The following exchange is an ongoing conversation between a member of the LDS Church (Mormons) and Pastor Keith Foskey of Sovereign Grace Family Church.
Hello Dr. Foskey. My name is Jonathan Hatch. I listened to your talks "Is a Mormon a Christian?" on sermonaudio.com. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I, of course, found your talks particularly interesting. I feel that I am very familiar with LDS. - Nothing in your sermons was new to me. However, I would love to make some comments and also perhaps ask you a few questions related to this topic in hope that it will encourage good, respectful gospel discussion. I think that respectful and open discussions between those of different faiths are wonderful and very important. I TRIED to be brief in all my comments and questions; feel free to do the same (if you like) if you choose to respond, and I hope that you will.
COMMENTS:
1. You gave a brief "summary" of our history, beliefs and leaders, but I noticed that you for the most part only shared the controversial/negative information. I think that you and I will both agree that that is not a proper/fair way to introduce someone, especially to people that trust you to give them accurate information. If someone that knew you introduced you to another person, and they did so by stating only your errors, weaknesses and controversial doings, you would probably claim that such a summary was unfair and inaccurate, and you would be right. It is the same with the LDS church. In fact, we could do something similar with the history of the Hebrews and Christianity, mentioning the polygamy of the prophets, idolatry of the people; doctrines such as "God sends all but a 'few' to eternal torture" etc., but that would not represent your beliefs very well. You and your congregation are missing out on so much truth and beauty by looking at us in this way; I recommend a more open and just study and presentation of the LDS church.
2. You stated various times in your talk that there is "not one shred of evidence exists to support" this or that of LDS beliefs (for example, Book of Mormon archeology etc.). I agree that I wouldn't mind there being more evidence. However, I personally believe that God sometimes holds back evidence or signs from those who demand them. Jesus often in his day warned against demanding signs and proofs in order to establish his truthfulness. I believe that we live in such a sign/evidence-demanding generation, a generation that is greatly lacking in spirituality, humility and trust in God (not believing unless they see for themselves). However, your and my beliefs in Christ are not based or reliant on physical/archeological evidence, but are based on faith and on God's word.
3. You stated that the LDS belief of "eternal regression" (that God had a Father, who had a Father etc.) is "one of the most difficult problems for Mormonism". I disagree. Of course it is hard for us mortal, finite beings to understand or describe something that it is eternal. You believe that God has always existed... when did he create his first creation? Was He all alone for the eternities before that? We cannot understand or imagine these things, and that's perfectly okay. The truthfulness of my or your beliefs are not dependant on our ability (as finite, mortal beings) to understand or explain ETERNITY.
4. You stated that the LDS church wants to be known as another mainstream Christian church. I'm afraid not. Yes, we do want people to know that we are Christians, that is, that we are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, for that IS what we are, but we boldly proclaim that we are the one true church of Jesus Christ. The original church of Christ had the following: modern revelation from God, prophecy, visions, appearances of angels, prophets, 12 apostles with authority (priesthood authority) given them of Christ by the laying on of hands, regular temple worship by saints (Acts 2:46), miracles, healings, all gifts of the spirit etc. We are the only church that claims ALL of these things, and it is true. Anyone can know this for themselves, by sincere scripture study, pondering, faith, prayer and by personal revelation from the Spirit of God to their spirit.
QUESTIONS:
1. You stated that a "cult adds to the Bible". I'm curious, why do you believe that scripture and revelation has ended? God has guided his people through revelation from the beginning (before, during and after Christ), why do people say that He stopped? Some have quoted John's warning in Rev 22, but I read that to be a warning against changing John's words specifically, not the Bible as we have it today. Moses gave a very similar warning in Deut. 4:2. What are your thoughts?
2. Regarding the claim to be "Christians", I'm sure you'll agree that even among Protestant Christians, there are many differences of beliefs (role, age, mode and necessity of baptism, church organization, nature of the Godhead, existence of miracles etc.). In my view, these differences are understandably for many topics are less clear in the Bible and can be interpreted differently. How then you determine which doctrines are essential for salvation and which ones can be disagreed upon?
3. Among so many different beliefs about God in the world, how can a man know which set of beliefs is correct? Is it by reason/logic, by archeological evidence, spiritual experiences, feelings, age of record etc?
4. How do you personally know that the Bible is true, that it is inspired and teaches correctly of God?
5. Do you have any questions for me? I am very familiar with LDS theology. I served a mission in Chile 7 years ago, I am a fully active and beleiving member of the LDS church. I will answer any question you have to the best of my abilities and in all honesty.
I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you for your time, may God bless you and your family.
FIRST RESPONSE:
Hello Jonathan,
I would be happy to answer your questions and will try to do so as clearly as is possible. I simply would ask that you consider my answers as to their merit before immediately beginning your rebuttals. I find that in these types of discussions (whether written or spoken) each side tends to be much more willing to talk than listen, and as such there is little headway made, if any at all. I have considered all of your questions, and I do believe my answers will be sound and in keeping with the spirit in which they were written.
Instead of copying the questions, I will simply put the numbers followed by my responses.
Under COMMENTS
1. I am certain that you can understand that I was limited in my time as I only had one hour to present an overview of Mormonism. As such, I did focus upon the points in which we would most clearly have difficulty. Yet, even had we not focused on the points that we did, I am not sure that I would have been able to find any of the supposed “truth and beauty” of the LDS church. I do not say this to be ugly or mean-spirited, but because I find the foundations of the LDS church to be so filled with inconsistency and error, I would have difficulty in finding any of its fruit worthy of praise. Bad root produces a bad tree produces bad fruit. And while Mormons often claim a high level of morality and dedication to their faith, I would submit that this does not mean that the religion is true or beautiful. The people of the church of Scientology are often very moral and dedicated people as well, yet we would probably both agree that they do not represent truth.
2. As I stated in my presentation, the issue of archeological evidence is not my biggest argument against the teachings of Mormonism. You will note that I conceded that the same things have been claimed in regard to the Red Sea crossing and the Wilderness Wanderings. Yet, at the same time, I did make the point that such a presentation which is made in the teachings of Mormonism regarding the history of America would almost undoubtedly have some archeological evidence were it actually true. If a person chooses to take on faith the writings of Joseph Smith in regard to this history, I would not deny them this right. I would simply say that someone who does not automatically accept Joseph Smith as a prophet has nothing outside his writings to validate his claims. Furthermore, to compare this with Christ is a bit unfair. Jesus Christ lived at a time in history which can be verified and seen even in extrabiblical sources. There are ever growing examples of archeological evidences that support the claims of the bible in regard to when certain people were governors and leaders, etc. all of which took place in and around the same time as Christ lived. Furthermore, we have the writings of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ death burial and resurrection in the New Testament record. These witnesses went out sharing their testimony of Christ, and the church grew as a result. History demonstrates this movement growing out of the testimony of those witnesses. Mormonism has no such witnesses; only the word of one man who claimed to have had a prophetic vision with no accompanying validation of his claims. Allow me to give an example of the importance of archeology: A few years ago, Archeologists claimed that the book of Luke was in error because it mentioned a city that they claimed never existed. Yet, low and behold, eventually they discovered during a dig a city which had the name. This did not make the Bible true, it was true all along. Yet, it did demonstrate that the Bible can stand up to the scrutiny of archeology. So far, Mormonism has yet to stand up to such scrutiny.
3. The Bible declares the following in regard to God, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (Isaiah 43:10 ESV). In Mormonism, this verse is either seen as untrue, corrupted, or it is interpreted to say something opposing what it actually says. It simply says that before God there was no other gods (which is denied in Mormon theology, since Elohim was a man who lived under the rule of another god), and that after me no god will be (which is also denied in Mormonism because of the teaching that through devotion to LDS teachings, one can attain the position of deity). As such, I think the issue of eternal regression is a secondary issue, but since I did raise it, I will respond to your comment: If God is eternal, He had no beginning. If Mormonism has a god who was once a man, created by another god, was this god the first god? If not, did he have a god? And did he? This is the eternal regression issue. It hasn’t got anything to do with our understanding of eternity. It has to do with our understanding of CAUSATION. If our current god was created by another god, then he is by nature a result and not a cause. Christians have always believed that the God of the Bible is uncaused cause of all things. He is the only being in the universe who is independent; He simply exists. This is why He calls Himself the “I Am”, or the “Self-Existing One”. As for him being “alone for eternities” before He created, consider the fact that as Christians we believe that God is Triune, that He has always existed as He is now, as Father, Son and Spirit, One in essence, and Three in person. There is communion and fellowship within the Trinity, according to the prayer of Jesus in John 17. This is why we can say God has always been love, even before creation, because He has been in an eternal relationship within the Godhead which had no beginning and will have no ending.
[Continued in Next Post] |
Top
