MormonInfo.org

May 2, 2005

Dear Family and Friends,

Last month of ministry began with the biannual LDS general conference. Again I was able to advertise my web site, preach, and dialogue with many, many people. The most interesting event happened, though, with a fundamentalist street preacher from New York named Bruce. Some guy came by me, and I asked him if he wanted a tract. This guy said something to me that I didn't quite understand, and Bruce screamed at the guy that he was a "sodomite"! Following Paul's example with Peter in Gal. 2:11-14, I immediately confronted Bruce over what he did. He told me that a "sodomite" means more than just a homosexual, but also includes one who is effeminate. I told Bruce that the guy didn't strike me that way at all, and I told this preacher that he was just guessing, having no knowledge of whether the guy really was a "sodomite" or not (he walked by in a second!). Bruce said that "knowledge puffs up" (1 Cor. 8:1), but he forgot the rest of the passage... "love edifies"! Then he began to question my motives for confronting him--"suggesting I was somehow in favor of homosexuality! I asked him to tell me what the guy said, but Bruce said that it was something about Jesus that was too vile to repeat. I told Bruce that if he wanted to reach people, he better have some knowledge of what individuals are like. He told me that he wasn't there to "reach" them; he was there to "rebuke" them! He preached some more, and told how much he loves doing what he was doing to his buddy.

I'm totally convinced that many of these street preachers are just not capable of rational thought, let alone love. There's no way to dialogue with most of these guys. But nonetheless, as Paul also said, "What the heck? The gospel is still being preached" (Phil. 1:14-18, my paraphrase). These street preachers also do in fact preach the gospel and rightly rebuke, and for that I am thankful.

I also spent some time in California again. While I was there I did some advertising for my web site and passed out tracts at the San Diego and Los Angeles Temples, as well as on a busy overpass close to where my folks live. I did the San Diego Temple and overpass close to my folks by myself, but I went with some friends and a high school mission team from Rock Hills Church in Mission Viejo to the Los Angeles Temple. The team came to Utah last year, and is planning on coming up again for a week in the end of June. The following week, I was able to give them a pep talk about coming to minister in Utah. I encouraged them about all the suffering and persecution they'd have to endure to experience the incredible joy of seeing a lot of LDS in heaven some day.

I also was able to talk to a couple LDS missionaries for a couple hours with my brother's father-in-law. He invited me over to talk with these guys. He talked with one of them months before. They were both really open, and at the end they told us that they definitely have some question that they need to think about. They took my tracts, and one wanted to contact me after his mission. Before they left, I prayed for both of them, and they were really appreciative of that.

Finally, I also preached to a group of basketball guys for a couple minutes at the Emmanuel Faith Community Church gym. Before we started playing, Pastor Dennis Keating asked me if I wanted to take a couple minutes to share why I am a Christian. So I shared my testimony of how I wanted to live for Christ as a small child and avoid hell. I also shared about how prophecy and the resurrection of Christ make Christianity reasonable to believe. Then I shared how much Christ loves them, so much so that He died for them, and He wants to come into their lives and do the work that they could never do.

Peace of Christ,

R.M.S.
Rob@Mormon Info.org
Mormon Info

****PRAYER LIST****

"The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16).

1. For more salvations
2. For those that are coming out of the LDS Church and/or those who have recently committed themselves to the real Christ
3. For God to move more people to do street ministry downtown
4. For Utah churches and individual Christians to support each other's various ministries
5. For financial provision
6. For the ability to get my rough draft comprehensive done soon
7. For God to use my web site (we're looking into billboards!)
8. For love, protection, and wisdom as I minister
9. For ministry in front of the San Antonio, TX Temple this month

****MAILBAG****

1. Is there a good passage to show that they do not believe that Jesus is God?

2. What could I send him to show the lack of archeological [evidence] to confirm the Mormon story? He also says he is familiar with the DNA study that was done with the Indians in America and blew it off by saying that Mormon scholars have been saying for years that the Indians were from Asia and not Israel directly.

3. He says he has read over 300 books speaking against the book of Mormon and their doctrine, and has looked at josephlied.com and is not persuaded. Do you have any where else I could send him other than mormoninfo.org?

[I responded:] 1. LDS do claim that Jesus is Jehovah God of the Old Testament. The LDS Bible dictionary makes this clear, and the title page of the Book of Mormon calls Jesus "the Eternal God". The problem is that a. He's one God among many gods (there are 3 who rule over this world or set of worlds), and b. He's not God "by nature" (there's no God by nature, since they are all "humans" who have to grow up to be gods for their own worlds. Check out my "7 Differences" tract for more on this.

2. See the links on my review of The Book of Mormon movie. But the burden of proof isn't on us; it's on those making the claim that there is. You need reasons to believe and they aren't doing a good job here. Also read the review of DNA vs. The Book of Mormon.

3. If this is true, then one more source isn't going to be the magic bullet. Don't give up!

---

I would just like to point out that almost all of the information on this site is falsified against the mormon church, and twisted in a sick way even though the "christian beliefs" are the actual beliefs of the mormon church in more than one of your paragraphs. If you are going to put up a website attacking the beliefs of another christian group, you should get actual information instead of freely interpreting what you think a mormon believes. Thanks, I saw you on the street today.

---

I moved here a couple of years ago from Indiana. Has been "culturaly interesting". I went to your site to see how Mormons are so wrong. And, frankly, you have almost converted me to Mormonism! I looked up every biblical scripture reference. Your scripture references do not say what you say they do!! How are you acting Christ-like and ethical by doing this? I wonder who is in the wrong here? HMMM? You are making a horrible name for Christians every where who are trying to love all mankind. Please rethink your position. Love in Christ

---

Rob, hi, I enjoyed reading your text on mormoninfo.org. I would like to ask you about the picture of your bumper sticker. If somebody does not live for Jesus, will they go to hell? Also, what will determine if someone is living for Jesus? Just a curious student of theology. Thanks!

[I responded:] I think you're referring to my license plate holder that says, "Don't go to hell, Live for Jesus". Some live for tennis. Some live for women. Some live for riches. Some live for themselves. None of these truly satisfy. Only Jesus is worth living for, but according to Him, this requires dying to self. When this happens, one gets a brand new life in which one's desires are to allow Christ to do His will within the individual. God loves you, and He loves you so much that if you continue to reject Him, then He'll respect your choice to stay away from Him for eternity. And as a result of a lifetime of making yourself your own god or making some other creation your god, you just won't be fit to be in the presence of the real God. So the latter will allow you an eternity to bang your head against the wall as it were in hell, and miss out on the way life was always meant to be lived. So what determines if someone is living for Jesus or not is that the desires for Christ (the internal orientation) will be made manifest in outward actions to the glory of God. Please check out my "Being a Testimony".

If you'd like to help us advertise, we've got new bumper stickers. Just request them with your donation.

[He responded:] One thing you didn't mention in your email is whether we who might not ascribe to your view of Jesus will go to hell. Just wondering if that's the case. Also, as a married man who is only slightly interested in this subject, what is your take on all this talk these days about homosexuality, and whether it is a sin.

[I responded:] I hold that there is room for growth in one's knowledge of Jesus. So when I got saved as a child, I obviously didn't have depth of my knowledge now about Jesus. But I didn't go around *denying* that Jesus is God, for example. So if the Spirit of God is really at work in the individual's life, then again it will be made manifest by the individual coming to believe that Jesus is God. If the individual instead comes to deny that Jesus is God, then we'd have good reason to believe that the individual never was born-again to begin with. Nonetheless, eternal life is based on knowing God and His Son (Jn. 17:3).

As for homosexuality, the Bible is quite clear that sex is intended for marriage. And biblical marriage has always been *properly* defined as 1 man and 1 woman as one flesh (cf. Mt. 19:1-9). Only fornication is grounds for the dissolution the marriage, and fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God... unless of course there's that genuine change on the inside (1 Cor. 6:9-11). It's irrelevant if some society or individual redefines marriage. What's relevant is what God has revealed. And one's sexuality is just another area of one's life that must be laid at His feet (i.e., dying to self and living for Jesus).

---

If I remain a LDS, am I going to hell? Are Catholics Christians and why? What qualifies one as a Christian? Again, I am not really try to win any arguments or impress you with my "open mind" (or my closed my mind) and no baiting and no underhandedness. I am seriously impressed at your zeal and want to understand. I'll be honest with you so be honest with me, even if it appears I am being mean (e-mail can be so informal), but again, no disrespect intended.

[I responded:] I think there are people in the LDS Church who are really saved and right with God, but they are confused and don't know what the LDS Church teaches. In other words, they don't believe those things that I have listed on my home page that the LDS Church teaches. If you really believe those things, then it seems obvious to me that you're following a false god, and idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). If that's your god, then you need to repent in order to have life.

I think Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox, etc. may or may not be Christians; it depends on who they are following whether one is a Christian. Some simply go through the "churchey" motions, but aren't really following Christ or are in a personal relationship with Him. A Christian is a follower or a student of Christ, but there are such things as "false Christs" (Mt. 24:24) that devalue Christ in one way or another, and I think the LDS Chruch is promoting one. Christians follow Jesus as the most valuable and powerful thing imaginable. You can imagine something more valuable and powerful than the LDS Jesus, viz., a Jesus by whom literally everything hinges upon.

[So] ...I hold that it depends on the individual whether they really know Christ in any church. So I'm open to LDS actually knowing Christ and not knowing what their church teaches about Christ. The LDS Church devalues and weakens Christ by making Him something other than the creator and sustainer of literally everything. In other words, Christianity holds that Christ is God by nature, the Reason for everything. Non-Christian churches deny this. The Catholic Church does not deny this. They have always held to this central feature of the Faith, which is the basis for eternal life (e.g., Jn. 8:24 and 17:3).

Now other Protestants claim that Catholics are not Christians for different reasons that I find are not essential to knowing Christ. There are peripheral differences that should not divide the Faith from promoting its essential message ("Mere Christianity" as Lewis used described it, and even he included the Catholic Church in that description). Some of those peripherals are more damaging or unhealthy than others, but this shouldn't be used to exclude one from being counted as saved or following Christ (i.e., being a Christian).

So for example, if some Protestant claims that Catholics are idolaters for worshipping Mary or worshipping the priest at the Eucharist as Christ, then I'd say: 1) ask any Catholic if they worship Mary, and they'll tell you "no". For Catholics, there is only one creator and sustainer of all that is... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Protestants just don't like the material content of the way Catholics honor Mary. But having said that, some individual Catholics do get carried away in ascribing too much to Mary. 2) No Catholic believes that the priest at the Eucharist excludes Jesus being seated at the right hand of the Father. The priest simply becomes the visible manifestation of Christ. But just because Protestants view others that they serve as Christ (Mt. 25:40), is no reason to exclude Protestants as being counted as Christians. Similarly, Catholics shouldn't be excluded from the Faith for seeing someone as Christ so long as they recognize that the Son is God, and therefore as God can't be limited to a body (1 Kings 8:27). The essentials of Christ's divine nature are still held.

One last example that is more debatable: many Protestants exclude Catholics from the household of Faith because the former accuse the latter of promoting a works-righteousness that subtracts from the sufficiency of Christ's atonement. As a Protestant, I think the Catholics have *not* done a good job in clarifying the distinctions between justification and sanctification. But just because they haven't done a good job here doesn't mean that they don't believe in both. Catholics hold that one may have an initial justification (and probably many subsequent ones), and to remain in this state of grace that was brought about apart from any works, one needs to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). These works are particularly visible in the sacraments of the Church. Should a follower of Christ be baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper, for example? Even Protestants would say one should to experience these "means of grace". But the Catholics have more sacraments than Protestants have. In both traditions, one should partake of the sacraments in order to maintain a healthy relationship with Christ.

The essence of all this is no different from other Arminian "Protestant" churches that think one can lose salvation. Can a person lose one's salvation if he or she refuses to partake of the sacraments? Can one freely begin to live a life that would place one outside the grace and salvation of Christ? Both Catholics and many (perhaps most) Protestants provide the same answers to these questions. Yet only the very extreme of Protestants would claim that "perseverance of the saints" is an essential doctrine of the Faith. So if Protestants aren't going to exclude various Arminian Protestants from the Faith on this point, then by the same logic, they shouldn't exclude Catholics either. (By the way, I'm an Arminian who holds to perseverance of the saints.)

Again, the essence of the Faith is trusting Christ to save from sin, and we (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) all agree that Christ is God by nature. Augustine said something that I think is biblical when he said, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, but in all things, charity." The Church is a huge dysfunctional family that Christ is perfecting each individual. This perfection happens at justification when one is counted perfect, but it continues until we are glorified when we're face to face with Christ. So I regard us as being the author of our own confusion, and it's God's responsibility to perfect His kids (those who have genuinely been adopted through faith). In the mean time here on earth, we can be charitable to our brothers and sisters in the Lord who sometimes make a big deal out of something that really turns out to be peripheral.

I find this to be a huge hang up with so many LDS simply because they've been drilled into their heads for so long that the Church is a physical institution with its physical structure. It's so hard for LDS to spiritually loosen up as it were. So I honestly sympathize with how difficult this is for you.

[He responded:] thanks for the clarification. And knowing you are of the Arminian tradition helps me understand your line of thinking a little more also.

Your answer is the best I have received so far from an evangelical, so thank you, but your comment about how the church as an physical entity has been drilled into my head for so long Rob I can reasonably throw right back at Christianity.

Since Luther first wanted to *reform* the Universal church, not create a new one, Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ especially have all formed in an effort to create churches that are more "Bible based" or "New Testament" like. I find it oddly curious how it is tradition (drilled into people's heads for centuries) that keeps these churches separate from one another and disallows them to unite with one another. It also makes much more sense to me that a One, Universal God, be it an invisible, unknowable God as described in the creeds of Christianity or a God that is knowable and more approachable as I see the "Mormon God," would create a one, universal church so there would be no need for a dysfunctional family. I would expect nothing less from a perfect Savior than a perfect church.

I also find it more than coincidental that Christianity has such a beef with Mormonism since Mormon doctrine (much like I see Christ doing with the Pharisees and Sadducees in the NT) tries to break the shackles off of centuries of "tradition" and/or drilling into one's head that such and such a way is how things ought to be done. I can also sympathize with you, and Christians in general, how hard it must be for them to accept that God has created a bride that is uncompromising in doctrine and practice. Spiritually loosening up, as it were, I believe has lead Christianity into the fractioned, argumentative, rudderless ship (dysfunctional?) that it is. It has lead to an acceptance of, all roads lead to Rome, as long as the road has Augustinian essentials. Yet even an agreement on those essentials is a subject of debate amongst Christians, or at the very least, it's so "drilled into their heads" that such and such a way is "the" way that unifying Christians the world over is impossible.

Lastly, you say in all things, charity, yet your charity towards what you see as non-christian faiths is unbending. I realize your scriptural basis for this, but c'mon Rob. Anyway, I really do appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the time to shoot the breeze with me about this. I am also glad to hear that ignorant Mormons could be saved. Ignorance is, after all, bliss.

[I responded:] I agree with you that the "drilling in our heads" cuts both ways. That's what should make us sympathize with each other. What you see as a perfect, non-dysfunction Church, I see as well. I agree God is the one who "builds" His Church (Mt. 16:18), but where as you see this now, I see [this perfected] in the afterlife. "Perhaps" I'm taking "free agency" more seriously than you at this point. Given that agency, I would expect the One True Church to have a lot of variety manifested in all its denominations or churches. I think there is unity in the Church, but it's not uniformity. I take it that LDS stress both, whereas I think the Bible stresses simply the former. Look, a family has all sorts of variations to it, but what makes all the individual members a family is common ancestry. The same goes for the Church of the Lord Jesus. He gives "birth" to a family, and He daily is at work at conforming them all into His image. The LDS Church looks more like a McDonald's chain to me rather than the Church of God. I don't find the uniformity "here and now" to be a virtue.

You're correct to point out Christ's attack on the tradition of the religious leaders at His time, but I think you would agree that Christ didn't throw out "all" of the traditional thinking (e.g., that God exists). So what's important is determining what the Bible teaches about God. At the very least, if you have the right God, then you're part of the right tradition. I'm claiming that LDS have a different and wrong God, and thus they have a wrong relatively "new" tradition.

I'm really not understanding what you meant by the following comment: "Lastly, you say in all things, charity, yet your charity towards what you see as non-Christian faiths is unbending. I realize your scriptural basis for this, but c'mon Rob." The context for this quote was the love shared with my brothers and sisters in the Lord. That is in spite of the "fun" we have in dialoguing with each other over theological differences. But this is all quite different from the love I have for those who are children of the devil (Jn. 8:44). I love you, but not as my bro in Christ. I love you as my bro in humanity, who desperately needs a much bigger God to stand before Him as perfect.

...You're questions are good, and I appreciate your attitude and openness to explore what's in my head, so no, you're not boring me.

[He responded:] Great answers...simply great answers that I have yet to hear so clearly from evangelicals. But of course I must admit that most of my experience with evangelicals has been more in a missionary/witnessing setting (on and off my formal mission) and not in a calm, dialectic that I agree is more "fun" with yourself. Glad I am not boring you and I cannot thank you enough for letting me pick your brain. I can see your point on all your answers to me, although I disagree, I can see where you are coming from now and that is what I want to understand. I am glad that you love me, I am still pondering whether or not I love you (oh I am just so funny!). I'll get to the "bigger" God and the stuff on your home page soon.

---

Would you help me with the second paragraph below from your site? "If men become gods (the Bible never uses this language of glorified individuals in the future state), they are still dependent and human "gods", and not God by nature, who alone is eternally the Author of all that is (Ibid.)." [From the Home page Christian section of "Can human beings become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world?"] To me it almost gives the impression that you don't adamantly refute the idea that there is no way a man could become a god, it seems to leave the door open a crack for the possibility, in the way it is worded. "If men become gods they are still dependent and human "gods"... I may be missing some piece of this deep theological topic I am sure. Thanks for giving me your time.

[I responded:] Great question! No, I don't believe individuals can become gods in the sense that you're concerned with. Instead I believe they can become glorified humans. I phrased it the way I did to leave open the possibility that many Christian thinkers and theologians like C. S. Lewis and those in the Orthodox Church are "allowed" to hold that men can become "gods". All they mean by that is glorified humans. I think the language they use is confusing and unbiblical, so I don't use it. But their meaning is the same as ours. Truth has to do fundamentally with meaning, not the terms we use. So whether men can become gods or not is not the fundamental question for me. What is fundamental is the question of natures--that God is a totally different being with a different nature than man. The former is the Creator of literally everything outside Himself, and the latter is dependent on Him. This being the case, Mormonism is false and Christianity is true (including those who hold Christian deification--that men can become "gods"). The former think we can grow up to become gods as God is a God over some world (or sets of worlds), since we and God are both human, and neither are the Creator of everything outside Himself. The latter think we can grow up to *possibly* become gods, but if we do, let's keep in mind what we mean by this (viz., that we are exalted "humans" who are still radically dependent on the Creator of everything outside Himself).

[For better clarification, I changed the section to now read: "When all believers become what some Christians such as C. S. Lewis call "gods" in heaven (although the Bible never uses this language of glorified individuals), they are still dependent and human "gods", and not God by nature, who alone is eternally the Author and Sustainer of literally all that is outside Himself. He is the only God in this fundamental sense of the term (Ibid.; Lewis, Mere Christianity [N.Y.: Macmillan, 1952], vi, 160, 172)."]

---

I love getting your newsletters. They are always a big encouragement to me. I'm a big fan of what you are doing. I'm curious if you think that it's odd that I so value your work AND that of Greg Johnson, because I really do praise God for both. I know that it might be that I am naive with regard to all of the turf problems and various personality conflicts/dynamics, but from my perspective it is entirely possible for both approaches to be very successful. Just a quick thought after reading your newsletter. Your co-laborer,