its not. I mean he does say the right words, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’” and we don’t ‘read a man’s heart’. I mean that short little ditty is a Christian confession in words. In fact that short little confessional ditty is confessed by many and all.
    It is what it is behind the words that matter, the doctrine, not just the words. What is meant behind “believe”, “son of God”, “my savior”. A non deity Jesus could be said to be “the son of God” per se. Jesus the guide to fulfill the law could be said “is my savior”, “shows me the way”, etc… Just like what is meant behind words like “faith alone”, “grace alone”, “scripture alone”, “Gospel”, “baptism”, “is”, etc…

    This is a more extreme and crass example of heterodoxy mingling and creedless Christianity or even a creeded Christianity that then turns the words of creeds into other meanings whereby they can say, “us too!”. To a degree with different meanings behind the words a Mormon could almost confess the Apostle’s Creed per se, but the Nicene Creed puts a kibosh on such a continued confession because its words add descriptors to what is actually meant by “son of God” (begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, being of one substance with the Father through Whom all things were made). I’ve heard Mormons say “we are Christians just not Nicene Christians”. Well, that is in reality a confession of NOT being a Christian because the Creed was designed to actually confess what IS Christian rooted in the Word of God itself. How many “Christians” confess this Creed, to not do so, or the Apostles Creed is to concur with heresy and false doctrine. The NC confesses, “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” taken out of Ephesians. And that means we are not to look for another baptism, not re-baptism physically to sure up a mode or when issue and not a ‘spiritual baptism’ along side, in front of or many moons afterward or as a reality or thing signified to match up with “the sign”. That’s what that confession in the Nicene Creed means.

    The question is not really is/are X (person/persons) Christian/Christians, but is what they confess Christian or otherwise false just mimicking the words. Rome says grace, but does not mean what the Lutheran confessions mean on the issue. Just like “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’” says the same thing in words but means something entirely different, as does “this is My body” and so forth.

    Here we see in a crass or rather “leading edge” of continued degrading falling away from the faith that starts waaaaay back with the subtle and slow relinquishment of other doctrines considered to be “not so essential” or little notable difference. The Mormon/general Christian breech if you will is simply a crass version of the more subtle doctrinal amalgamations. Many see behind the, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’” confession and know how to spell it out, but then suddenly they enjoy such ‘mormon type’ blinders when it comes to other articles of faith and suddenly they “Romney up” in like fashion on these doctrines and in principle are doing the same thing. They see why they cannot commune with in spite of Romney’s “clear” confession, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’”. They know why they cannot attend his “churches” (i.e. wards). Yet again they enjoy the benefits of this type of argument when they deny in subtle mish mashing of words on other articles of faith.

    Thus, when such as Romney or any Mormon confesses, “‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’”, why should one not accept them into their doors/confession/denomination/worship? After all we are not saved by “passing a test”.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    I don’t think it’s entirely fair to Mormons to say that. They’re basically the same from a Lutheran perspective, but not from a Mormon one. As much as they pretend that theological details like Christ’s status as a creature are too trivial to divide them from authentic Christianity, they’re obviously too important for them to abandon for the sake of unity.

    It would be like when the Reformed try to minimize differences with Lutherans by saying the sacraments are merely secondary doctrines. The very fact that they think so is itself a big difference. Same goes for equating moralistic therapeutic patriotic deists and Mormons.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    I don’t think it’s entirely fair to Mormons to say that. They’re basically the same from a Lutheran perspective, but not from a Mormon one. As much as they pretend that theological details like Christ’s status as a creature are too trivial to divide them from authentic Christianity, they’re obviously too important for them to abandon for the sake of unity.

    It would be like when the Reformed try to minimize differences with Lutherans by saying the sacraments are merely secondary doctrines. The very fact that they think so is itself a big difference. Same goes for equating moralistic therapeutic patriotic deists and Mormons.

  • larry

    Matt,

    I agree entirely, the discussion was meant to point out what is otherwise a hypocritical contradiction. Something like:

    1. On one hand, orthodoxy is far too divisive not accepting our doctrines of X as the same or non-essential,
    2. But by the way we are damn sure not relinquishing our differences.

    I.e. heterodoxy, whatever doctrine it happens to be, always requires orthodoxy to succumb but not itself.

    I think it was Kolb that put it this way concerning all false teaching following a discernable path (my paraprhase):

    1. It first says, come now is this necessary just allow us.
    2. Then it moves to equal footing with orthodoxy.
    3. Then in its final stage it demands singular adherence to itself and the ousting of orthodoxy altogether.

  • larry

    Matt,

    I agree entirely, the discussion was meant to point out what is otherwise a hypocritical contradiction. Something like:

    1. On one hand, orthodoxy is far too divisive not accepting our doctrines of X as the same or non-essential,
    2. But by the way we are damn sure not relinquishing our differences.

    I.e. heterodoxy, whatever doctrine it happens to be, always requires orthodoxy to succumb but not itself.

    I think it was Kolb that put it this way concerning all false teaching following a discernable path (my paraprhase):

    1. It first says, come now is this necessary just allow us.
    2. Then it moves to equal footing with orthodoxy.
    3. Then in its final stage it demands singular adherence to itself and the ousting of orthodoxy altogether.

  • larry

    Matt,

    Another thing heterodoxy does is it starts down this path by connecting to some perceived “common ground”, its just a matter of where/how far out it is from the truth.

    E.g. religions entirely outside of even naming themselves “Christian” or connection start from a point of common ground of “Here now we are all humans”. Then it begins its insertion of the three phases. What we call “cults” that don’t entirely disconnect with the names of christian/bible, etc…even naming themselves “Christian” start from a point of common ground of “Here now we are all christians of some kind”. Then it begins its insertion of the three phases. What we call heterodox or false churches that adhere at least in some principle to parts of true christian confession start from a point of common ground of “Here now we all confess the essentials of the faith and do not deny grace alone”. Then it begins its insertion of the three phases.

  • larry

    Matt,

    Another thing heterodoxy does is it starts down this path by connecting to some perceived “common ground”, its just a matter of where/how far out it is from the truth.

    E.g. religions entirely outside of even naming themselves “Christian” or connection start from a point of common ground of “Here now we are all humans”. Then it begins its insertion of the three phases. What we call “cults” that don’t entirely disconnect with the names of christian/bible, etc…even naming themselves “Christian” start from a point of common ground of “Here now we are all christians of some kind”. Then it begins its insertion of the three phases. What we call heterodox or false churches that adhere at least in some principle to parts of true christian confession start from a point of common ground of “Here now we all confess the essentials of the faith and do not deny grace alone”. Then it begins its insertion of the three phases.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I have a hard time referring to a sect that believes God was once a man, that God had relations with the Virgin Mary in order to conceive Jesus, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, that there are three heavens and that almost all of humanity will occupy one of these three heavens, and worst of all that salvation is based upon a mix of Christ’s work on the cross and our own righteousness as a truly Christian faith.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I have a hard time referring to a sect that believes God was once a man, that God had relations with the Virgin Mary in order to conceive Jesus, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, that there are three heavens and that almost all of humanity will occupy one of these three heavens, and worst of all that salvation is based upon a mix of Christ’s work on the cross and our own righteousness as a truly Christian faith.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Anonymous Mormons?`(w/ apologies to Karl Rahner)
    Only in America!

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Anonymous Mormons?`(w/ apologies to Karl Rahner)
    Only in America!

  • Jonathan

    Is it fair to say? Maybe not the most charitable.

    But certainly I have been thinking the very same thing now for a while.

    It seems to me that they are all “up religions,” but each with their own unique spin on how to get there.

    As opposed to the only “down religion” there is: trust that God in Christ came down into the muck and mire of this world to rescue us hopeless sinners inspite of our nasty selves precisely because we can’t climb out and up on our own, never can, never will.

  • Jonathan

    Is it fair to say? Maybe not the most charitable.

    But certainly I have been thinking the very same thing now for a while.

    It seems to me that they are all “up religions,” but each with their own unique spin on how to get there.

    As opposed to the only “down religion” there is: trust that God in Christ came down into the muck and mire of this world to rescue us hopeless sinners inspite of our nasty selves precisely because we can’t climb out and up on our own, never can, never will.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Indeed, Larry. I blogged about this not too long ago. Kolb’s three steps proceed from the self-contradiction at the heart of the matter. One cannot say that Christianity shouldn’t be defined exclusively without defining Christianity exclusively. There is no neutral middle ground between “doctrine X is essential” and “doctrine X is not essential.” It’s not mere coincidence that those who cry “hatred” in response to claims that X are not Christian almost invariably try to paint those to whom they are responding as less Christian than X. For the moment, X just happens to equal Mormon.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Indeed, Larry. I blogged about this not too long ago. Kolb’s three steps proceed from the self-contradiction at the heart of the matter. One cannot say that Christianity shouldn’t be defined exclusively without defining Christianity exclusively. There is no neutral middle ground between “doctrine X is essential” and “doctrine X is not essential.” It’s not mere coincidence that those who cry “hatred” in response to claims that X are not Christian almost invariably try to paint those to whom they are responding as less Christian than X. For the moment, X just happens to equal Mormon.

  • Tom Hering

    CNN Larry King Live, October 16, 2007:

    KING: How do you feel about Mitt Romney and being a Mormon? Would that affect whether you vote for him or not?

    J. OSTEEN: Well, you know what? I look at people, their character, their values, what they stand for. And I know only Mitt from watching him on your program and reading a couple of articles about him. And I don’t think that that would affect me. I’ve heard him say that he believes Jesus is his savior, just like I do. I’ve studied it deeply, and maybe people don’t agree with me, but I like to look at a person’s value and what they stand for.

    —————————————————————

    KING: Well, you’ve obviously affected a lot of people. The lack of formal biblical study, you did a brief stint at Oral Roberts University, right?
    J. OSTEEN: Yes, sir.
    KING: All right, a critic — this quote to — from Reverend Robert Liichow: “Joel Osteen has absolutely no biblical training or experience to be a pastor. Would you allow a surgeon to operate on you because he felt that he should be called a surgeon?”
    J. OSTEEN: Well, I would think two things, Larry. One, I spent — I grew up in a preacher’s home. I spent 17 years working with my father. The second thing is the disciples that Jesus chose — his main 12 — one was a fisherman, a tax collector. They didn’t have any formal training, as well. The bible says that God chooses people that, you know, are not the most educated or the smartest, to confound other people. So I don’t know. It’s interesting to me that…
    KING: So you are not reverend?
    J. OSTEEN: Well, I am reverend. I am reverend. You don’t have to necessarily be — go into seminary to be a reverend. But I am — I’m a reverend from our church. But, I am.
    KING: OK. No crosses on display at your church.
    J. OSTEEN: Yes…
    KING: The only church that I know — the Mormons don’t display crosses.

  • Tom Hering

    CNN Larry King Live, October 16, 2007:

    KING: How do you feel about Mitt Romney and being a Mormon? Would that affect whether you vote for him or not?

    J. OSTEEN: Well, you know what? I look at people, their character, their values, what they stand for. And I know only Mitt from watching him on your program and reading a couple of articles about him. And I don’t think that that would affect me. I’ve heard him say that he believes Jesus is his savior, just like I do. I’ve studied it deeply, and maybe people don’t agree with me, but I like to look at a person’s value and what they stand for.

    —————————————————————

    KING: Well, you’ve obviously affected a lot of people. The lack of formal biblical study, you did a brief stint at Oral Roberts University, right?
    J. OSTEEN: Yes, sir.
    KING: All right, a critic — this quote to — from Reverend Robert Liichow: “Joel Osteen has absolutely no biblical training or experience to be a pastor. Would you allow a surgeon to operate on you because he felt that he should be called a surgeon?”
    J. OSTEEN: Well, I would think two things, Larry. One, I spent — I grew up in a preacher’s home. I spent 17 years working with my father. The second thing is the disciples that Jesus chose — his main 12 — one was a fisherman, a tax collector. They didn’t have any formal training, as well. The bible says that God chooses people that, you know, are not the most educated or the smartest, to confound other people. So I don’t know. It’s interesting to me that…
    KING: So you are not reverend?
    J. OSTEEN: Well, I am reverend. I am reverend. You don’t have to necessarily be — go into seminary to be a reverend. But I am — I’m a reverend from our church. But, I am.
    KING: OK. No crosses on display at your church.
    J. OSTEEN: Yes…
    KING: The only church that I know — the Mormons don’t display crosses.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Mormonism is in reality a mixture of all the worst in american protestantismn the moralism and soteriology of Wesley on steroidsn the sacramental theologies of the baptists, the ecclesiology of campbellites, and the theology of 1c(h century liberalism concerning the trinity and jesus, with just a few other bizartales thrown in to make the whole thing work.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Mormonism is in reality a mixture of all the worst in american protestantismn the moralism and soteriology of Wesley on steroidsn the sacramental theologies of the baptists, the ecclesiology of campbellites, and the theology of 1c(h century liberalism concerning the trinity and jesus, with just a few other bizartales thrown in to make the whole thing work.

  • Jon

    The difference is the Trinity. Christians are separate from other religious folk because of the revelation of God as three in one. Nicene Creed. The Mormons reject the Trinity, however much they may speak of Father, Son and Spirit (indeed, they distinguish between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost). They baptize, but their baptisms are not in the name of the Trinity and thus are not Christian baptisms. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Christian baptisms in the denominations, but a Mormon who enters the Church must receive baptism. The difference is the Trinity.

  • Jon

    The difference is the Trinity. Christians are separate from other religious folk because of the revelation of God as three in one. Nicene Creed. The Mormons reject the Trinity, however much they may speak of Father, Son and Spirit (indeed, they distinguish between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost). They baptize, but their baptisms are not in the name of the Trinity and thus are not Christian baptisms. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Christian baptisms in the denominations, but a Mormon who enters the Church must receive baptism. The difference is the Trinity.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Is that fair to say some people who think they are Christians are actually Mormons? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. To be a Christian, a disciple of Christ, Jesus commands our teaching be to observe all that I have commanded you. Christianity is not a cafeteria religion for itching ears; it begins with the harsh coldness of the Law – do this and you shall live. The Law does not grade on a curve; the “do this” is all inclusive; to violate one point of the Law makes us guilty – period.

    The entire purpose of the incarnation was the cross; Jesus did not come to be a “good example” or a “bread King” or one of many ways to approach a holy God. The Second Person of the Trinity humbled himself to be born of a virgin to redeem sinners and we all are sinners. We are not kinda good, pretty good or have a good heart; we are all enemies of God and if his Son did not come to seeking us and giving himself for our salvation – well, we all might as well be Mormon. When a self-proclaimed preacher leads people to their own works, he leads them away from Christ and Christianity. As St. Paul said, “We preach Christ crucified” and those who preach otherwise should bear the rebuke given Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hinderance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Is that fair to say some people who think they are Christians are actually Mormons? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. To be a Christian, a disciple of Christ, Jesus commands our teaching be to observe all that I have commanded you. Christianity is not a cafeteria religion for itching ears; it begins with the harsh coldness of the Law – do this and you shall live. The Law does not grade on a curve; the “do this” is all inclusive; to violate one point of the Law makes us guilty – period.

    The entire purpose of the incarnation was the cross; Jesus did not come to be a “good example” or a “bread King” or one of many ways to approach a holy God. The Second Person of the Trinity humbled himself to be born of a virgin to redeem sinners and we all are sinners. We are not kinda good, pretty good or have a good heart; we are all enemies of God and if his Son did not come to seeking us and giving himself for our salvation – well, we all might as well be Mormon. When a self-proclaimed preacher leads people to their own works, he leads them away from Christ and Christianity. As St. Paul said, “We preach Christ crucified” and those who preach otherwise should bear the rebuke given Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hinderance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • lws

    The Christ that the Mormons believe in not the same Christ that Christians believe in. They claim to be Christians based on this Christ. They even admit this. From the LDS Church News, article titled “Crown of gospel upon our heads”, June 20, 1998:

    In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

    “Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I’m trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.”

  • lws

    The Christ that the Mormons believe in not the same Christ that Christians believe in. They claim to be Christians based on this Christ. They even admit this. From the LDS Church News, article titled “Crown of gospel upon our heads”, June 20, 1998:

    In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

    “Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I’m trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.”

  • Philip

    Mormons will argue with Christians that they are Christian, but with other Mormons they will say that Christians will be their servants in the Celestial kingdom. I have given up even discussing the question with Mormons especially if they are Temple Mormons.
    The question that should be asked early in any discussion is, “were you sealed in the Temple?” If the answer is yes stop the discussion, it is a waste of time, if it is no treat them with dignity and explain the Trinity.

  • Philip

    Mormons will argue with Christians that they are Christian, but with other Mormons they will say that Christians will be their servants in the Celestial kingdom. I have given up even discussing the question with Mormons especially if they are Temple Mormons.
    The question that should be asked early in any discussion is, “were you sealed in the Temple?” If the answer is yes stop the discussion, it is a waste of time, if it is no treat them with dignity and explain the Trinity.

  • Jerry

    God has given the Christian responsibility, the burden, to lead Mormons to Jesus Christ as their atoning source of righteousness. It’s only the called the Great Commission. Otherwise, God has promised to hold Joel Osteen, along with every other Christian accountable. A brief examination of Mormon theology will reveal their meaning of Savior is not the same as the Christian meaning, and will not save them from anything.

  • Jerry

    God has given the Christian responsibility, the burden, to lead Mormons to Jesus Christ as their atoning source of righteousness. It’s only the called the Great Commission. Otherwise, God has promised to hold Joel Osteen, along with every other Christian accountable. A brief examination of Mormon theology will reveal their meaning of Savior is not the same as the Christian meaning, and will not save them from anything.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    With all due respect phillip, I will argue or discuss the faith with every damned soul I meet wherever an opening to have that discussion or argument presents itself sealed in the temple or not. I know it can be frustrating at times, but presenting the gospel is never a waste of time, never. The word does not return empty, it accomplishes what god wants. The holy spirit works miracles even today. But christ no where commands us to proclaim the gospel only to those not sealed in the temple.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    With all due respect phillip, I will argue or discuss the faith with every damned soul I meet wherever an opening to have that discussion or argument presents itself sealed in the temple or not. I know it can be frustrating at times, but presenting the gospel is never a waste of time, never. The word does not return empty, it accomplishes what god wants. The holy spirit works miracles even today. But christ no where commands us to proclaim the gospel only to those not sealed in the temple.

  • Peter

    This debate as to whether or not Mormons are Christians is tiring. It is like a cadillac owner saying that Mercedes is not a car. Of course members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are Christians. But they are not Catholic or protestant.

    Truthfullness of the Mormon church can be determined by whether or not the Book Of Mormon is true. Truth of all of mainstream Christianity revolves around whether or not the consensus in the council of Nicea in the 300′s was correct.

    It seems kind of arogant to say that a person is Christian based on the fact that they accept the conclusion of a group of uninspired men.

  • Peter

    This debate as to whether or not Mormons are Christians is tiring. It is like a cadillac owner saying that Mercedes is not a car. Of course members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are Christians. But they are not Catholic or protestant.

    Truthfullness of the Mormon church can be determined by whether or not the Book Of Mormon is true. Truth of all of mainstream Christianity revolves around whether or not the consensus in the council of Nicea in the 300′s was correct.

    It seems kind of arogant to say that a person is Christian based on the fact that they accept the conclusion of a group of uninspired men.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Peter, if you rind it tiring then excuse yourself from the conversation, but if you are going to join it contribute something intelligent. Mormon’s are not christians, because they believe not what christ says of himself, and the nature of God, they reject everything jesus says for instance in john chapter 4, as they don’t even believe God the father is Spirit, and that is just starters. Christ and his teaching decide what is christian. The council of nicea is christian only because those men recognized this. If you knew the histor of the councils you would understand this, so I’m going to recommend a very good book to you, ” the first seven ecumenical councils” by leo donald Davis. The only thing that gave the council of Nicea lasting influence is the fact that it adhered to christ’s teaching and his alone. Those who adhered to this council’s proclomation met with off and on persecution from th roman government for another three hundred years, as emporers went back and forth with Arius and even paganism.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Peter, if you rind it tiring then excuse yourself from the conversation, but if you are going to join it contribute something intelligent. Mormon’s are not christians, because they believe not what christ says of himself, and the nature of God, they reject everything jesus says for instance in john chapter 4, as they don’t even believe God the father is Spirit, and that is just starters. Christ and his teaching decide what is christian. The council of nicea is christian only because those men recognized this. If you knew the histor of the councils you would understand this, so I’m going to recommend a very good book to you, ” the first seven ecumenical councils” by leo donald Davis. The only thing that gave the council of Nicea lasting influence is the fact that it adhered to christ’s teaching and his alone. Those who adhered to this council’s proclomation met with off and on persecution from th roman government for another three hundred years, as emporers went back and forth with Arius and even paganism.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    So in your weariness over the debate, you simply declare it won in your favor and move on? Does that actually work?

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    So in your weariness over the debate, you simply declare it won in your favor and move on? Does that actually work?

  • Bob

    Provocative thesis.

    Here’s another way part of the political spectrum has become
    Mormon:

    “Pennies From Heaven — How Mormon Economics Shapes the
    GOP”

    Harper’s, Oct. 2011, p. 33

  • Bob

    Provocative thesis.

    Here’s another way part of the political spectrum has become
    Mormon:

    “Pennies From Heaven — How Mormon Economics Shapes the
    GOP”

    Harper’s, Oct. 2011, p. 33

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I remind you that the topic of this post is not whether or not Mormons are Christians, but the reverse. Peter, I assume you are a Mormon. Would you say that someone who believes and acts as I described above would find salvation? Does someone actually have to be a member of the LDS in order to go to Heaven? How do you see non-members?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I remind you that the topic of this post is not whether or not Mormons are Christians, but the reverse. Peter, I assume you are a Mormon. Would you say that someone who believes and acts as I described above would find salvation? Does someone actually have to be a member of the LDS in order to go to Heaven? How do you see non-members?

  • Jerry

    Pastor Erickson answered the original question way back up @11. Christians could not be Mormon without buying into all the exotic thought that it requires, but they would no longer be Christians.

    Ditto to the Utah Pastor @19 on the Leo Davis book. He recommended it a year ago, I bought it, and found it very edifying.

  • Jerry

    Pastor Erickson answered the original question way back up @11. Christians could not be Mormon without buying into all the exotic thought that it requires, but they would no longer be Christians.

    Ditto to the Utah Pastor @19 on the Leo Davis book. He recommended it a year ago, I bought it, and found it very edifying.

  • Helen K.

    following..

  • Helen K.

    following..

  • Grace

    Tom @ 10

    Tom quoting J. Osteen:

    “J. OSTEEN: Well, you know what? I look at people, their character, their values, what they stand for. And I know only Mitt from watching him on your program and reading a couple of articles about him. And I don’t think that that would affect me. I’ve heard him say that he believes Jesus is his savior, just like I do. I’ve studied it deeply, and maybe people don’t agree with me, but I like to look at a person’s value and what they stand for.

    Osteen, before making such a statement should study what the Mormons believe. However he states I’ve studied it deeply – - I would question how “deep” is deep for Osteen? -

    “My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”

    Founder Mormon Church, Joseph Smith,
    Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844

    Osteen hasn’t studied “DEEP” enough, or he would have read this heretical statement from the founder of the Mormon Church.

    God Almighty states who HE is below, in HIS Word. If Osteen studied the Bible………….

    ~~~

    Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
    Isaiah 44:6

    ~~~

  • Grace

    Tom @ 10

    Tom quoting J. Osteen:

    “J. OSTEEN: Well, you know what? I look at people, their character, their values, what they stand for. And I know only Mitt from watching him on your program and reading a couple of articles about him. And I don’t think that that would affect me. I’ve heard him say that he believes Jesus is his savior, just like I do. I’ve studied it deeply, and maybe people don’t agree with me, but I like to look at a person’s value and what they stand for.

    Osteen, before making such a statement should study what the Mormons believe. However he states I’ve studied it deeply – - I would question how “deep” is deep for Osteen? -

    “My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”

    Founder Mormon Church, Joseph Smith,
    Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844

    Osteen hasn’t studied “DEEP” enough, or he would have read this heretical statement from the founder of the Mormon Church.

    God Almighty states who HE is below, in HIS Word. If Osteen studied the Bible………….

    ~~~

    Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
    Isaiah 44:6

    ~~~

  • larry

    Actually a Mormon claiming their doctrine Christian is like a Mercedes owner claiming his car is jackrabbit, since words don’t really mean anything.

    Another key marker of heterodoxy/false doctrine, whatever it specifically is, is that it always wants to be called what orthodoxy lables itself. Note how no Christian wishes to be included as or called Mormon.

  • larry

    Actually a Mormon claiming their doctrine Christian is like a Mercedes owner claiming his car is jackrabbit, since words don’t really mean anything.

    Another key marker of heterodoxy/false doctrine, whatever it specifically is, is that it always wants to be called what orthodoxy lables itself. Note how no Christian wishes to be included as or called Mormon.

  • larry

    But to answer the topic of the post, yes, I think its fair to say and no small wonder why most Mormons are scratching their heads saying, “What’s the big difference?”

    The gop presidential debate a couple ago shows this. Everyone thought the ‘faith’ discussion was so wonderful, but all it serve to do is affirm in Mormon’s eyes is “see the same thing”. Perhaps whether one votes for Romney or one of the other candidates is really six one way or half a dozen another, an overt mormon or de facto mormon.

    Hell, if the Mormons would drop the crazy crap and just stick to denying the trinity and incarnation and some of the “higher theological issues”, they might rope in a whole lot of new converts.

    As one of my baptist family members/pastor once said about Mormonism when we were studying it back in the day, “I’m convinced the devil had Joseph Smith killed off ‘early’ because he was going too crazy and the deception would have been less effective had he continued.”

  • larry

    But to answer the topic of the post, yes, I think its fair to say and no small wonder why most Mormons are scratching their heads saying, “What’s the big difference?”

    The gop presidential debate a couple ago shows this. Everyone thought the ‘faith’ discussion was so wonderful, but all it serve to do is affirm in Mormon’s eyes is “see the same thing”. Perhaps whether one votes for Romney or one of the other candidates is really six one way or half a dozen another, an overt mormon or de facto mormon.

    Hell, if the Mormons would drop the crazy crap and just stick to denying the trinity and incarnation and some of the “higher theological issues”, they might rope in a whole lot of new converts.

    As one of my baptist family members/pastor once said about Mormonism when we were studying it back in the day, “I’m convinced the devil had Joseph Smith killed off ‘early’ because he was going too crazy and the deception would have been less effective had he continued.”

  • Grace

    Peter @ 18

    “Truthfullness of the Mormon church can be determined by whether or not the Book Of Mormon is true. Truth of all of mainstream Christianity revolves around whether or not the consensus in the council of Nicea in the 300′s was correct.’

    The Book of Mormon is but one of the books, there are more – the ones that are not as prominent, or in some cases slid under the pile are:

    Official LDS/Mormon doctrine

    The books which contain the LDS/Mormon doctrine

    Truthfulness is uncovering the entire stack of books, instead of offering JUST, the Book of Mormon

    No true Christian would believe what Joseph Smith proclaimed – it’s contrary to Scripture, it is arrogant, and a complete lie, unless of course you disbelieve the Word of God and claim you’re superior to Jesus Christ, as Joseph Smith did. A taste of his heretical statement below:

    “God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . “
    (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409). Joseph Smith

    Above is the BIG DIFFERENCE – that is why Mormons are not considered Christians. Joseph Smith is their founder, he is the one they traipse after.

  • Grace

    Peter @ 18

    “Truthfullness of the Mormon church can be determined by whether or not the Book Of Mormon is true. Truth of all of mainstream Christianity revolves around whether or not the consensus in the council of Nicea in the 300′s was correct.’

    The Book of Mormon is but one of the books, there are more – the ones that are not as prominent, or in some cases slid under the pile are:

    Official LDS/Mormon doctrine

    The books which contain the LDS/Mormon doctrine

    Truthfulness is uncovering the entire stack of books, instead of offering JUST, the Book of Mormon

    No true Christian would believe what Joseph Smith proclaimed – it’s contrary to Scripture, it is arrogant, and a complete lie, unless of course you disbelieve the Word of God and claim you’re superior to Jesus Christ, as Joseph Smith did. A taste of his heretical statement below:

    “God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . “
    (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409). Joseph Smith

    Above is the BIG DIFFERENCE – that is why Mormons are not considered Christians. Joseph Smith is their founder, he is the one they traipse after.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@25, 28), I’m just curious — do you think you’re the most informed person here about the LDS?

    I’m sure that many people are ignorant of many aspects of the the LDS church, including its canon, but I assume that most people who have looked into them at even a fairly shallow level (and there are many here who have done much more than that) are also aware of the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants (aka D&C). I mean, they’re all listed in the Wikipedia article, you know — and not a few other places online. How is that “slid under the pile”?

    And, having been on the recieving end of your particular brand of religious analysis before, I see that you use much the same tactics with the Mormons. Even if I happen to agree with you that they are in error, I still don’t think too highly of your methods.

    Because we once again see you cutting and pasting in quotes that have wide circulation on the Internet — at least, on anti-Mormon sites. And these quotes do not come from the actual LDS canon or from anything else that could be called Mormon teaching, but instead from some historical document that contains Smith’s personal statements. And then you tell us that this personal expression of Smith is “why Mormons are not considered Christians”.

    It didn’t work when you tried it with Luther, Grace, and nor is it terribly compelling when you try it on Smith. Mormons are not considered Christians because of their rejection of what the Bible teaches about the nature of God and salvation. Not because of some quote you dug up from Joseph Smith.

    So here’s my suggestion. If you must discuss the question of whether Mormons are Christians, then try doing so from actual Mormon doctrine, not from quotes attributed to the founder of the church that you found and copied from some anti-Mormon site.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@25, 28), I’m just curious — do you think you’re the most informed person here about the LDS?

    I’m sure that many people are ignorant of many aspects of the the LDS church, including its canon, but I assume that most people who have looked into them at even a fairly shallow level (and there are many here who have done much more than that) are also aware of the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants (aka D&C). I mean, they’re all listed in the Wikipedia article, you know — and not a few other places online. How is that “slid under the pile”?

    And, having been on the recieving end of your particular brand of religious analysis before, I see that you use much the same tactics with the Mormons. Even if I happen to agree with you that they are in error, I still don’t think too highly of your methods.

    Because we once again see you cutting and pasting in quotes that have wide circulation on the Internet — at least, on anti-Mormon sites. And these quotes do not come from the actual LDS canon or from anything else that could be called Mormon teaching, but instead from some historical document that contains Smith’s personal statements. And then you tell us that this personal expression of Smith is “why Mormons are not considered Christians”.

    It didn’t work when you tried it with Luther, Grace, and nor is it terribly compelling when you try it on Smith. Mormons are not considered Christians because of their rejection of what the Bible teaches about the nature of God and salvation. Not because of some quote you dug up from Joseph Smith.

    So here’s my suggestion. If you must discuss the question of whether Mormons are Christians, then try doing so from actual Mormon doctrine, not from quotes attributed to the founder of the church that you found and copied from some anti-Mormon site.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Try doing some serious study on the LDS church, then get back to me. You’re looking for a bickering session, and I won’t play.

    I have spent the last 8 plus years doing endless research on the cults, .. meaning their beliefs, founders, etc. That is how I have come to understanding their heretical beliefs – it takes time. Copy Pasting quotes is much easier than typing them one word at a time from a book… or hadn’t you thought of that?? Poor you!

    If you believe that ‘everyone, meaning myself as well, does nothing more than peruse the internet for material, meaning you’ve done such a thing, and believe everyone has followed in your footsteps, it’s lame.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Try doing some serious study on the LDS church, then get back to me. You’re looking for a bickering session, and I won’t play.

    I have spent the last 8 plus years doing endless research on the cults, .. meaning their beliefs, founders, etc. That is how I have come to understanding their heretical beliefs – it takes time. Copy Pasting quotes is much easier than typing them one word at a time from a book… or hadn’t you thought of that?? Poor you!

    If you believe that ‘everyone, meaning myself as well, does nothing more than peruse the internet for material, meaning you’ve done such a thing, and believe everyone has followed in your footsteps, it’s lame.

  • Grace

    Dr. Veith,

    I do not believe Mormons believe we are Christians.

  • Grace

    Dr. Veith,

    I do not believe Mormons believe we are Christians.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, Veith, in a valiant attempt to steer the conversation back to his preferred topic, asked (@22):

    Would you say that someone who believes and acts as I described above would find salvation?

    It’s an interesting question. Are we, as Lutherans, in the habit of judging whether someone will find salvation based on their actions? Of course, that’s not all that you asked, but I thought it was odd how you called out actions.

    Anyhow, I suppose that if one believed solely what Veith described — whether they self-identify as “Christian” or “Mormon” — their soul would very much be in danger of the fires of Hell.

    But I also think that salvation is possible for both the nominal Christian and the Mormon. To be sure, it would be in spite of their professed dogmas. But can we not hold out hope that such people, having at least been exposed to God’s Word, might yet find Jesus in it?

    It’s not a particularly strong hope of mine, but nor can I say with certainty that there will be no people in Heaven who were members of the LDS church. I mean, all Lutherans hold, don’t we, that there will be Catholics in Heaven — and this in spite of their church’s teaching? Where do we draw that line (if, indeed, we must) saying that there is hope for these people, but not for those?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, Veith, in a valiant attempt to steer the conversation back to his preferred topic, asked (@22):

    Would you say that someone who believes and acts as I described above would find salvation?

    It’s an interesting question. Are we, as Lutherans, in the habit of judging whether someone will find salvation based on their actions? Of course, that’s not all that you asked, but I thought it was odd how you called out actions.

    Anyhow, I suppose that if one believed solely what Veith described — whether they self-identify as “Christian” or “Mormon” — their soul would very much be in danger of the fires of Hell.

    But I also think that salvation is possible for both the nominal Christian and the Mormon. To be sure, it would be in spite of their professed dogmas. But can we not hold out hope that such people, having at least been exposed to God’s Word, might yet find Jesus in it?

    It’s not a particularly strong hope of mine, but nor can I say with certainty that there will be no people in Heaven who were members of the LDS church. I mean, all Lutherans hold, don’t we, that there will be Catholics in Heaven — and this in spite of their church’s teaching? Where do we draw that line (if, indeed, we must) saying that there is hope for these people, but not for those?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I’m not judging whether someone will find salvation! I’m asking what Mormons believe on that subject. I’m pretty sure that they put a lot of emphasis on actions. I hold out plenty of hope. I’m curious how Mormons approach these questions. So far we have had Christians discussing whether or not Mormons are Christians. I’m curious about whether Mormons think non-Mormons are Christians, if you will. Or if Mormons think Christians are Mormons. The occasion of this discussion was Joel Osteen. From what I have seen from him on TV and from what I have read about him, he seems more like a Mormon in his emphases than any kind of traditional Christian. (I could be wrong. If so, someone please correct me.) So his saying that Mormons are Christians should be taken in that light. (No, I’m not saying that Osteen doesn’t have saving faith. Maybe he does, and I hope he does. But this does not seem to be what he is proclaiming from the pulpit of the largest megachurch in the land.) I’m just trying to learn about Mormonism and about the theology of the “evangelicals” who are aligning with them.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I’m not judging whether someone will find salvation! I’m asking what Mormons believe on that subject. I’m pretty sure that they put a lot of emphasis on actions. I hold out plenty of hope. I’m curious how Mormons approach these questions. So far we have had Christians discussing whether or not Mormons are Christians. I’m curious about whether Mormons think non-Mormons are Christians, if you will. Or if Mormons think Christians are Mormons. The occasion of this discussion was Joel Osteen. From what I have seen from him on TV and from what I have read about him, he seems more like a Mormon in his emphases than any kind of traditional Christian. (I could be wrong. If so, someone please correct me.) So his saying that Mormons are Christians should be taken in that light. (No, I’m not saying that Osteen doesn’t have saving faith. Maybe he does, and I hope he does. But this does not seem to be what he is proclaiming from the pulpit of the largest megachurch in the land.) I’m just trying to learn about Mormonism and about the theology of the “evangelicals” who are aligning with them.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    There’s a good reason that there are NO crosses on the top of Mormon buildings (I will not dignify them by calling them churches).

    The cross of Christ is nothing to a Mormon. Worse maybe, to them it is a start. The start of their ladder climbing, ‘become a god’ project.

    For us that cross is the end of our project. The end of our life. And the beginning of new life in Him.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    There’s a good reason that there are NO crosses on the top of Mormon buildings (I will not dignify them by calling them churches).

    The cross of Christ is nothing to a Mormon. Worse maybe, to them it is a start. The start of their ladder climbing, ‘become a god’ project.

    For us that cross is the end of our project. The end of our life. And the beginning of new life in Him.

  • http:jesus-is-not-irrelevant.blogspot.com Mary Johnson

    No, Mormons will not go to heaven. You can call a dog a cat, it won’t make it a cat. The God and Jesus they believe in are not the real ones of the Bible. As was stated before, they believe that God was a man, has multiple wives, had sex with Mary to produce Jesus, and there has been speculation that the Holy Spirit is really the Heavenly Mother(s).

    Visit any ward’s service and you will find music that glorifies a) Joseph Smith (Hail to the Prophet) b) glorifies the pioneers (lots of songs) and last but not least Jesus may be in there. All scriptures are interpreted through the President’s of the church and Joseph Smith.

    Temples where couples are sealed, people are baptized for the dead in those “molten seas” fonts sitting on oxen, is where they learn the signs and tokens to get into the Celestial Kingdom. According to their theology, the Terrestial Kingdom will be inhabited by the good people of the world, the Telestial Kingdom will be inhabited by murders and such. So, everyone goes to a “heaven” according to their doctrine. Hell is reserved for Satan and those who martyred Joseph Smith.

    As far as de-converting a Mormon, it’s hard if they’re dyed in the wool LDS. Not impossible. I witnessed a man and wife who had supposedly made their “calling and election” (via a ceremony by a general authority which Christ was supposed to personally come to you and tell you that you now are in the highest level of the Celestial kingdom) who had left the church. You can bet he was quizzed by the former LDS about why he left. The LDS do a good job of taking control of your life, your marriage (and all that entails down to your sexual behaviors), your kids (who are questioned as well about their sexual behaviors) and your income where you have to pay a minimum of 10% or you don’t get a temple recommend for the year.

    You see, it’s not just a inconsequential bit of doctrine you are fighting against. It’s a cult with all the trappings and mind control of a cult. The doctrine is easily discounted to anyone with a mind, which tells you there is something more going on beneath the surface. Yes, they are nice people and moral. No, they do not believe in Christ alone, faith alone, scripture alone.

    I have read all their books, gone to their meetings, married a member a long time ago. It’s tenacious in its grip on the members. When I left my husband, they wouldn’t leave me alone, doing what’s called “love bombing” me with visits to my door every evening, phone calls, letters. They like a tight grip on their members and anyone they think MIGHT become a member.

  • http:jesus-is-not-irrelevant.blogspot.com Mary Johnson

    No, Mormons will not go to heaven. You can call a dog a cat, it won’t make it a cat. The God and Jesus they believe in are not the real ones of the Bible. As was stated before, they believe that God was a man, has multiple wives, had sex with Mary to produce Jesus, and there has been speculation that the Holy Spirit is really the Heavenly Mother(s).

    Visit any ward’s service and you will find music that glorifies a) Joseph Smith (Hail to the Prophet) b) glorifies the pioneers (lots of songs) and last but not least Jesus may be in there. All scriptures are interpreted through the President’s of the church and Joseph Smith.

    Temples where couples are sealed, people are baptized for the dead in those “molten seas” fonts sitting on oxen, is where they learn the signs and tokens to get into the Celestial Kingdom. According to their theology, the Terrestial Kingdom will be inhabited by the good people of the world, the Telestial Kingdom will be inhabited by murders and such. So, everyone goes to a “heaven” according to their doctrine. Hell is reserved for Satan and those who martyred Joseph Smith.

    As far as de-converting a Mormon, it’s hard if they’re dyed in the wool LDS. Not impossible. I witnessed a man and wife who had supposedly made their “calling and election” (via a ceremony by a general authority which Christ was supposed to personally come to you and tell you that you now are in the highest level of the Celestial kingdom) who had left the church. You can bet he was quizzed by the former LDS about why he left. The LDS do a good job of taking control of your life, your marriage (and all that entails down to your sexual behaviors), your kids (who are questioned as well about their sexual behaviors) and your income where you have to pay a minimum of 10% or you don’t get a temple recommend for the year.

    You see, it’s not just a inconsequential bit of doctrine you are fighting against. It’s a cult with all the trappings and mind control of a cult. The doctrine is easily discounted to anyone with a mind, which tells you there is something more going on beneath the surface. Yes, they are nice people and moral. No, they do not believe in Christ alone, faith alone, scripture alone.

    I have read all their books, gone to their meetings, married a member a long time ago. It’s tenacious in its grip on the members. When I left my husband, they wouldn’t leave me alone, doing what’s called “love bombing” me with visits to my door every evening, phone calls, letters. They like a tight grip on their members and anyone they think MIGHT become a member.

  • Jonathan

    I’m curious. Do LDS like Peter @18 lurk at sites such as this, or do they troll the internet for “Mormon,” and then make a hit n run?

    I just recall Dr. Veith’s post recently about their use of internet searches.

  • Jonathan

    I’m curious. Do LDS like Peter @18 lurk at sites such as this, or do they troll the internet for “Mormon,” and then make a hit n run?

    I just recall Dr. Veith’s post recently about their use of internet searches.

  • Grace

    Mary @ 35

    Thank you for a most informative post. I hope it helps others understand, if at least a small glimpse into the LDS practices. They do dominate their members life, they do check out their income.

    The Mormon duet used to come to our front entry door often. When confronted with their heretical beliefs, they sneered and smerked, as if to discredit what they know is true, of their cult.

    Being kind, and telling them I’m not interested, has not always worked, they become very forceful and bold. I have had to demand they leave our entry and property.

  • Grace

    Mary @ 35

    Thank you for a most informative post. I hope it helps others understand, if at least a small glimpse into the LDS practices. They do dominate their members life, they do check out their income.

    The Mormon duet used to come to our front entry door often. When confronted with their heretical beliefs, they sneered and smerked, as if to discredit what they know is true, of their cult.

    Being kind, and telling them I’m not interested, has not always worked, they become very forceful and bold. I have had to demand they leave our entry and property.

  • Grace

    This from Albert Mohler’s blog – it’s a very good article. I believe the statement is correct:

    “By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated.”

    Does Joel Osteen Not Know, or Does He Not Care?

    By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated.

    Wednesday, October 26, 2011

    “Here we go again. Joel Osteen is in the news once again, this time for saying that Mormonism is just another form of Christianity. Osteen, pastor of “America’s largest church,” as the media repeat over and over, was speaking to The Washington Times in an interview that covered a variety of issues. It was the quintessential Joel on display.”

    ___another EXCERPT from article:

    “Joel reminded the paper’s staff that he has never attended seminary. This is true, of course, but there are thousands of preachers who never had the opportunity to attend seminary who have a sufficient grasp of and commitment to biblical truth that would prevent such carelessness.

    By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated. This is not the first time that he has encountered the question of Mormonism. Back in 2007, he told Chris Wallace of FOX News that Mormons are indeed Christians:

    –“Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.”–

    The little details of it? Mormonism does not differ from historic biblical Christianity in only the “little details,” and a faithful Mormon would be the first to point this out. Mormonism begins with a plurality of gods, not with the monotheism of the Bible. Jesus Christ is an exalted man — not the incarnate Word. The list of categorical doctrinal differences continues throughout the entire belief system.

    The very essence of Mormonism is the claim that historic Christianity is fundamentally in error, and that true Christianity did not exist on earth from the time of the Apostles until Joseph Smith. Mormonism can hardly be charged with hiding their movement’s teachings — the Book of Mormon and the other fundamental texts of the Latter Day Saints are published in plain sight.”

    http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/10/26/does-joel-osteen-not-know-or-does-he-not-care/

  • Grace

    This from Albert Mohler’s blog – it’s a very good article. I believe the statement is correct:

    “By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated.”

    Does Joel Osteen Not Know, or Does He Not Care?

    By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated.

    Wednesday, October 26, 2011

    “Here we go again. Joel Osteen is in the news once again, this time for saying that Mormonism is just another form of Christianity. Osteen, pastor of “America’s largest church,” as the media repeat over and over, was speaking to The Washington Times in an interview that covered a variety of issues. It was the quintessential Joel on display.”

    ___another EXCERPT from article:

    “Joel reminded the paper’s staff that he has never attended seminary. This is true, of course, but there are thousands of preachers who never had the opportunity to attend seminary who have a sufficient grasp of and commitment to biblical truth that would prevent such carelessness.

    By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated. This is not the first time that he has encountered the question of Mormonism. Back in 2007, he told Chris Wallace of FOX News that Mormons are indeed Christians:

    –“Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.”–

    The little details of it? Mormonism does not differ from historic biblical Christianity in only the “little details,” and a faithful Mormon would be the first to point this out. Mormonism begins with a plurality of gods, not with the monotheism of the Bible. Jesus Christ is an exalted man — not the incarnate Word. The list of categorical doctrinal differences continues throughout the entire belief system.

    The very essence of Mormonism is the claim that historic Christianity is fundamentally in error, and that true Christianity did not exist on earth from the time of the Apostles until Joseph Smith. Mormonism can hardly be charged with hiding their movement’s teachings — the Book of Mormon and the other fundamental texts of the Latter Day Saints are published in plain sight.”

    http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/10/26/does-joel-osteen-not-know-or-does-he-not-care/

  • Dust

    Of course they are…if you “define” that term like Osteen! No they are not…if you “define” the term like most folks here! The answer depends….

    But really, who “owns” the name? What’s in a name, anyway? A rose, by any other name, is still a rose….remember? What does it mean to be a Mormon? A Christian?

    A few months ago, Dr. Veith had this post:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/09/06/when-names-become-adjectives/

    Do you remember? One of my favorite comments said:

    “well in today’s modern world where everyone gets to decide the definition and meaning of each and every word, there might even be some debate about even whether Christ himself was a Christian? Why not, given the wide range of interpretations of that term and His Person, it could be the ultimate question of the day?”

    Perhaps that can be expressed another way, like this: “would Christ himself be a Christian in today’s modern Christian sense?”

    Before you answer, that requires you to state clearly, just who is Christ? And what is Christianity anyway? Obviously, both those messages are lost today on many people. Marketing experts might say your brand has been diluted. Lutherans perhaps know this better than any other denomination?

    Another question, if Joseph Smith were alive today, would he call himself a Mormon in today’s modern sense? My guess is he would not! Can’t base it on anything, except that he was trying to start a church radically different than the Christian churches of his time, wasn’t he? So what would his reaction be to the modern Mormons calling themselves Christian…perhaps even better Christians than the tired old brand from years past? Maybe a real good laugh!

    Perhaps is not that Mormonism has grown closer to Christianity, but that Christianity itself has moved further away from it’s roots and we can’t recognize it anymore?

  • Dust

    Of course they are…if you “define” that term like Osteen! No they are not…if you “define” the term like most folks here! The answer depends….

    But really, who “owns” the name? What’s in a name, anyway? A rose, by any other name, is still a rose….remember? What does it mean to be a Mormon? A Christian?

    A few months ago, Dr. Veith had this post:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/09/06/when-names-become-adjectives/

    Do you remember? One of my favorite comments said:

    “well in today’s modern world where everyone gets to decide the definition and meaning of each and every word, there might even be some debate about even whether Christ himself was a Christian? Why not, given the wide range of interpretations of that term and His Person, it could be the ultimate question of the day?”

    Perhaps that can be expressed another way, like this: “would Christ himself be a Christian in today’s modern Christian sense?”

    Before you answer, that requires you to state clearly, just who is Christ? And what is Christianity anyway? Obviously, both those messages are lost today on many people. Marketing experts might say your brand has been diluted. Lutherans perhaps know this better than any other denomination?

    Another question, if Joseph Smith were alive today, would he call himself a Mormon in today’s modern sense? My guess is he would not! Can’t base it on anything, except that he was trying to start a church radically different than the Christian churches of his time, wasn’t he? So what would his reaction be to the modern Mormons calling themselves Christian…perhaps even better Christians than the tired old brand from years past? Maybe a real good laugh!

    Perhaps is not that Mormonism has grown closer to Christianity, but that Christianity itself has moved further away from it’s roots and we can’t recognize it anymore?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dust (@39), I can’t help but notice that the “favorite comment” you quote for us was written by … you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dust (@39), I can’t help but notice that the “favorite comment” you quote for us was written by … you.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 39

    And as you stated in post 16 from the link you posted ( YOUR POST by the way:

    “well in today’s modern world where everyone gets to decide the definition and meaning of each and every word, there might even be some debate about even whether Christ himself was a Christian? Why not, given the wide range of interpretations of that term and His Person, it could be the ultimate question of the day? on the other hand, perhaps it’s just a stupid idea…as noted above”

    To refer in any way that Christ Jesus “whether Christ himself was a Christian” is sacrilegious. HE, after all is the Christ, the only sinless one to be born on this earth, and you question the LORD’s life, HIS person, HIS being a Christian – after all, HIS name is Christ, and those who follow HIM, HIS teaching, believing ONLY on HIM for Salvation are Christians. There is no greater title to be had on this earth then that of being a “Christian” – a “follower of Christ” – not a man, not a cult, not a trumped up organization as the LDS, but those who trust in Christ only.

    And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
    Acts 11:26

    Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
    Acts 26:28

    Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
    1 Peter 4:16

    Christian - definition Strongs Greek -

    a Christian, i.e. follower of Christ:–Christian.

    CristianoV
    Christianos
    khris-tee-an-os’

    YOU THEN ASK: “Before you answer, that requires you to state clearly, just who is Christ? “

    He is the sinless Son of God, HE is God the Son, the redeemer, our Savior – if you find the need to ask such a question, you might study the Scriptures.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 39

    And as you stated in post 16 from the link you posted ( YOUR POST by the way:

    “well in today’s modern world where everyone gets to decide the definition and meaning of each and every word, there might even be some debate about even whether Christ himself was a Christian? Why not, given the wide range of interpretations of that term and His Person, it could be the ultimate question of the day? on the other hand, perhaps it’s just a stupid idea…as noted above”

    To refer in any way that Christ Jesus “whether Christ himself was a Christian” is sacrilegious. HE, after all is the Christ, the only sinless one to be born on this earth, and you question the LORD’s life, HIS person, HIS being a Christian – after all, HIS name is Christ, and those who follow HIM, HIS teaching, believing ONLY on HIM for Salvation are Christians. There is no greater title to be had on this earth then that of being a “Christian” – a “follower of Christ” – not a man, not a cult, not a trumped up organization as the LDS, but those who trust in Christ only.

    And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
    Acts 11:26

    Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
    Acts 26:28

    Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
    1 Peter 4:16

    Christian - definition Strongs Greek -

    a Christian, i.e. follower of Christ:–Christian.

    CristianoV
    Christianos
    khris-tee-an-os’

    YOU THEN ASK: “Before you answer, that requires you to state clearly, just who is Christ? “

    He is the sinless Son of God, HE is God the Son, the redeemer, our Savior – if you find the need to ask such a question, you might study the Scriptures.

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    No, Mormonism is not Christianity. Any Mormon who happens to be a Christian, is so purely by the grace of God working through His Word.

    But as for Mormonism, it is nothing but a wacky cult invented by the nut job Joseph Smith.

    It is a religion of profound legalism.

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    No, Mormonism is not Christianity. Any Mormon who happens to be a Christian, is so purely by the grace of God working through His Word.

    But as for Mormonism, it is nothing but a wacky cult invented by the nut job Joseph Smith.

    It is a religion of profound legalism.

  • Dust

    tODD at 40…..look closely and you’ll see it was just “one” favorite, and said specifically it was “my” comment :)

  • Dust

    tODD at 40…..look closely and you’ll see it was just “one” favorite, and said specifically it was “my” comment :)

  • Dust

    Grace…my comments were meant to be rhetorical, and obviously, as usual, it did not come across that way to everyone, maybe anyone?

    So perhaps, in this new light, you will give them another try and if so, try a little tenderness :)

  • Dust

    Grace…my comments were meant to be rhetorical, and obviously, as usual, it did not come across that way to everyone, maybe anyone?

    So perhaps, in this new light, you will give them another try and if so, try a little tenderness :)

  • steve

    My comment is certainly not unique here but it’s pretty much the way I feel about all non-Christian religions. Mormon theology is not historical Christian theology. To that extent, Mormonism is not the Christianity defined in any of the ecumenical creeds to which the majority of Christians in the world hold. I think we can all agree on that. Now, are Mormons Christian? Maybe. But certainly not by virtue of their Mormon theology. More to the point, will Mormons be saved? I hope so.

  • steve

    My comment is certainly not unique here but it’s pretty much the way I feel about all non-Christian religions. Mormon theology is not historical Christian theology. To that extent, Mormonism is not the Christianity defined in any of the ecumenical creeds to which the majority of Christians in the world hold. I think we can all agree on that. Now, are Mormons Christian? Maybe. But certainly not by virtue of their Mormon theology. More to the point, will Mormons be saved? I hope so.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    The fact of the matter is there is hardly a difference between what mormonks teach about how one is saved, and what many if not most evangelicals teach about how one is saved. Their doctrine of the trinity is off, and so is their christology, but there again you find the equivalents in liberal protestantism, which can hardly even posit the existence of god today. And then they have a bunch of wierd stuff. But to answer veiths question, I think one is warranted with some who identify as christians and go to non mormon church bodies as essentially in the same boat as mormons. For instance watching baptists and evangelicals debate with mormons in utah, one sees that it amounts to a pissing match over who has the better morals, most of the baptists and evangelicals couldn’t explain the trinity or its connection to salvation. And this is what we are now seeing in the media with certan celebrity pastors. And it is a very sad indictment on the church across denominations that we think it is our position on ploygamy that seperates us from mormons.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    The fact of the matter is there is hardly a difference between what mormonks teach about how one is saved, and what many if not most evangelicals teach about how one is saved. Their doctrine of the trinity is off, and so is their christology, but there again you find the equivalents in liberal protestantism, which can hardly even posit the existence of god today. And then they have a bunch of wierd stuff. But to answer veiths question, I think one is warranted with some who identify as christians and go to non mormon church bodies as essentially in the same boat as mormons. For instance watching baptists and evangelicals debate with mormons in utah, one sees that it amounts to a pissing match over who has the better morals, most of the baptists and evangelicals couldn’t explain the trinity or its connection to salvation. And this is what we are now seeing in the media with certan celebrity pastors. And it is a very sad indictment on the church across denominations that we think it is our position on ploygamy that seperates us from mormons.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 44

    YOU WROTE:

    “Grace…my comments were meant to be rhetorical, and obviously, as usual, it did not come across that way to everyone, maybe anyone?

    So perhaps, in this new light, you will give them another try and if so, try a little tenderness”

    There is nothing “rhetorical” about your remarks, they were as I stated “sacrilegious” in post 41 – My remarks stand as stated. Further more, there is no reason to “give them another try” or with “tenderness” –

    Christ’s Name is HOLY, it should be used with reverence, not irreverently questioned.

  • Grace

    Dust @ 44

    YOU WROTE:

    “Grace…my comments were meant to be rhetorical, and obviously, as usual, it did not come across that way to everyone, maybe anyone?

    So perhaps, in this new light, you will give them another try and if so, try a little tenderness”

    There is nothing “rhetorical” about your remarks, they were as I stated “sacrilegious” in post 41 – My remarks stand as stated. Further more, there is no reason to “give them another try” or with “tenderness” –

    Christ’s Name is HOLY, it should be used with reverence, not irreverently questioned.

  • MikeD

    At the risk of sounding like I’m picking a fight, I’d like to remind some of you staunch Lutherans that you’ve explicitly written on this blog that a Christian is one who has been baptized with a Trinitarian formula. Mormons do in fact do this, that is, baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For those of you who have resorted to speaking of the meaning of the terms, good on ya, but I would have figured most Lutherans would peg such conversation as gnostic. Indeed, when we have spoken before on the subject, any mention of the individual’s faith (that is to say, what they believe about the meaning of the words), the accusation of gnosticism was thrown around quite a bit. Bottom line, is one that has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit a Christian?

  • MikeD

    At the risk of sounding like I’m picking a fight, I’d like to remind some of you staunch Lutherans that you’ve explicitly written on this blog that a Christian is one who has been baptized with a Trinitarian formula. Mormons do in fact do this, that is, baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For those of you who have resorted to speaking of the meaning of the terms, good on ya, but I would have figured most Lutherans would peg such conversation as gnostic. Indeed, when we have spoken before on the subject, any mention of the individual’s faith (that is to say, what they believe about the meaning of the words), the accusation of gnosticism was thrown around quite a bit. Bottom line, is one that has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit a Christian?

  • Grace

    Bror @ 46

    What you see and hear in Utah, according to your situation regarding Evangelicals and Baptists, might very well be true, but it doesn’t cover the gamut of strong Evangelical Churches or their congregants.

    YOU WROTE: “For instance watching baptists and evangelicals debate with mormons in utah, one sees that it amounts to a pissing match over who has the better morals, most of the baptists and evangelicals couldn’t explain the trinity or its connection to salvation. “

    I’ve heard all the comments regarding “morals” and Mormons, anyone who has been around them long enough will hear all about how ‘moral they are, except when their NOT. How they do not drink, etc., etc., unless they DO, and many DO!

    From many of your posts, I have observed your unwarranted attacks on Evangelicals. From what you’ve stated you were raised from the cradle as a Lutheran. That’s fine, but I doubt you spent as much time as I have in other churches, asking hundreds of questions regarding their beliefs – unless you’ve sat in on a great many Bible studies, where people must interact, using the Word of God, listening to what they believe, you cannot make the ‘street cleaning down the highway with your Lutheran brush.

    As for the Trinity – most all strong, (meaning studied, Christians) know exactly what the Trinity is.

  • Grace

    Bror @ 46

    What you see and hear in Utah, according to your situation regarding Evangelicals and Baptists, might very well be true, but it doesn’t cover the gamut of strong Evangelical Churches or their congregants.

    YOU WROTE: “For instance watching baptists and evangelicals debate with mormons in utah, one sees that it amounts to a pissing match over who has the better morals, most of the baptists and evangelicals couldn’t explain the trinity or its connection to salvation. “

    I’ve heard all the comments regarding “morals” and Mormons, anyone who has been around them long enough will hear all about how ‘moral they are, except when their NOT. How they do not drink, etc., etc., unless they DO, and many DO!

    From many of your posts, I have observed your unwarranted attacks on Evangelicals. From what you’ve stated you were raised from the cradle as a Lutheran. That’s fine, but I doubt you spent as much time as I have in other churches, asking hundreds of questions regarding their beliefs – unless you’ve sat in on a great many Bible studies, where people must interact, using the Word of God, listening to what they believe, you cannot make the ‘street cleaning down the highway with your Lutheran brush.

    As for the Trinity – most all strong, (meaning studied, Christians) know exactly what the Trinity is.

  • Dust

    Grace…gee, thanks for your less than grace ful comments…how dare you read into the hearts of others…shame on you…over and out!

  • Dust

    Grace…gee, thanks for your less than grace ful comments…how dare you read into the hearts of others…shame on you…over and out!

  • Dust

    ps. Grace…please don’t reply…you are beginning to bore me!

  • Dust

    ps. Grace…please don’t reply…you are beginning to bore me!

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    MikeD,
    I think you misunderstand a couple of things, though what the individual believes makes no difference concerning what a sacrament does, what a church publicly professes does. So wher as baptista are trinitarian we accept their baptism as valid, though we think they eat crackers and grape juice at communion. So then becausae the lds deny the trinity, they do not baptize into the trinity , even if they use the formula. It is not a magic rite that works ex opera operato.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    MikeD,
    I think you misunderstand a couple of things, though what the individual believes makes no difference concerning what a sacrament does, what a church publicly professes does. So wher as baptista are trinitarian we accept their baptism as valid, though we think they eat crackers and grape juice at communion. So then becausae the lds deny the trinity, they do not baptize into the trinity , even if they use the formula. It is not a magic rite that works ex opera operato.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    one of the few times I do not line up w/ David Barton…
    he is wrong-
    Carol-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    one of the few times I do not line up w/ David Barton…
    he is wrong-
    Carol-CS

  • Grace

    Bror @ 52

    YOU wrote:

    “So wher as baptista are trinitarian we accept their baptism as valid, though we think they eat crackers and grape juice at communion.

    You must understand Bror, the Jews served “unleavened bread” during Passover. Therefore what Jesus was breaking was not a loaf of leavened bread, (like the ones you buy in the market for sandwiches) it was flat motso OR matzoh – very flat, very much like a cracker.

    Unleavened Bread. Matzo flat unleavened bread is a symbol of Passover.

    matzo also mat·zoh (mäts, -s, -sô, mät-sä)
    n. pl. mat·zos also mat·zohs (mütsz, -ss) or mat·zot or mat·zoth (mät-sôt)
    A brittle, flat piece of unleavened bread, eaten especially during Passover

    But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
    Matthew 26:29

    fruit strongs Greek
    offspring; by analogy, produce (literally or figuratively):–fruit, generation.
    gennema

    Bror, you concern yourself with crackers, when in fact Matzo is a type of cracker – the fruit of the vine is grape juice.

    You are binding yourself to a leavened bread and a fermented juice, this is not what the Scriptures state as pivotal to the LORD’s Supper.

  • Grace

    Bror @ 52

    YOU wrote:

    “So wher as baptista are trinitarian we accept their baptism as valid, though we think they eat crackers and grape juice at communion.

    You must understand Bror, the Jews served “unleavened bread” during Passover. Therefore what Jesus was breaking was not a loaf of leavened bread, (like the ones you buy in the market for sandwiches) it was flat motso OR matzoh – very flat, very much like a cracker.

    Unleavened Bread. Matzo flat unleavened bread is a symbol of Passover.

    matzo also mat·zoh (mäts, -s, -sô, mät-sä)
    n. pl. mat·zos also mat·zohs (mütsz, -ss) or mat·zot or mat·zoth (mät-sôt)
    A brittle, flat piece of unleavened bread, eaten especially during Passover

    But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
    Matthew 26:29

    fruit strongs Greek
    offspring; by analogy, produce (literally or figuratively):–fruit, generation.
    gennema

    Bror, you concern yourself with crackers, when in fact Matzo is a type of cracker – the fruit of the vine is grape juice.

    You are binding yourself to a leavened bread and a fermented juice, this is not what the Scriptures state as pivotal to the LORD’s Supper.

  • Deborah

    I’ve been deeply disappointed in David Barton ever since he drank the Glenn-Beck-may-be-a-Mormon-but-he’s-a-Christian-too koolaid. However, nothing surprises me that Joel Osteen says. His watered-down, anemic view of Christianity is deeply deceptive.

  • Deborah

    I’ve been deeply disappointed in David Barton ever since he drank the Glenn-Beck-may-be-a-Mormon-but-he’s-a-Christian-too koolaid. However, nothing surprises me that Joel Osteen says. His watered-down, anemic view of Christianity is deeply deceptive.

  • helen

    We think the Baptists eat crackers and grape juice at their communion because that is what they tell us they do.
    They do not believe the Supper IS Christ’s true body and blood, because they have decided what He said is impossible. ["Nothing is impossible with God."]

    No need to get into leavened/unleavened bread; a Lutheran church uses unleavened bread.
    The Supper was instituted at the Passover. Wine is prescribed for the Passover.
    These elements, on the table for the Passover, I believe were the instituting elements.
    YMMV

  • helen

    We think the Baptists eat crackers and grape juice at their communion because that is what they tell us they do.
    They do not believe the Supper IS Christ’s true body and blood, because they have decided what He said is impossible. ["Nothing is impossible with God."]

    No need to get into leavened/unleavened bread; a Lutheran church uses unleavened bread.
    The Supper was instituted at the Passover. Wine is prescribed for the Passover.
    These elements, on the table for the Passover, I believe were the instituting elements.
    YMMV

  • http://thefragrantharbor.blogspot.com Catherine

    Grace @54, I think you ENTIRELY missed Bror’s point….

  • http://thefragrantharbor.blogspot.com Catherine

    Grace @54, I think you ENTIRELY missed Bror’s point….

  • michael henry

    I don’t go to Best Buy to ask about Fords. I don’t go to Denny’s to ask about Cable TV. I certainly would not go to Mr. Osteen to ascertain any theological matter.
    One is or is not something just because they or someone says they are. They are what they are either by clear training credentials such as a pilot or lawyer, or by the owner or originator of a process or profession saying they are.
    In this particular case, the maker of the universe has clearly laid out what is or is not pleasing, and who is or is not a disciple of the one true savior, the second person of the trinity, without whos blood we have unhealed stripes, Jesus.
    Clearly, Mr. Osteen is not other than a rank heretic and false teacher, and Mormon’s are not Christians. They can only claim to be so (after saying the very “Christianity” they say they are a part of was corrupted and only saved by Smith) if by the same judgement I can call myself a Chevrolet, because I say so.

  • michael henry

    I don’t go to Best Buy to ask about Fords. I don’t go to Denny’s to ask about Cable TV. I certainly would not go to Mr. Osteen to ascertain any theological matter.
    One is or is not something just because they or someone says they are. They are what they are either by clear training credentials such as a pilot or lawyer, or by the owner or originator of a process or profession saying they are.
    In this particular case, the maker of the universe has clearly laid out what is or is not pleasing, and who is or is not a disciple of the one true savior, the second person of the trinity, without whos blood we have unhealed stripes, Jesus.
    Clearly, Mr. Osteen is not other than a rank heretic and false teacher, and Mormon’s are not Christians. They can only claim to be so (after saying the very “Christianity” they say they are a part of was corrupted and only saved by Smith) if by the same judgement I can call myself a Chevrolet, because I say so.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Helen and Catherine, thank you. I thought about responding to Grace myself, but prefer not to because she has proven herself numerous times to be incapable of grasping even the simplest of points, and has a penchant for ruining othwise pleasant conversations and debates. So I don’t engage her at all anymore. When her and dust show up, it is usually time to just move on to a different conversation. Frankly, and not to be rude, I think they are nothing more than satans tools used to destroy the camraderie that used to be shared on this blog where people could feel free to have intelligent conversation and debate. Rest assured I’ve tried charitable with them before. So in anycase, I figure mikeD, and other honestly curiouse lurkers and what not could understand what I was getting at, even if Grace chose not to.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Helen and Catherine, thank you. I thought about responding to Grace myself, but prefer not to because she has proven herself numerous times to be incapable of grasping even the simplest of points, and has a penchant for ruining othwise pleasant conversations and debates. So I don’t engage her at all anymore. When her and dust show up, it is usually time to just move on to a different conversation. Frankly, and not to be rude, I think they are nothing more than satans tools used to destroy the camraderie that used to be shared on this blog where people could feel free to have intelligent conversation and debate. Rest assured I’ve tried charitable with them before. So in anycase, I figure mikeD, and other honestly curiouse lurkers and what not could understand what I was getting at, even if Grace chose not to.

  • CRB

    It seems to me that some Christians believe that Mormons are truly
    Christians, that is, those weak Christians who falsely equate being a
    “Christian” with being a good person who happens also to believe in
    Christ as Lord and Savior. It goes something like what those in Minnesota are known: “Minnesota Nice.” They are not confessional
    Christians, but they certainly are “NICE” Christians! : )

  • CRB

    It seems to me that some Christians believe that Mormons are truly
    Christians, that is, those weak Christians who falsely equate being a
    “Christian” with being a good person who happens also to believe in
    Christ as Lord and Savior. It goes something like what those in Minnesota are known: “Minnesota Nice.” They are not confessional
    Christians, but they certainly are “NICE” Christians! : )

  • http:jesus-is-not-irrelevant.blogspot.com Mary Johnson

    Bror @ 46 “The fact of the matter is there is hardly a difference between what mormonks teach about how one is saved, and what many if not most evangelicals teach about how one is saved.”

    That is it in a nutshell. When you can’t tell the difference between the majority of Christian denom’s out there and Mormonism, it’s the Christians who have lost their focus and theology. The yardstick you are using to measure Christianity with is broken and splintered. You have to go back to the basic theological fundamentals and start over again.

    As far as are there any Mormons who are Christian? Tell me this, can you see a Mormon coming to Jesus at the throne, what’s the first thing out of his mouth? Where’s the prophet Joseph?

    I believe God said to have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Mormons have done a bang up job in supplanting Joseph Smith for Jesus. Jesus is just a launching pad for their beloved leader.

    No true Mormon who worships Joseph Smith will be in heaven. There may be converts who still hold to the Lord and have saving faith, but their days are numbered by a constant barrage of lies and deceptions.

  • http:jesus-is-not-irrelevant.blogspot.com Mary Johnson

    Bror @ 46 “The fact of the matter is there is hardly a difference between what mormonks teach about how one is saved, and what many if not most evangelicals teach about how one is saved.”

    That is it in a nutshell. When you can’t tell the difference between the majority of Christian denom’s out there and Mormonism, it’s the Christians who have lost their focus and theology. The yardstick you are using to measure Christianity with is broken and splintered. You have to go back to the basic theological fundamentals and start over again.

    As far as are there any Mormons who are Christian? Tell me this, can you see a Mormon coming to Jesus at the throne, what’s the first thing out of his mouth? Where’s the prophet Joseph?

    I believe God said to have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Mormons have done a bang up job in supplanting Joseph Smith for Jesus. Jesus is just a launching pad for their beloved leader.

    No true Mormon who worships Joseph Smith will be in heaven. There may be converts who still hold to the Lord and have saving faith, but their days are numbered by a constant barrage of lies and deceptions.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Mary johnson,
    13 years ago I decided tto become a pastor, a job that my dad had , and for which I blamed most of our troubles, from lack of money to father son laggerheads. I did this because for two years I attended “general protestant worship services, and never heard the gospel, never hear about jesus christ and his death and resurrection, never heard the forgiveness of sins. It mattered not if it was a baptist preaching or a prebyterian or a methodist. So it is not my measuring stick that is wrong. At that point I realized the importance of what my dad did. Now I do the same thing in utah, I proclaim christ and him crucified, every sunday. I proclaim the repentance and the forgiveness of sins, it is not my measuring stick that is off. I don’t care what you call yourself, if you donkt proclaim christ crucified, if you don’t proclaim the forgiveness of sins then you don’t have the gospel. You are in the very essence the same as mormonism. Christ saves and him alone. He is the center of christianity, and the only thing that should be preached from a christian pulpit. Sorry for any typos I’m participating here via BB.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Mary johnson,
    13 years ago I decided tto become a pastor, a job that my dad had , and for which I blamed most of our troubles, from lack of money to father son laggerheads. I did this because for two years I attended “general protestant worship services, and never heard the gospel, never hear about jesus christ and his death and resurrection, never heard the forgiveness of sins. It mattered not if it was a baptist preaching or a prebyterian or a methodist. So it is not my measuring stick that is wrong. At that point I realized the importance of what my dad did. Now I do the same thing in utah, I proclaim christ and him crucified, every sunday. I proclaim the repentance and the forgiveness of sins, it is not my measuring stick that is off. I don’t care what you call yourself, if you donkt proclaim christ crucified, if you don’t proclaim the forgiveness of sins then you don’t have the gospel. You are in the very essence the same as mormonism. Christ saves and him alone. He is the center of christianity, and the only thing that should be preached from a christian pulpit. Sorry for any typos I’m participating here via BB.

  • Grace

    Bror @ 62

    You wrote: ” I did this because for two years I attended “general protestant worship services, and never heard the gospel, never hear about jesus christ and his death and resurrection, never heard the forgiveness of sins. It mattered not if it was a baptist preaching or a prebyterian or a methodist. So it is not my measuring stick that is wrong.”

    Bror, .. I here what you missed for two years, EVERY SUNDAY. I’m sorry that the churches you attended didn’t preach the Gospel, never heard them state plainly Jesus death, resurrection and forgiveness from sins, through faith and believing on HIM.

    There are churches who don’t preach the Gospel, of every strip, .. if I entered one, and they didn’t preach the Gospel, I would never return. What I would do when I left, as the pastor stood greeting those leaving, I would ask him WHY he didn’t preach the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ – just as Christ taught it.

    You can only speak for those churches you have attended, just as I can speak for those I have attended. There have been some that I would never darken the door again, they either preach a ‘social gospel, or water down the gospel, assistance female pastors, or go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the Word of God.

    Having said all that, there are a number of strong Bible Churches who do not fall under the umbrella of which you speak. It’s unfair and unlearned to throw all churches but those who are Lutherans under such heresey, it would be wise if you gave this some thought rather than acting as though you’ve attended all Bible Churches, and have stamped them all with you seal of disaproval.

  • Grace

    Bror @ 62

    You wrote: ” I did this because for two years I attended “general protestant worship services, and never heard the gospel, never hear about jesus christ and his death and resurrection, never heard the forgiveness of sins. It mattered not if it was a baptist preaching or a prebyterian or a methodist. So it is not my measuring stick that is wrong.”

    Bror, .. I here what you missed for two years, EVERY SUNDAY. I’m sorry that the churches you attended didn’t preach the Gospel, never heard them state plainly Jesus death, resurrection and forgiveness from sins, through faith and believing on HIM.

    There are churches who don’t preach the Gospel, of every strip, .. if I entered one, and they didn’t preach the Gospel, I would never return. What I would do when I left, as the pastor stood greeting those leaving, I would ask him WHY he didn’t preach the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ – just as Christ taught it.

    You can only speak for those churches you have attended, just as I can speak for those I have attended. There have been some that I would never darken the door again, they either preach a ‘social gospel, or water down the gospel, assistance female pastors, or go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the Word of God.

    Having said all that, there are a number of strong Bible Churches who do not fall under the umbrella of which you speak. It’s unfair and unlearned to throw all churches but those who are Lutherans under such heresey, it would be wise if you gave this some thought rather than acting as though you’ve attended all Bible Churches, and have stamped them all with you seal of disaproval.

  • Grace

    Bror @ 59

    “I thought about responding to Grace myself, but prefer not to because she has proven herself numerous times to be incapable of grasping even the simplest of points, and has a penchant for ruining othwise pleasant conversations and debates. So I don’t engage her at all anymore. When her and dust show up, it is usually time to just move on to a different conversation. Frankly, and not to be rude, I think I think they are nothing more than satans tools used to destroy the camraderie that used to be shared on this blog where people could feel free to have intelligent conversation and debate.”

    Bror, it might interest you to know, that I read a great deal before ever starting to post on this blog. Having said that, there were many arguments, and disagreements taking place between the commenters on different threads, regarding the Bible, doctrine, and denominations, etc.

    Your hateful, and yes “rude” remark – - I think they are nothing more than satans tools – - what a terrible thing to say, especially as you are a pastor.

  • Grace

    Bror @ 59

    “I thought about responding to Grace myself, but prefer not to because she has proven herself numerous times to be incapable of grasping even the simplest of points, and has a penchant for ruining othwise pleasant conversations and debates. So I don’t engage her at all anymore. When her and dust show up, it is usually time to just move on to a different conversation. Frankly, and not to be rude, I think I think they are nothing more than satans tools used to destroy the camraderie that used to be shared on this blog where people could feel free to have intelligent conversation and debate.”

    Bror, it might interest you to know, that I read a great deal before ever starting to post on this blog. Having said that, there were many arguments, and disagreements taking place between the commenters on different threads, regarding the Bible, doctrine, and denominations, etc.

    Your hateful, and yes “rude” remark – - I think they are nothing more than satans tools – - what a terrible thing to say, especially as you are a pastor.

  • Dust

    Satans tools….so you’re saying the devil made you do it? Gee, have not heard that excuse since Flip Wilson made a few million off it :)

  • Dust

    Satans tools….so you’re saying the devil made you do it? Gee, have not heard that excuse since Flip Wilson made a few million off it :)

  • Wayne A

    They have a different Jesus, a different Father, a different Gospel, a different way to be saved, a different heaven and no hell, other wise were exacaly the same.

  • Wayne A

    They have a different Jesus, a different Father, a different Gospel, a different way to be saved, a different heaven and no hell, other wise were exacaly the same.

  • Dust

    Wayne A…that’s the point I was trying to make a few comments ago, but you said better and better yet, simply and more plainly so even I could understand, thanks!

    But yet they use the same words…Jesus, Trinity, Gospel….just like liberal Christian theologians do. Some say resurrection, but they don’t mean a bodily resurrection, but a spiritual resurrection that takes place in the soul of each believer, for example. The folks in the pews think that means one thing, usually what it means in a simple and plain way, but the well-educated, sophisticated, more with-it liberal preachers, mean something more abstract and general…at least that is how it has been explained to me?

    And so it goes with many of the words associated with classical and traditional Christianity….regular folks think of them one way, and the “wiser” more “scholarly” (warning, this is an attempt at sarcasm) liberal preachers and theologians think of them another way. Shame, shame….

    It seems to me it may be just symptomatic of this generation and our time, for it seems like the same is true of politicians, professors and others in authority? For example, the word “camraderie” [sic] sounds like a wholesome term, but it depends….is one talking of camraderie like in a fellowship sense, or camraderie like that found in a group of thugs and bullies, say for example, like the Hell’s Angels? One persons camraderie can be another persons nightmare….

    Talk is cheap but words still have value, at least for the time being. It seems to me that many want to coop the value of the words and rituals of historical and traditional Christianity, and then use them to gain for themselves things that won’t really last? In the meantime, lots of folks get hurt and lots of verbal rocks will be thrown….perhaps it’s time take some legal action :)

  • Dust

    Wayne A…that’s the point I was trying to make a few comments ago, but you said better and better yet, simply and more plainly so even I could understand, thanks!

    But yet they use the same words…Jesus, Trinity, Gospel….just like liberal Christian theologians do. Some say resurrection, but they don’t mean a bodily resurrection, but a spiritual resurrection that takes place in the soul of each believer, for example. The folks in the pews think that means one thing, usually what it means in a simple and plain way, but the well-educated, sophisticated, more with-it liberal preachers, mean something more abstract and general…at least that is how it has been explained to me?

    And so it goes with many of the words associated with classical and traditional Christianity….regular folks think of them one way, and the “wiser” more “scholarly” (warning, this is an attempt at sarcasm) liberal preachers and theologians think of them another way. Shame, shame….

    It seems to me it may be just symptomatic of this generation and our time, for it seems like the same is true of politicians, professors and others in authority? For example, the word “camraderie” [sic] sounds like a wholesome term, but it depends….is one talking of camraderie like in a fellowship sense, or camraderie like that found in a group of thugs and bullies, say for example, like the Hell’s Angels? One persons camraderie can be another persons nightmare….

    Talk is cheap but words still have value, at least for the time being. It seems to me that many want to coop the value of the words and rituals of historical and traditional Christianity, and then use them to gain for themselves things that won’t really last? In the meantime, lots of folks get hurt and lots of verbal rocks will be thrown….perhaps it’s time take some legal action :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bror (@62), I’m going to assume it’s because you’re reading this on a tiny screen, but I think you may have misread Mary’s comment (@61). She was agreeing with you, and using a generic “you” when she said, “The yardstick you are using to measure Christianity with is broken and splintered.” At least, I think.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bror (@62), I’m going to assume it’s because you’re reading this on a tiny screen, but I think you may have misread Mary’s comment (@61). She was agreeing with you, and using a generic “you” when she said, “The yardstick you are using to measure Christianity with is broken and splintered.” At least, I think.

  • Booklover

    Dear Helen @56: I had to google “YMMV.” The only words I could figure out for it was “You Make Me Vomit.”
    :-)

  • Booklover

    Dear Helen @56: I had to google “YMMV.” The only words I could figure out for it was “You Make Me Vomit.”
    :-)

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “Your hateful, and yes “rude” remark – – “ I think they are nothing more than satans tools“ – – what a terrible thing to say, especially as you are a pastor.”

    Bror was just telling the truth.

    Sometimes that truth is very painful…but it remains the truth.

    That religion leads people straight to hell.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “Your hateful, and yes “rude” remark – – “ I think they are nothing more than satans tools“ – – what a terrible thing to say, especially as you are a pastor.”

    Bror was just telling the truth.

    Sometimes that truth is very painful…but it remains the truth.

    That religion leads people straight to hell.

  • grace

    Steve martin @ 70

    Bror – @ 59 “Frankly, and not to be rude, I think they are nothing more than satans tools “

    Steve Martin @ 70: “Bror was just telling the truth.
    Sometimes that truth is very painful…but it remains the truth.”

    “Painful” – don’t flatter yourself or Bror, it’s nothing more than a temper tantrum to stop all discussion, and entice a fight. It’s a ‘bully tactic!

    Bror’s comments were directed to Dust and myself. Bror’s statment is no more truth than that of the cults. It’s just another way to stop discussion and debate, by making a loud untruthful comment.

  • grace

    Steve martin @ 70

    Bror – @ 59 “Frankly, and not to be rude, I think they are nothing more than satans tools “

    Steve Martin @ 70: “Bror was just telling the truth.
    Sometimes that truth is very painful…but it remains the truth.”

    “Painful” – don’t flatter yourself or Bror, it’s nothing more than a temper tantrum to stop all discussion, and entice a fight. It’s a ‘bully tactic!

    Bror’s comments were directed to Dust and myself. Bror’s statment is no more truth than that of the cults. It’s just another way to stop discussion and debate, by making a loud untruthful comment.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    ROFL, you tell’em Bror.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    ROFL, you tell’em Bror.

  • Booklover

    “I do think some people who think they are Christians are actually Mormons. Is that fair to say?”

    Outwardly, yes, it seems so. There are nominal Christians today who think a Christian is one who is good, with a good family. They don’t know much about the Trinity, doctrine, or Christian history, and they think the Real Presence is kind of icky, as well as a Catholic invention. They don’t care much for doctrine because they think it divides. The young lady from the local non-Trinity-believing pentecostal church can sing on their worship team because she loves Jesus and besides she is really kinda cute as well as nice and good.

    That is pretty much how you defined it. . .

    “There are lots of people today in churches and in various ministries that are dismissive of historical Christianity and care nothing for theology. They don’t care about the Trinity and they never say anything about the Incarnation. They focus on attaining a happy life in this world. They are moralists. They have a ramped-up civil religion. And they think Christianity is mostly about having a certain kind of family. Isn’t that Mormonism?”

  • Booklover

    “I do think some people who think they are Christians are actually Mormons. Is that fair to say?”

    Outwardly, yes, it seems so. There are nominal Christians today who think a Christian is one who is good, with a good family. They don’t know much about the Trinity, doctrine, or Christian history, and they think the Real Presence is kind of icky, as well as a Catholic invention. They don’t care much for doctrine because they think it divides. The young lady from the local non-Trinity-believing pentecostal church can sing on their worship team because she loves Jesus and besides she is really kinda cute as well as nice and good.

    That is pretty much how you defined it. . .

    “There are lots of people today in churches and in various ministries that are dismissive of historical Christianity and care nothing for theology. They don’t care about the Trinity and they never say anything about the Incarnation. They focus on attaining a happy life in this world. They are moralists. They have a ramped-up civil religion. And they think Christianity is mostly about having a certain kind of family. Isn’t that Mormonism?”

  • grace

    You people have no idea who come to read on this blog, and then sees for themselves what you’re posting. All the ‘personal accusations against those who are NOT Lutheran. Keep it up, you’re making a statement I could never make.

    You are blasting away at Evangelicals as if they are your foes, instead of brothers and sisters in Christ – that might just be the tip of the ice-berg – they aren’t your brothers and sisters, … but then who are you?

    These people, of whom I am one, believe in the Deity of Christ Jesus, the Trinity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but yet you want to tear down that which is stable, it is our faith in Christ which is unmoveable, He is our LORD and Savior, no matter how hard you try and discredit those who are Bible Believing Evangelicals.

    God bless you all, may you re-think what you have said on this blog.

  • grace

    You people have no idea who come to read on this blog, and then sees for themselves what you’re posting. All the ‘personal accusations against those who are NOT Lutheran. Keep it up, you’re making a statement I could never make.

    You are blasting away at Evangelicals as if they are your foes, instead of brothers and sisters in Christ – that might just be the tip of the ice-berg – they aren’t your brothers and sisters, … but then who are you?

    These people, of whom I am one, believe in the Deity of Christ Jesus, the Trinity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but yet you want to tear down that which is stable, it is our faith in Christ which is unmoveable, He is our LORD and Savior, no matter how hard you try and discredit those who are Bible Believing Evangelicals.

    God bless you all, may you re-think what you have said on this blog.

  • fws

    Lets remember that Dr Veith is not asking if mormons are christian. Instead he is asking if

    1) really, most christians are actually mormons. and
    2) he is asking if mormons consider Lutherans and roman catholics and baptists etc christian?

    So if there are any LDS people following this could you please answer these two questions for us from a mormon perspective?

  • fws

    Lets remember that Dr Veith is not asking if mormons are christian. Instead he is asking if

    1) really, most christians are actually mormons. and
    2) he is asking if mormons consider Lutherans and roman catholics and baptists etc christian?

    So if there are any LDS people following this could you please answer these two questions for us from a mormon perspective?

  • fws

    question to mormons:

    If you claim that mormons are christians will you also say that all christians are really just Mormons without knowing it?

  • fws

    question to mormons:

    If you claim that mormons are christians will you also say that all christians are really just Mormons without knowing it?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    tODD, You are right I misserad it.
    Mary Johnson, right, thank you.
    and DL21, I know, might be ironic coming from me, but hey. We used to have spirited debates, heated arguments and what not, and then still somehow get along, and you could see people arguing vehemently with each other on one post, and agreeing with each other on a different post. And over time you could see people adapting new positions or at least nuancing their own. And I’ve seen a lot less of that since Grace and Dust decided to grace us with their presence.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    tODD, You are right I misserad it.
    Mary Johnson, right, thank you.
    and DL21, I know, might be ironic coming from me, but hey. We used to have spirited debates, heated arguments and what not, and then still somehow get along, and you could see people arguing vehemently with each other on one post, and agreeing with each other on a different post. And over time you could see people adapting new positions or at least nuancing their own. And I’ve seen a lot less of that since Grace and Dust decided to grace us with their presence.

  • fws

    Grace @74

    I appreciate that you have been baptized Grace and so I am obligated to speak to you as a sister in Christ.

    But you place your faith in your faith. You seem to believe that you are saved by your faith and the strength of that. We differ on this Grace.

  • fws

    Grace @74

    I appreciate that you have been baptized Grace and so I am obligated to speak to you as a sister in Christ.

    But you place your faith in your faith. You seem to believe that you are saved by your faith and the strength of that. We differ on this Grace.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, why do you always end up seeing the discussions here as all Lutherans vs. all Evangelicals? If we criticize Evangelicalism, it’s usually the teaching of a particular Evangelical minister, like Joel Osteen. Or a particular belief held in common by Evangelicals, like the rejection of infant baptism. This is a far cry from rejecting Evangelicals altogether. This is discernment. Heck, we practice it on ourselves, strongly criticizing others who call themselves Lutheran. I’ll grant you that we sometimes paint with too broad a brush when it comes to Evangelicals, but I have no doubt whatsoever that we consider many (though not all) Evangelicals to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. We even consider many (though not all) Roman Catholics to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. What I think you fail to understand is a Lutheran teaching that Lutherans take for granted, i.e., churches we believe to be in error can still have something of the true Gospel present in them, and so true Christians must be present in those churches also – because that’s what the Gospel creates. We don’t reject anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian unless the depth and breadth of their errors forces us to – unless their errors are so severe that they constitute “a different gospel.” As is the case with Mormonism.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, why do you always end up seeing the discussions here as all Lutherans vs. all Evangelicals? If we criticize Evangelicalism, it’s usually the teaching of a particular Evangelical minister, like Joel Osteen. Or a particular belief held in common by Evangelicals, like the rejection of infant baptism. This is a far cry from rejecting Evangelicals altogether. This is discernment. Heck, we practice it on ourselves, strongly criticizing others who call themselves Lutheran. I’ll grant you that we sometimes paint with too broad a brush when it comes to Evangelicals, but I have no doubt whatsoever that we consider many (though not all) Evangelicals to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. We even consider many (though not all) Roman Catholics to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. What I think you fail to understand is a Lutheran teaching that Lutherans take for granted, i.e., churches we believe to be in error can still have something of the true Gospel present in them, and so true Christians must be present in those churches also – because that’s what the Gospel creates. We don’t reject anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian unless the depth and breadth of their errors forces us to – unless their errors are so severe that they constitute “a different gospel.” As is the case with Mormonism.

  • Dust

    To Tom above….please see your comment 279 on this other topic:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/05/mariology/

    Thanks!

  • Dust

    To Tom above….please see your comment 279 on this other topic:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/10/05/mariology/

    Thanks!

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, I’m not sure what your point is, though I suspect you’re still missing the distinction I made in that comment (#279). What’s you’re question to me, and how best can I answer it?

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, I’m not sure what your point is, though I suspect you’re still missing the distinction I made in that comment (#279). What’s you’re question to me, and how best can I answer it?

  • helen

    Booklover @ 69
    That’s one I hadn’t thought of! :)
    As I learned it, it’s a relatively mild, “Your Mileage May Vary” i.e., “you may not agree.”

    [When more than a few had Commodore 64's and dial up, acronyms were popular to save time and money. I learned quite a few on a Lutheran list long since abandoned, (at least by me).]

    There is a commenter on another list though, who makes me slightly nauseous. ;)

  • helen

    Booklover @ 69
    That’s one I hadn’t thought of! :)
    As I learned it, it’s a relatively mild, “Your Mileage May Vary” i.e., “you may not agree.”

    [When more than a few had Commodore 64's and dial up, acronyms were popular to save time and money. I learned quite a few on a Lutheran list long since abandoned, (at least by me).]

    There is a commenter on another list though, who makes me slightly nauseous. ;)

  • Dust

    To Tom above….

    First Grace at 74:

    “it is our faith in Christ which is unmoveable, He is our LORD and Savior, no matter how hard you try and discredit those who are Bible Believing Evangelicals.”

    Then, fws at 78:

    “But you place your faith in your faith. You seem to believe that you are saved by your faith and the strength of that. We differ on this Grace.”

    Am just trying to say 2 things…

    First to Tom…

    1) told you Lutherans here would accuse folks of having “faith in their faith”

    2) cannot see anything in Grace’s comments about faith in faith, just faith in Christ and He is our Savior (emphasis not on faith as our savior).

    So to fws…

    How is it you arrive at your conclusion? Without the ability to look into another’s heart? Can’t you just accept her words on face value, or at least put the best construction on them?

    Thanks!

  • Dust

    To Tom above….

    First Grace at 74:

    “it is our faith in Christ which is unmoveable, He is our LORD and Savior, no matter how hard you try and discredit those who are Bible Believing Evangelicals.”

    Then, fws at 78:

    “But you place your faith in your faith. You seem to believe that you are saved by your faith and the strength of that. We differ on this Grace.”

    Am just trying to say 2 things…

    First to Tom…

    1) told you Lutherans here would accuse folks of having “faith in their faith”

    2) cannot see anything in Grace’s comments about faith in faith, just faith in Christ and He is our Savior (emphasis not on faith as our savior).

    So to fws…

    How is it you arrive at your conclusion? Without the ability to look into another’s heart? Can’t you just accept her words on face value, or at least put the best construction on them?

    Thanks!

  • fws

    dust @ 83

    my comments were not directed at you.
    Maybe it would be best to not treat Grace like someone who cannot speak for herself?
    She has shown that she can indeed speak for herself without help from others.

    finally….

    Grace has every opportunity to clarify and correct me.

    Dust this is what one calls a “conversation” . Don’t be so quick to just maybe?

  • fws

    dust @ 83

    my comments were not directed at you.
    Maybe it would be best to not treat Grace like someone who cannot speak for herself?
    She has shown that she can indeed speak for herself without help from others.

    finally….

    Grace has every opportunity to clarify and correct me.

    Dust this is what one calls a “conversation” . Don’t be so quick to just maybe?

  • Dust

    fws…people jump in here all the time to discuss others, do you say you have never done this? why don’t you just answer the question? Just maybe because why?

  • Dust

    fws…people jump in here all the time to discuss others, do you say you have never done this? why don’t you just answer the question? Just maybe because why?

  • grace

    fws @ 84

    YOU WROTE: “Grace has every opportunity to clarify and correct me.”

    Dust can jump in if he wishes – you do it all the time!

  • grace

    fws @ 84

    YOU WROTE: “Grace has every opportunity to clarify and correct me.”

    Dust can jump in if he wishes – you do it all the time!

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, I’m still don’t understand what point you’re making about my comment @ 79 by bringing up my comment @ 279 in the Mariology thread. Or did you just use the occasion to try and make Frank look like a hypocrite, because his actions here don’t match my words there? If so, it’s a baffling, nonsensical tactic on your part – I’m sure you’ll agree.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust, I’m still don’t understand what point you’re making about my comment @ 79 by bringing up my comment @ 279 in the Mariology thread. Or did you just use the occasion to try and make Frank look like a hypocrite, because his actions here don’t match my words there? If so, it’s a baffling, nonsensical tactic on your part – I’m sure you’ll agree.

  • grace

    Tom @ 87

    Dust’s remarks were well placed, he gave the post number and LINK. The needling on this thread, the same questions asked and answered many times AGO, aren’t going anywhere.

  • grace

    Tom @ 87

    Dust’s remarks were well placed, he gave the post number and LINK. The needling on this thread, the same questions asked and answered many times AGO, aren’t going anywhere.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m pretty certain Bror is (once again) proved right in saying (@59):

    When [Grace] and dust show up, it is usually time to just move on to a different conversation.

    I don’t know what motivates either of them to comment here, given that neither of them seems to be fans either of Lutheran theology or the others who comment here, but all they usually do is bring argument and bitterness along with them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m pretty certain Bror is (once again) proved right in saying (@59):

    When [Grace] and dust show up, it is usually time to just move on to a different conversation.

    I don’t know what motivates either of them to comment here, given that neither of them seems to be fans either of Lutheran theology or the others who comment here, but all they usually do is bring argument and bitterness along with them.

  • Tom Hering

    Sorry, Grace, but they still don’t make any sense as a response to my comment @ 79.

  • Tom Hering

    Sorry, Grace, but they still don’t make any sense as a response to my comment @ 79.

  • Grace

    Tom @90

    Perhaps they don’t make sense to you, but they have merit, which you may not be able to see.

    The jabs at “Evangelicals” – “Baptists” and others isn’t fair, nor is it warranted. When commenters, such as myself speak up and against such statements.. those who make the ‘jabs complain. They cannot understand why ‘they can make snarky remarks, and others should not defend their own beliefs.

  • Grace

    Tom @90

    Perhaps they don’t make sense to you, but they have merit, which you may not be able to see.

    The jabs at “Evangelicals” – “Baptists” and others isn’t fair, nor is it warranted. When commenters, such as myself speak up and against such statements.. those who make the ‘jabs complain. They cannot understand why ‘they can make snarky remarks, and others should not defend their own beliefs.

  • Grace

    Post 91 should read:

    “They cannot understand why ‘they can make snarky remarks and jabs, but others should not defend their own beliefs, but instead, stay SILENT.”

  • Grace

    Post 91 should read:

    “They cannot understand why ‘they can make snarky remarks and jabs, but others should not defend their own beliefs, but instead, stay SILENT.”

  • Dust

    Tom…my comments to you really had nothing to do with 79, sorry to have given that impression. Actually though, did not cite 79, to be fair and balanced to me :)

    It was the fws comment about “faith in your faith” that made me remember your comment 279:
    ————————-
    It’s just the usual “complaint” or critique of many on this blog when someone says they have the “gift” of faith….namely, something like you have “faith in your faith” as opposed to faith in the works of Christ. (@ 277)

    Dust, I can’t imagine a Lutheran responding negatively with “you have faith in your faith” when someone says they’ve received “the gift of faith.” We would only say that if someone claims their faith is their own doing, and their (supposed) special ability to work up faith in themselves makes them right with God.
    ————————

    the part about you can’t imagine a Lutheran, etc. etc. Thought you would appreciate this fresh, new insight and grow from it :)

    As far as fws being a hypocrite, that is not my purpose, but if you want to label his comments, what do you call it when someone tries to make someone doubt their salvation?

    As per tODD, does someone need to like lutheran theology to join in the conversation here. And what about the bitterness and argument you sow here…do you not see your snarky remarks in that way?

  • Dust

    Tom…my comments to you really had nothing to do with 79, sorry to have given that impression. Actually though, did not cite 79, to be fair and balanced to me :)

    It was the fws comment about “faith in your faith” that made me remember your comment 279:
    ————————-
    It’s just the usual “complaint” or critique of many on this blog when someone says they have the “gift” of faith….namely, something like you have “faith in your faith” as opposed to faith in the works of Christ. (@ 277)

    Dust, I can’t imagine a Lutheran responding negatively with “you have faith in your faith” when someone says they’ve received “the gift of faith.” We would only say that if someone claims their faith is their own doing, and their (supposed) special ability to work up faith in themselves makes them right with God.
    ————————

    the part about you can’t imagine a Lutheran, etc. etc. Thought you would appreciate this fresh, new insight and grow from it :)

    As far as fws being a hypocrite, that is not my purpose, but if you want to label his comments, what do you call it when someone tries to make someone doubt their salvation?

    As per tODD, does someone need to like lutheran theology to join in the conversation here. And what about the bitterness and argument you sow here…do you not see your snarky remarks in that way?

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 91, sure Dust’s comments have some merit. Just not as a response to my comment @ 79.

    Yes, the jabs at Evangelicals may be unfair sometimes. But how about all the jabs that Evangelicals (yourself included) make at Lutherans? Don’t forget, I used to run in Evangelical circles, and am familiar with what you say about Lutherans – to each other. So drop the “we’re the victims” argument already, okay? And consider the speck in your own eye.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 91, sure Dust’s comments have some merit. Just not as a response to my comment @ 79.

    Yes, the jabs at Evangelicals may be unfair sometimes. But how about all the jabs that Evangelicals (yourself included) make at Lutherans? Don’t forget, I used to run in Evangelical circles, and am familiar with what you say about Lutherans – to each other. So drop the “we’re the victims” argument already, okay? And consider the speck in your own eye.

  • Tom Hering

    Excuse me, Dust @ 93, but your comment @ 80 began, “To Tom above …”

    As for appreciating the “fresh, new insight” you say you were trying to give me, do you seriously think I believed, back in the Mariology thread, that no Lutheran could ever be wrong about the object of another Christian’s faith? Seriously?

  • Tom Hering

    Excuse me, Dust @ 93, but your comment @ 80 began, “To Tom above …”

    As for appreciating the “fresh, new insight” you say you were trying to give me, do you seriously think I believed, back in the Mariology thread, that no Lutheran could ever be wrong about the object of another Christian’s faith? Seriously?

  • Grace

    Tom @94

    “But how about all the jabs that Evangelicals (yourself included) make at Lutherans? Don’t forget, I used to run in Evangelical circles, and am familiar with what you say about Lutherans – to each other. So drop the “we’re the victims” argument already, okay? And consider the speck in your own eye.”

    I’ve been involved with church, a pastors daughter, etc., my entire life – I have only heard two people make derogatory comments to me, regarding Lutherans. Your statement serves your purpose, but it doesn’t hold much water.

    People do discuss doctrine, that which they don’t agree, and Luther especially in an academic setting – that is to be expected, they discuss John Calvin and the Roman church as well.

    What is discussed most often, among congregants are, churches which preach a social doctrine, Prosperity doctrine, Emergent Church, the cults, those who do not believe there is a hell – and those who pray to anyone other than God through Jesus Christ.

  • Grace

    Tom @94

    “But how about all the jabs that Evangelicals (yourself included) make at Lutherans? Don’t forget, I used to run in Evangelical circles, and am familiar with what you say about Lutherans – to each other. So drop the “we’re the victims” argument already, okay? And consider the speck in your own eye.”

    I’ve been involved with church, a pastors daughter, etc., my entire life – I have only heard two people make derogatory comments to me, regarding Lutherans. Your statement serves your purpose, but it doesn’t hold much water.

    People do discuss doctrine, that which they don’t agree, and Luther especially in an academic setting – that is to be expected, they discuss John Calvin and the Roman church as well.

    What is discussed most often, among congregants are, churches which preach a social doctrine, Prosperity doctrine, Emergent Church, the cults, those who do not believe there is a hell – and those who pray to anyone other than God through Jesus Christ.

  • Grace

    Sorry, I messed up blockquote, in my post 96

  • Grace

    Sorry, I messed up blockquote, in my post 96

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 96, I can believe that Evangelicals who make negative remarks about Lutherans and Lutheranism in private, don’t necessarily make them in public. But I find it very hard to believe that Evangelicals who make negative remarks in public – as you’ve done here, repeatedly – don’t also make them in private. Do you remember saying how Lutherans follow Martin Luther’s words rather than the Word of God? That’s just one example. Now you want me to accept that you’ve never made disparaging remarks about Lutherans and Lutheranism when you’re with other Evangelicals, and you’ve only ever heard your fellow Evangelicals make such remarks twice in your whole life?

    As district attorney Hamilton Berger used to say on Perry Mason, “Your Honor, the Defense is making a mockery of these proceedings!”

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 96, I can believe that Evangelicals who make negative remarks about Lutherans and Lutheranism in private, don’t necessarily make them in public. But I find it very hard to believe that Evangelicals who make negative remarks in public – as you’ve done here, repeatedly – don’t also make them in private. Do you remember saying how Lutherans follow Martin Luther’s words rather than the Word of God? That’s just one example. Now you want me to accept that you’ve never made disparaging remarks about Lutherans and Lutheranism when you’re with other Evangelicals, and you’ve only ever heard your fellow Evangelicals make such remarks twice in your whole life?

    As district attorney Hamilton Berger used to say on Perry Mason, “Your Honor, the Defense is making a mockery of these proceedings!”

  • Grace

    Tom,

    What I discuss on this blog and debate, is not something I would normally engage other congregants. An academic setting is much different, or those who are in Bible school, Seminary or pastors – that is where these type of discussion take place.

    If a congregant asks me about Calvin, RCC or Luther for example – I will answer their questions. There are those who, from all three groups, who have stepped away from those churches, they want answers, …. I will engage them, they are searching for truth.

    “Do you remember saying how Lutherans follow Martin Luther’s words rather than the Word of God?”

    AGAIN, that was a statement made on this blog, not in a general church setting, this is a different venue.

    YOU WROTE: “As district attorney Hamilton Berger used to say on Perry Mason, “Your Honor, the Defense is making a mockery of these proceedings!”

    Using a TV program with Perry Mason isn’t impressive. That’s the best you can do? LOL — This isn’t a court of law, this is a venue in which people debate, the problem you have Tom, is, you’ve mixed and matched the venues with the ‘tube!

  • Grace

    Tom,

    What I discuss on this blog and debate, is not something I would normally engage other congregants. An academic setting is much different, or those who are in Bible school, Seminary or pastors – that is where these type of discussion take place.

    If a congregant asks me about Calvin, RCC or Luther for example – I will answer their questions. There are those who, from all three groups, who have stepped away from those churches, they want answers, …. I will engage them, they are searching for truth.

    “Do you remember saying how Lutherans follow Martin Luther’s words rather than the Word of God?”

    AGAIN, that was a statement made on this blog, not in a general church setting, this is a different venue.

    YOU WROTE: “As district attorney Hamilton Berger used to say on Perry Mason, “Your Honor, the Defense is making a mockery of these proceedings!”

    Using a TV program with Perry Mason isn’t impressive. That’s the best you can do? LOL — This isn’t a court of law, this is a venue in which people debate, the problem you have Tom, is, you’ve mixed and matched the venues with the ‘tube!

  • Grace

    Tom,

    If you find this comment to be so clever!

    ““Your Honor, the Defense is making a mockery of these proceedings!”

    I believe it rests on your table – but remember, these aren’t legal proceedings, you aren’t an attorney, …. you are a commenter, just as I am .. on a blog.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    If you find this comment to be so clever!

    ““Your Honor, the Defense is making a mockery of these proceedings!”

    I believe it rests on your table – but remember, these aren’t legal proceedings, you aren’t an attorney, …. you are a commenter, just as I am .. on a blog.

  • Tom Hering

    You don’t enjoy pop culture references?

  • Tom Hering

    You don’t enjoy pop culture references?

  • Susan

    Who is Joel Osteen? ;)

    Why should he be given any notice whatsoever by orthodox Christians?

    He’s just another proseprity gospel huckster dressed up in sheeps’ clothing. He should be warned against and prayed for, nothing more.

  • Susan

    Who is Joel Osteen? ;)

    Why should he be given any notice whatsoever by orthodox Christians?

    He’s just another proseprity gospel huckster dressed up in sheeps’ clothing. He should be warned against and prayed for, nothing more.

  • michael henry

    Have mercy on us Dr. Veith, kill further comments for this thread. It is long past addressing any question you may have put forth.

  • michael henry

    Have mercy on us Dr. Veith, kill further comments for this thread. It is long past addressing any question you may have put forth.

  • Bob

    I can echo Tom’s comments.

    I was an evangelical for 25+ years. Many comments from them about Lutherans being unsaved, “carnal,” not Christian, etc.

    The Calvary Chapel I was involved with was the worst. They always thought they were better. But in reality, they weren’t so bright. Very ingrown and very critical of other groups. Sad.

  • Bob

    I can echo Tom’s comments.

    I was an evangelical for 25+ years. Many comments from them about Lutherans being unsaved, “carnal,” not Christian, etc.

    The Calvary Chapel I was involved with was the worst. They always thought they were better. But in reality, they weren’t so bright. Very ingrown and very critical of other groups. Sad.

  • Bob

    I’m a Lutheran now, I should’ve said.

    Wish I’d discovered it a couple decades ago. Would’ve saved me and my family a lot of grief.

  • Bob

    I’m a Lutheran now, I should’ve said.

    Wish I’d discovered it a couple decades ago. Would’ve saved me and my family a lot of grief.

  • WebMonk

    Susan @102, I get your point, but on the other hand consider this.

    Joel Osteen, by himself, reaches more people with his messages each week than the entire LCMS put together. About 50% more, in fact. His width of influence is continually widening while the LCMS’s is contracting.

    Ignoring him is probably not a good thing to do.

  • WebMonk

    Susan @102, I get your point, but on the other hand consider this.

    Joel Osteen, by himself, reaches more people with his messages each week than the entire LCMS put together. About 50% more, in fact. His width of influence is continually widening while the LCMS’s is contracting.

    Ignoring him is probably not a good thing to do.

  • larry

    I’ve met many Mormons personally and know many evangelicals (reformed, baptist, 7th day, Wesleyans, and a lot of ‘off-shoot’ branches, et. al.), as well as RC’s and Lutherans personally, and not to mention out right atheists and agnostics. Truth be known most I’ve known are very fine upstanding folks, love their families, serve well in their vocations, etc… There’s nothing “incredible” about any these religions as a whole when measured against the norm of the law (civil use) and they all pretty much normalize here. So if we or a Mormon wishes to define as “Christian” according to the law, it would be no wonder they would wish to say “us too”. If we measure a person in particular that way we cannot discover ‘yea’ or ‘nea’ whether one is a Christian and one cannot ‘read a man’s hear’ nor really get to its interior by secondary “fruits”.

    Thus, one can only measure the doctrine of a confession to see if it is Christian or not. Some doctrines are wholly outside of Christian and openly so, these are the other religions (e.g. pantheism, Buddhism, etc…). Other doctrines are wholly outside of Christian yet attempt to retain the terms “Christian”, “bible”, “god”, etc… (e.g. Mormonism, JWs, etc…). Other doctrines are mingle truth, somewhat, with heterodoxy, these are the false churches of the false teachers (e.g. Rome, Reformed, etc…) these profess a form of “orthodoxy” but in reality have openly confessed false teachings. Then there are those bodies that profess or hang onto the orthodox confessions in “name” but in reality are riddled with heterodoxies. Then there is the orthodoxy that is the external expression of the truth of God’s Word and fight to maintain it not allowing heterodoxy to grow roots though it constantly attempts to “seep in”, here we find, today, the Lutheran church. These are all measuring confessions, not “hearts” of people. To be clear Lutheranism is not orthodoxy because it contains 100% true believers at all times and never has within its doors hypocrites and etc…, it is so purely upon its confession of faith. This disarms the personal, “so you don’t think I’m a Christian”, and keeps it in doctrine. Truth be known there is absolutely nothing in the Lutheran confessions that one led by the Holy Spirit in all honesty could reject. But the devil, the world, flesh and false doctrines do not give in so easily, the battle here is doctrine versus doctrine, of God and of Satan.

    A Mormon, will generally measure ‘what is Christian’ through a definition of what is “Christian” defined by law (which is not a Christian at all in reality), and thus like many of the sectarians as well as other outside religions all together assess in this way whom is and whom is not a Christian, then “tag” that, as it were back to their ‘confession of faith’. They see the scriptures through a legal scheme if you will. Thus, all are trying to see which religion is working according to the law, in the legal scheme. All, be it the gross outside religions, atheism, cults, or sectarian churches operate under seeing scripture, even Christ, through the legal scheme even if they temporarily attach or accrete “grace” onto it somewhere. They basically see God, before creation, the creation, the fall, the here and now and that eternity to come as “law” and legal scheme or structure. Even the “closest” to us such as Calvin/cavlinism. They see the “here and now” as a “grace” that is temporary and intermittent between two poles of Law, eternity past, eternity future, and legal scheme – a “grace” just bridging the here and now time and space gap as it were. And thus they measure others as “Christian”, having so defined it, and also other confessions. Simultaneously they see their confessional system as the best toward this legal end.

  • larry

    I’ve met many Mormons personally and know many evangelicals (reformed, baptist, 7th day, Wesleyans, and a lot of ‘off-shoot’ branches, et. al.), as well as RC’s and Lutherans personally, and not to mention out right atheists and agnostics. Truth be known most I’ve known are very fine upstanding folks, love their families, serve well in their vocations, etc… There’s nothing “incredible” about any these religions as a whole when measured against the norm of the law (civil use) and they all pretty much normalize here. So if we or a Mormon wishes to define as “Christian” according to the law, it would be no wonder they would wish to say “us too”. If we measure a person in particular that way we cannot discover ‘yea’ or ‘nea’ whether one is a Christian and one cannot ‘read a man’s hear’ nor really get to its interior by secondary “fruits”.

    Thus, one can only measure the doctrine of a confession to see if it is Christian or not. Some doctrines are wholly outside of Christian and openly so, these are the other religions (e.g. pantheism, Buddhism, etc…). Other doctrines are wholly outside of Christian yet attempt to retain the terms “Christian”, “bible”, “god”, etc… (e.g. Mormonism, JWs, etc…). Other doctrines are mingle truth, somewhat, with heterodoxy, these are the false churches of the false teachers (e.g. Rome, Reformed, etc…) these profess a form of “orthodoxy” but in reality have openly confessed false teachings. Then there are those bodies that profess or hang onto the orthodox confessions in “name” but in reality are riddled with heterodoxies. Then there is the orthodoxy that is the external expression of the truth of God’s Word and fight to maintain it not allowing heterodoxy to grow roots though it constantly attempts to “seep in”, here we find, today, the Lutheran church. These are all measuring confessions, not “hearts” of people. To be clear Lutheranism is not orthodoxy because it contains 100% true believers at all times and never has within its doors hypocrites and etc…, it is so purely upon its confession of faith. This disarms the personal, “so you don’t think I’m a Christian”, and keeps it in doctrine. Truth be known there is absolutely nothing in the Lutheran confessions that one led by the Holy Spirit in all honesty could reject. But the devil, the world, flesh and false doctrines do not give in so easily, the battle here is doctrine versus doctrine, of God and of Satan.

    A Mormon, will generally measure ‘what is Christian’ through a definition of what is “Christian” defined by law (which is not a Christian at all in reality), and thus like many of the sectarians as well as other outside religions all together assess in this way whom is and whom is not a Christian, then “tag” that, as it were back to their ‘confession of faith’. They see the scriptures through a legal scheme if you will. Thus, all are trying to see which religion is working according to the law, in the legal scheme. All, be it the gross outside religions, atheism, cults, or sectarian churches operate under seeing scripture, even Christ, through the legal scheme even if they temporarily attach or accrete “grace” onto it somewhere. They basically see God, before creation, the creation, the fall, the here and now and that eternity to come as “law” and legal scheme or structure. Even the “closest” to us such as Calvin/cavlinism. They see the “here and now” as a “grace” that is temporary and intermittent between two poles of Law, eternity past, eternity future, and legal scheme – a “grace” just bridging the here and now time and space gap as it were. And thus they measure others as “Christian”, having so defined it, and also other confessions. Simultaneously they see their confessional system as the best toward this legal end.

  • Bob

    ‘Joel Osteen, by himself, reaches more people with his messages each week than the entire LCMS put together.’

    Yippee. Big deal.

    Reaches them with what? This guy can’t even discern that Mormons aren’t Christians. Bleeeeeeeeeeah.

    Comparing Joley and the LCMS is comparing apples and oranges. The LCMS is a real church performing real churchly functions — everything from baptisms to funerals to everything in between. The LCMS has considerable depth.

    Can you say that for Osteen and his church?

    Reminds me of a comment I heard from the late John Stott –American Christianity is a mile wide and a half inch deep.

    That’s Osteen.

    Ignore.

  • Bob

    ‘Joel Osteen, by himself, reaches more people with his messages each week than the entire LCMS put together.’

    Yippee. Big deal.

    Reaches them with what? This guy can’t even discern that Mormons aren’t Christians. Bleeeeeeeeeeah.

    Comparing Joley and the LCMS is comparing apples and oranges. The LCMS is a real church performing real churchly functions — everything from baptisms to funerals to everything in between. The LCMS has considerable depth.

    Can you say that for Osteen and his church?

    Reminds me of a comment I heard from the late John Stott –American Christianity is a mile wide and a half inch deep.

    That’s Osteen.

    Ignore.

  • Grace

    It doesn’t matter what Mormons think of us, what is important is what they believe about the LORD Jesus Christ, who HE is. Salvation through Christ alone, no one else.

    There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God
    Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188

    Mormons have intertwined God the Son and Satan together as brothers, which is a lie. This proves the LDS church is un-Christian.

    Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both”
    Mormon Doctrine, p. 163

    A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god,”
    Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8

    Anyone believing such blasphemy cannot be considered a Christian.

  • Grace

    It doesn’t matter what Mormons think of us, what is important is what they believe about the LORD Jesus Christ, who HE is. Salvation through Christ alone, no one else.

    There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God
    Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188

    Mormons have intertwined God the Son and Satan together as brothers, which is a lie. This proves the LDS church is un-Christian.

    Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both”
    Mormon Doctrine, p. 163

    A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god,”
    Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8

    Anyone believing such blasphemy cannot be considered a Christian.

  • Jonathan

    But, back to the original question, though.

    Forget all the looney stuff, the special underwear, the co-opted Mason rituals, and all the other hokiness of Joe Smith et al.

    Are some Christians actually Mormon in their theology?

    Or, in other words, do they view their salvation as somehow dependent on themselves?

  • Jonathan

    But, back to the original question, though.

    Forget all the looney stuff, the special underwear, the co-opted Mason rituals, and all the other hokiness of Joe Smith et al.

    Are some Christians actually Mormon in their theology?

    Or, in other words, do they view their salvation as somehow dependent on themselves?

  • Grace

    A lovely site to visit:

    From Pilgrim Hall Museum
    America’s museum of Pilgrim possessions

    PRIMARY SOURCES FOR
    “THE FIRST THANKSGIVING”
    AT PLYMOUTH

    There are 2 (and only 2) primary sources
    for the events of autumn 1621 in Plymouth :

    Edward Winslow writing in Mourt’s Relation and
    William Bradford writing in Of Plymouth Plantation

    Edward Winslow, Mourt’s Relation :

    “our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others. And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie.

    READ MORE:

    http://www.pilgrimhall.org/1stthnks.htm

  • Grace

    A lovely site to visit:

    From Pilgrim Hall Museum
    America’s museum of Pilgrim possessions

    PRIMARY SOURCES FOR
    “THE FIRST THANKSGIVING”
    AT PLYMOUTH

    There are 2 (and only 2) primary sources
    for the events of autumn 1621 in Plymouth :

    Edward Winslow writing in Mourt’s Relation and
    William Bradford writing in Of Plymouth Plantation

    Edward Winslow, Mourt’s Relation :

    “our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others. And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie.

    READ MORE:

    http://www.pilgrimhall.org/1stthnks.htm

  • Grace

    Sorry – wrong thread.

  • Grace

    Sorry – wrong thread.

  • Loyd

    (Hi Prof. Veith: Here’s what hit me on the web!)

    MORMON PORN

    by Jared Young

    Both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars are aware of a hard-core pornographic drawing in the “Book of Abraham” which is Mormon-approved scripture.
    The same Book is part of the “Pearl of Great Price” which, along with the “Book of Mormon” and the “Doctrine and Covenants,” make up the LDS church’s “triple combination” in one volume.
    The porn is found in Fig. 7 of Facsimile 2 in the “Book of Abraham” which shows two beings facing each other, which were described by Joseph Smith as representing the Holy Ghost and God the Father, the latter clearly showing an aroused male sex organ.
    After Smith published this sketch in his newspaper in 1842, which offended Mormon sensibilities, the phallic portion was whited out for more than a century until the “restored” LDS church decided in 1981 to restore what had long been censored!
    Equally shocking was the discovery that the “Book of Abraham” had nothing to do with Abraham or his God but was actually based on ancient Egyptian funeral documents depicting occultic obscene practices – and the original sketches showed an erotic phallus on both beings including the one Smith blasphemously claimed was the Holy Ghost!
    For further information see “Book of Abraham” (Wikipedia). Also see Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” which on 76 pages reproduces the original Egyptian X-rated drawings and shows how Smith altered them and created one of his many frauds. Highlights of the classic Tanner work can be seen by typing “Facts From Mormons” and “What LDS Leaders Say” on Yahoo.

  • Loyd

    (Hi Prof. Veith: Here’s what hit me on the web!)

    MORMON PORN

    by Jared Young

    Both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars are aware of a hard-core pornographic drawing in the “Book of Abraham” which is Mormon-approved scripture.
    The same Book is part of the “Pearl of Great Price” which, along with the “Book of Mormon” and the “Doctrine and Covenants,” make up the LDS church’s “triple combination” in one volume.
    The porn is found in Fig. 7 of Facsimile 2 in the “Book of Abraham” which shows two beings facing each other, which were described by Joseph Smith as representing the Holy Ghost and God the Father, the latter clearly showing an aroused male sex organ.
    After Smith published this sketch in his newspaper in 1842, which offended Mormon sensibilities, the phallic portion was whited out for more than a century until the “restored” LDS church decided in 1981 to restore what had long been censored!
    Equally shocking was the discovery that the “Book of Abraham” had nothing to do with Abraham or his God but was actually based on ancient Egyptian funeral documents depicting occultic obscene practices – and the original sketches showed an erotic phallus on both beings including the one Smith blasphemously claimed was the Holy Ghost!
    For further information see “Book of Abraham” (Wikipedia). Also see Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” which on 76 pages reproduces the original Egyptian X-rated drawings and shows how Smith altered them and created one of his many frauds. Highlights of the classic Tanner work can be seen by typing “Facts From Mormons” and “What LDS Leaders Say” on Yahoo.

  • Grace

    Lloyd @ 113

    YOU WROTE: “For further information see “Book of Abraham” (Wikipedia). Also see Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” which on 76 pages reproduces the original Egyptian X-rated drawings and shows how Smith altered them and created one of his many frauds.

    I have searched for what you describe above, on Google, Yahoo and Bing – the reproductons you speak of are not there. Do you have a LINK on this material?

  • Grace

    Lloyd @ 113

    YOU WROTE: “For further information see “Book of Abraham” (Wikipedia). Also see Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” which on 76 pages reproduces the original Egyptian X-rated drawings and shows how Smith altered them and created one of his many frauds.

    I have searched for what you describe above, on Google, Yahoo and Bing – the reproductons you speak of are not there. Do you have a LINK on this material?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X