Share This Episode
Viewpoint on Mormonism Bill McKeever  Logo

10 Reasons Why We Cannot Fellowship with the LDS Church Part 7

Viewpoint on Mormonism / Bill McKeever
The Truth Network Radio
August 16, 2021 9:02 pm

10 Reasons Why We Cannot Fellowship with the LDS Church Part 7

Viewpoint on Mormonism / Bill McKeever

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 662 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


August 16, 2021 9:02 pm

We continue the series with Bill McKeever and Aaron Shafovaloff.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

You are knocking the door and opened it to find two friendly representatives from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormon church. So what you say will you send them away without a Christian witness or will you engage them in a meaningful and Christ honoring conversation if you desire. The latter, we suggest the book, answering moments questions by Romanism research ministries Bill McKeever and Darren Johnson answering woman's questions is available wherever you find quality Christian books on Mormonism program and examine the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism research ministry since 1979 Mormonism research ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's viewpoint on Mormonism welcome to this edition, a viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director Mormonism research ministry and with me today is Aaron South wall of my colleague at MRM were looking at a statement that was made by a Presbyterian group towards the end of the 1800s 1897 to be exact. It was title 10 reasons why Christians cannot fellowship the Mormon church.

The point in going through these is a lot of the points that they made Bactroban are still very relevant today that this week were looking more closely at the rebuttal to this statement that was made by an LDS general authority by the name of BH Roberts Brigham Roberts and one of the complaints that he seems to have therein is that he doesn't like in this statement. Where there citing a lot of sources that are outside of the standard works or official statements made by Joseph Smith himself, even though some of the references are some of BH Roberts writings that will talk about later. I didn't have time to complete this thought thoroughly, but in order to defend his what we call a minimalist approach. He is going to give an account of several church conference minutes that he thinks supports his view that you only stick to the standard works or the official statements of Joseph Smith himself. I've heard that argument raised in modern times, that's for sure. But then he he gets down towards the end of this section, it's quite lengthy.

We don't have time to go through all the more he says this then represents the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints upon the authoritative sources of their doctrine, then what is he say is not sufficient to quote saints purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine, our own people also need instruction and correction in respect to this is common to hear some of our older brother and say, but I heard brother Joseph, myself, say so or Brother Brigham preached it.

I heard him but that is not the question. The question is, has God said it was the prophet speaking officially what the Catholics would call ex cathedra that this is interesting and I would tend to agree with them here.

I don't think it would be fair to quote hearsay because we don't really know if Brigham Young Lord Joseph Smith said anything like that but I think EEG engages in in a bit of self reputation here because in the very next section. BH Roberts says in his journal under date of January 1843 the prophet writes this morning I read German and visited with her brother and sister from Michigan who thought that a prophet is always a prophet but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such, I've heard Latter Day Saints use that same argument today, but the problem floats is that statement doesn't meet the qualification that he just said in the previous paragraph releases was the prophet speaking officially will Mr. Roberts was he speaking officially when he's talking to this couple in his home. Back in 1843. Not hardly.

But certainly that statement has gotten a lot of mileage out of a lot of Latter Day Saints don't like some of the things that their past leaders have said, I'd like to say that Mormonism doesn't have an official document what constitutes official doctrine has a hard time getting us the kind of criteria for defining official doctrine using itself. The criteria that it demands for which Christians have the word of God which we take to be inspired of God and self evidencing self authenticating and as of the highest authority at moments don't treat that Scripture in the same fashion and so they have to run this logical circular loop or something that's interesting when he starts getting into the actual statement called 10 reasons he takes umbrage, it appears with the comment that was made that the Mormon church on churches all Christians. It recognizes itself alone as the church.

Roberts response to that is kind of interesting because he says well we have to confess that so far the statement is substantially true. While it is true and that's the position of the church to this very day. They have not changed their statement on that they can't really change the statement because it's in section 1, verse 30 of the doctrine and covenants that this is the only true church in which God is well pleased.

In general, when Mormon defenders fall back on this plausible deniability. Later they say will that's not official's and like that on in general.

They try not be too specific about which claims if you get 10 critical claims against the LDS church looking to throw out as a blanket defense hate.

Not everything our leaders say is official, but they try not to be very specific about which sayings of their leaders. They take issue with what is it that they actually disagree with and they try to keep that pretty vague on this larger issue of official reality, official doctrine and speaking ex cathedra and what's binding.

I had it discussion with Stephen Smoot in front of the LDS conference center during general conference. This is actually on YouTube. In an interview. When I asked him about a hypothetical scenario. What if you had say 14 of the 15 top apostles of the earliest church in agreement on a particular claim, in effect, I gave it an example.

I said what 14 of the 15 apostles taught that Jesus on earth was a sinner and what if they taught it in all their institutional channels all the general conference talks all the manuals and what if every single other person in the LDS church believed it so he was taught by 14 of the 15 S. one short of unanimity is taught in all their institutional materials and other people believe it with that yet count as official doctrine and would that be the kind of blasphemy that would disqualify the LDS church and its leadership and he took the position of know that because it was not yet unanimous among the 15 because it wasn't incorporated into something like Scripture to that effect. It wasn't representative of the unanimity of the 15, the church could conceivably teach that kind of blasphemy to the entirety of the church and it wouldn't yet be something that an outsider could criticize as something fatally corrupt about the LDS church. It's not yet official. It's kind of like saying hate your allowed to inspect the fruits of our religion, but only if the banana has the official bowl sticker come from the appeal. You are to examine what we teach, but only when we tell you, you can but yet there are areas that we can zero in on that. I think most Mormons if they were honest with us would say will yes we should be able to defend or support what is written. And let's say a church manual because church manuals are supposed to be given the approval by the first presidency of the church, you can't get any more official than that the conference statement should be fair game as well. If a leader says something in general conference Latter Day Saints have been told that that is the mind and the will of God. And so if that's the case then why couldn't we, as Christians, trying to engage in a conversation with our LDS friends bring up something like that and have them defend the whole point of Mormonism is that they can go beyond Scripture, and that they have living oracles and that they have modern day prophets that speak beyond Scripture that they have say general conference reports which function as for six months living Scripture. The whole point of Mormonism is to have living oracles and so they otherwise lean into the what they say is a selling point of the LDS church that these prophets and apostles can speak with revelatory authority unless they're under critique and then they say you are only allowed to critique that little tiny portion of what we will publicly confess to the world and put in our Scriptures, but even if we teach it to our children even if we teach it to our teenagers, and even if we teach it to our church populace. Their institutional manuals. You are not allowed to critique what are prophets and apostles publicly disseminate from even our highest pulpits you are not allowed to attack that is fair game.

If they say it's not fair game were allowed to teach it to our children but your allowed to critique it will if they're allowed to teach it to their children and to others within their congregations. I think we should have the freedom to teach it to our children into our congregations so that our children our congregations can have a better understanding of what Latter Day Saints children congregations are learning why not. Why shouldn't we be able to do this. I think it's the height of deception to say that we can't talk about these things when obviously they're talking about them. I think we should take note of just how low. If you they have their own prophets and apostles at this reminds me of the Pharisees and the scribes who were not used to someone speaking with authority. When Jesus gets up on the sermon on the Mount and he preaches as he descends the mountain. They say wow.

He's not like the scribes and the Pharisees. He speaks with authority in the Old Testament when God was raising Samuel up to be a prophet. It says that God let none of his words of fall to the ground when incredible display of the omnipotent wisdom of God, that he was able to take some like Samuel. And as in raising him up as a prophet. Let none of his words fall to the ground. Jesus says watch out for false prophets will know them by their fruits.

And then Jesus gives an analogy because if you don't go to where the thornbushes are and the thistles are to get figs and grapes. He talks about a diseased tree.

If something the diseased tree.

Essentially, Jesus says you know you have yourself a false prophet will be H. Roberts is essentially saying well, yeah, about that a lot of our prophets and apostles are diseased trees and not everything on the tree is worth eating and not everything is payable, I would prefer that you not represent our orchard by picking trees over there all by the way what Brigham said about Adam God, he's just the crazy old brigand in the attic. Please pay no attention to the guy pounding on the ceiling is just like we have these guys in our church that we can't, prophets and apostles are speaking for God are speaking to the Lord Jesus Christ there influencing millions of people. We have people in our churches still believe what they said but we would prefer that when someone critiques our religion that they please not mention what our highest leaders have taught publicly about the very nature of God because we don't hold ourselves as bound to the teachers of our religion, who claim to speak for God. What kind of religion is this like what why even be why even be a latter-day St.

If this is what you have to resort to if you have to resort to minimalism to defend your religion that don't belong to religion which tries to enjoy. Otherwise maximal his own and enjoying living oracles you can speak for God, they either speak for God or they don't. If they don't then Jesus says have nothing to do with them.

The false prophets there diseased trees don't go for them for figs and grapes when they're just thistles and thorns that I think that something that's always puzzled me is this is the church that claims that all of the churches that claim to be Christian outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are in a state of apostasy because they don't believe" modern revelation, but yet when we quote their modern revelation, as you've just stated so eloquently we get in trouble, or we get rebuked for doing that. That shouldn't be the case if this is what they're going to stand on, then by all means, that should be an area that we can focus on ourselves and tomorrow show are going to continue looking at some of the complaints that BH Roberts had regarding this statement that was put out. 1997, 10 reasons why Christians cannot fellowship the Mormon church. Thank you for listening. If you would like more information regarding Amicus research ministry. We encourage you to visit our website at www.mrm.org you can request a free newsletter Mormonism research. We hope you join us again as we look at another viewpoint is


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime