Tag Archives: Christian

Fullness Of The Gospel?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to be the only church on earth to contain the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Other churches are said to have a portion of truth but to be lacking in it’s fullness.  In an Ensign article Boyd K. Packer explained the Church’s position on this issue by comparing the gospel preached by non-Mormons to using a single key on a piano while the LDS Church is said to have the ability to play a symphony. 

“The gospel might be likened to the keyboard of a piano—a full keyboard with a selection of keys on which one who is trained can play a variety without limits; a ballad to express love, a march to rally, a melody to soothe, and a hymn to inspire; an endless variety to suit every mood and satisfy every need.  How shortsighted it is, then, to choose a single key and endlessly tap out the monotony of a single note, or even two or three notes, when the full keyboard of limitless harmony can be played.  How disappointing when the fullness of the gospel, the whole keyboard, is here upon the earth, that many churches tap on a single key. The note they stress may be essential to a complete harmony of religious experience, but it is, nonetheless, not all there is. It isn’t the fullness.”  Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40

There are many doctrines unique to the LDS Faith – modern temple worship, sealings, eternal families and potential for godhood to name just a few.  Being the only church to hold these beliefs and believing they are central to God’s plan for mankind, it is easy to see why Mormons lay claim to the gospel’s fullness.  For example, Christians believe marriage is for this life only and does not exist in heaven.  A believing Mormon may look at this as an incomplete belief as they believe one can be married “for time and all eternity” in the Temple.  Thus making the marriage covenant carry on into Heaven.

While I understand the Mormon position, I find there are many problems with their claim.  For starters it is contradicted by their own scriptures.  The introduction to The Book of Mormon says it “contains, as does The Bible, the fullness of the everlasting Gospel.”  By their own admission The Bible contains the fullness of the gospel yet neither it nor The Book of Mormon contain any of the unique doctrines of the Mormon Church.  Virtually every single unique Mormon doctrine was introduced by Joseph Smith years after he published The Book of Mormon.  This provokes some puzzling questions and problems for the LDS Church.  If The Bible and The Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel why are none of the unique Mormon doctrines contained in them?  Are these doctrines not part of the gospel’s fullness?  If so why do we need them and what is it that all other churches are missing which leave them lacking in fullness? Lastly, if I can lay hold to the gospel’s fullness from The Bible alone why do I even need the Mormon Church and why do they preach one must accept their gospel either in this life or vicariously in the spirit world to enter the Celestial Kingdom/Heaven?

While I disagree with many LDS doctrines, we do agree upon one thing… The Bible contains the fullness of the good news (Gospel) of Jesus Christ.  The Bible tells us.. 

Jesus Christ is the one and only True God, our Savior.  He died for our sins, was resurrected on the third day and has ascended to His throne in Heaven.  He alone has provided reconciliation with God.  Once we accept Him as our Savior and enter into a relationship with Him we can approach the throne of grace with confidence realizing our salvation is assured.

We don’t need a man-made church to get to Heaven.  We have our way… Jesus Christ alone.  All praise be to Him.

Darrell

Waterboarding: Does the End Justify the Means?

Recently, in the news, there has been much discussion of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding.  This technique simulates drowning and some have called it torture.

But most of the discussions I’ve seen on this topic do not debate whether waterboarding is torture or not, but instead debate whether waterboarding of certain terrorists was successful in obtaining key intelligence that foiled terrorist operations.  In other words, did waterboarding work to extract vital information?

I am deeply troubled by this line of questioning because it clearly misses the point.  Whether waterboarding works or not is hardly the issue, especially if you are a Christian.  If you say that waterboarding is acceptable because it generates crucial intelligence, then you are claiming that the end (gathering intelligence) justifies the means (waterboarding).

There are two major categories of ethical systems: deontological (duty-centered) and teleological (end-centered).  Christian ethics are deontological.  Utilitarianism is a form of teleological ethics.

Christians believe that the end does not justify the means (utilitarianism).  We believe that certain actions are morally wrong, and therefore we avoid them; we believe that certain actions are morally right and we have a duty to fulfill them.  The results of an action do not determine whether it is moral or not.  If waterboarding is truly torture, and we as Christians believe torture is wrong, then it does not matter what results it obtains!  It is still wrong.

I am not going to comment on whether waterboarding is torture, as I have not given it enough thought, but that is the key question that Christians ought to be asking.  We should not be talking about whether the results of waterboarding were successful or not.  That is a clearly non-Christian view of ethics that needs to be avoided by all of us in this debate.

Why Do Mormons Hide the Cross? Part 2

In the previous post I spoke about the LDS Church’s aversion to the use of the cross.  Their explanation for this decision is, in my opinion, rather lacking.  I have often wondered if their view of the atonement has any effect upon their decision.  One of the primary differences between LDS and Christian theology surrounds exactly where Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins.  As Christians, we believe the cross played a central role in the atonement.  We approach it with wonder and reverence for it was the instrument by which God chose to redeem mankind.  However, in LDS theology the atonement has been partially removed from the cross and placed in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Some LDS leaders have even gone so far as to assert the Garden of Gethsemane was the principal place of suffering in the atonement.  Here are some quotes by LDS leaders.

“We speak of the passion of Jesus Christ. A great many people have an idea that when he was on the cross, and nails were driven into his hands and feet, that was his great suffering. His great suffering was before he ever was placed upon the cross. It was in the Garden of Gethsemane that the blood oozed from the pores of his body.”  – President Joseph Fielding Smith

“It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him.”  – The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [1988], 14)

“His [deep] suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane, where He took upon Himself all the sins of all other mortals…” – James E. Foust, Come Listen to a Prophet’s Voice

“…that he suffer the pains of all men, which he did, principally, in Gethsemane, the scene of his great agony.” – Marion G. Romney, The Resurrection of Jesus, Ensign May 1982, 6

Could the LDS aversion to the cross be tied to their view of the atonement?  Why the focus so much on the Garden of Gethsemane?  Nowhere in The Bible does it say the atonement took place principally in Gethsemane.  In fact, when The Bible talks about the atonement it almost always speaks directly of the cross.  In my opinion, the overt focus on the Garden is not only unbiblical it also diverts one’s attention away from the most important part of Christ’s gift to mankind… His work on the cross.  May we always approach it with awe, reverence and wonder!

All praise be to our Savior, God and King Jesus Christ!!

Darrell

Why Do Mormons Hide the Cross? Part 1

In LDS chapels you will typically find paintings commissioned of Mormon artists and in their Temples you will find different symbols, from sunstones to inverted stars.  However, one of the items you will never find displayed is a cross.  On the LDS Church website they provide the following explanation for the absence of the cross.

“As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith.”

While I respect this explanation, I find it in stark contrast to what The Bible has to say about the cross.  As Christians we rejoice in the cross of our Savior.  For upon it He paid the price for our sins, provided a path to God and made all things new.  Through it He became the mediator of a New Covenant.  The cross represents new life and is the tool by which Christ closed the gap between God and man.  Without His sacrifice upon the cross mankind would be doomed.  The New Testament speaks repeatedly about the wonder and redemptive power of the cross.  Here are few passages which speak of the cross.

 1 Cor 1:18  “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Galations 6:14 “May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”

Ephesians 2:16  “…and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.”

Colossians 1:20  “…and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

Colossians 2:14  “…having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”

Colossians 2:15  “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.”

Given the way The Bible speaks of the cross, one can see why Christians display it as a symbol of our faith.  We turn to it with awe and reverence realizing the magnificent sacrifice of our Lord, God and Savior.  I continually marvel at the love of Christ displayed upon the cross as expressed in Romans 5:8.

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

I cannot understand why the LDS Church shys away from the cross yet readily displays pagan symbols upon their Temples… the sun, moon, beehive, hand grip, and inverted stars.  Most of these symbols were carried over into Mormonism from the masons and have occultic significance.  Many amateur Mormon apologists make the argument some of these symbols were adopted into occultic worship after they were placed on the temple.  That is a debatable point but has nothing to do with my argument.  I am simply asking why it is alright to place a symbol which is not even mentioned in scripture upon the temple but it is not okay to place the cross?  The cross is spoken of repeatedly in scripture with awe and reverence yet the pagan symbols are strangely absent from scripture.  There seems to be some disconnect here and their explanation is rather lacking.

Further to my point, some of the past LDS leaders have spoken rather disparagingly about the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity.  Past LDS prophet Joseph Fielding Smith had this to say.

“We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death.”  Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 4, pp. 17-18.

The problem with Mr. Smith’s criticism…  the cross is spoken of repeatedly by the apostles of Jesus Christ with awe and reverence.  It is the means by which God Himself chose to redeem mankind.  Personally, I am fine with using it as a symbol of my faith and will choose to stay away from the sunstone, moon and inverted star.

In my next post I will talk about how the LDS Church takes the emphasis off of the cross and places it in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Darrell

Interesting Comment This Morning

I attend a Referral Network group every Tuesday morning and this morning a local Chiropractor gave a short presentation on her business.  This wonderful lady (who is a great Chiropractor by the way!!) made a few comments which amused me – in a good way. When talking about the human body she kept referring to “it’s design”.  In speaking about the kidneys, she said they are “designed” to rid the body of toxins.  She also referred to the marvel of how the body is “designed” to heal itself and warn us when something is wrong.

I always find it interesting how even in the most secular of business settings people can, perhaps unknowingly, marvel at the greatness of our Creator.  For referring to the body as something “designed” rather than “evolved” implies a Creator – if it is designed, who designed it? 

I had a huge smile on my face realizing that even without knowing it we praise our great God and Designer, Jesus Christ!!  It was a wonderful way to start off the day.

Darrell

Thee, Thou, Thine and Thus in Prayer?

One of the teachings of Mormonism is that one should use reverence in prayer to Heavenly Father. It is taught that when you pray you should not use the language of our day.  Rather you should always use Thee, Thou, Thine and Thus. If you address God in common language (you, me, them, us, etc.) you are NOT being reverent.

I simply ask, why? What justification is there to support this position?  Is Old Modern English really MORE REVERENT?  If so, when the early Christians prayed in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic were they being IRREVERENT?

Don’t get me wrong… I fully believe that one should approach God with awe and reverence. He is the ONE and ONLY TRUE God and He does deserve respect. However, why do we need to use Early Modern English to show respect? I believe that the only reason this is taught within Mormonism is this was the language used in the King James version of the Bible. Joseph Smith taught that the King James Bible was the “most correct” version of the Bible on the earth. In fact, it is the only version used by the Mormon Church today… despite the fact that we have MUCH BETTER translations available.

When my wife and I left the LDS Church one of the things we dropped almost instantaneously was the use of Early Modern English in our prayers. We began to address God in Modern English. We both feel that this has contributed greatly in our communication with God. We no longer have to struggle for words that simply do not feel natural.  We are able to address God in a natural manner and are able to concentrate on what we want to say to Him and not how we say it.  We believe that we can now approach Him as we really are and can communicate with Him reverently in the language of our day.

God has told us in the Bible that He already knows the groanings of our hearts.  In fact, He knows them before even we know them.  I really don’t think He cares what language we use when addressing Him.

Darrell

Are We All Children Of God?

One of the central doctrines of Mormonism is that every human being is a spirit child of God.   They teach that we were each born as a spirit child of Heavenly Father and one of His wives.  This teaching is central to the faith as it lays the ground work for further doctrines such as eternal families and eternal progression onto Godhood.  However, does the Bible teach that we are ALL children of God?  I would have to say no. 

 The Bible teaches that when we accept Christ we are adopted in as a child of God.  Being called a child of God is a gift to believers given as a result of what Christ did for us.

John 1:12 says “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (Emphasis mine)

This verse makes it very clear that it is only those who believe in Christ who are children of God.   Another key verse…

Romans 8:14 “because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God”

It is only those who are led by God that can be called children of God.  You might say, “So what!  This is just a minor difference in doctrine and does not really matter.”  I disagree.  The Bible makes it very clear that to be called a child of God is a GIFT that has been given to us by Christ and that it is only through accepting Him that we can profess to be God’s children.  To say that someone who refuses to follow Jesus Christ is a child of God is a slap in the face to Christ.  It is minimizing Christ’s sacrifice for us.

Darrell