Share This Episode
Viewpoint on Mormonism Bill McKeever  Logo

10 Reasons Why We Cannot Fellowship with the LDS Church Part 8

Viewpoint on Mormonism / Bill McKeever
The Truth Network Radio
August 17, 2021 9:04 pm

10 Reasons Why We Cannot Fellowship with the LDS Church Part 8

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 17, 2021 9:04 pm

We continue the series with Bill McKeever and Aaron Shafovaloff.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

I'm prepared to engage women missionaries would knock on your door. Perhaps the book Mormonism 101 will help Mormonism 101.

Published by Baker look at your favorite Christian bookstore .1 examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a respected viewpoint on Mormonism 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. So glad you can join us for this addition of a viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director Mormonism research ministry and with me today is Erin shuffle all of my colleague at MRM this past week we have been looking at a statement that was made by a group of Presbyterians back in the late 1800s 1897 to be exact. It was title 10 reasons why Christians cannot fellowship the Mormon church. Last week we went through a lot of the reasons why these Utah Christians had problems with the LDS church and this week were looking more closely at the response to their statement a response that was made by a general authority by the name of BH Roberts continuing where we left yesterday. Erin says that the second of the 10 reasons stated, is as follows.

The Mormon church places the book of Mormon in the book of doctrine and covenants on a par with the Bible and require subscription to the inspiration and authority of those books as a condition of acceptance with God and fellowship with his people. What's interesting about that. That's the statement that the 10 reasons included in BH Roberts response that is true that they got it right and in that's what's interesting a great number of the responses that BH Roberts gives to this statement, he tends to agree that the third point though. It's looks to me like he's just playing a game of semantics. The objection in the statement was the Mormon church makes belief in the person and mission of Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and the central article of faith so essential that the person who rejects the claims of the quote modern profit is a rank heretic. Roberts responds by saying, well, no, not heretic, much less rank heretic and then he goes on to explain that to really be a heretic. You have to belong that one time to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints so is really just plain the semantical games, but then he gets to the priesthood.

Point number for the objection read the Mormon church makes faith in the Mormon priesthood and submission to the same essential to a man's future blessedness and unbelief in this priesthood is a damning sin. Again, we find that Roberts tends to agree with this statement.

Robert says, but when it comes to the priesthood of God in the government of his church, God's church and in the proclamation of the gospel by word-of-mouth into the inhabitants of the earth when it comes to administering the sacred ordinances by which men receive a forgiveness of sin and where in they received baptism of the Spirit by confirmation through the laying on of hands. It is true that the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only priesthood holding the keys in power and authority to do those things have to say less then that would not represent our mission to the world so BH Roberts is saying that what this statement 10 reasons is telling us is absolutely correct in the context of Mormonism and then we get to the fifth point. The doctrine of God. The Mormon church teaches a doctrine of God that is antagonistic to scriptures dishonoring to the divine being and debasing to man.

It teaches that God is an exalted man who was once as we are now and who is changing forever ever advancing becoming more and more perfect, but never becoming absolute perfection. Robert says in response to this is true in the main that we teach these doctrines concerning God, but we certainly deny that they are antagonistic to the Scriptures or dishonoring to the divine being, and then point number six which deals with the subject of Adam being God the supreme God, the creator of this world our God and the only God, with whom we have to do and as I mentioned when we looked at this. That's almost a direct quotation from what Brigham Young said in his original sermon on Adam being God. So what does Roberts have to say in response to that, he says, as a matter of fact, the Mormon church does not teach that doctrine. Some men in the Mormon church have held such views, and several of them quite prominent in the councils of the church. But the church has made an announcement of no such doctrine, nor has the church propounded it to the world and accepted any article of its faith. Here I invoke the principles laid down in the early part of my remarks that the church may only be rightly charged with those doctrines which may be adduced from the official documents she herself sets forth as the sources of her doctrine, the very revelations of God that she has officially accepted and from these sources. The above charge may not be proven is interesting.

He goes on to say Brigham Young and others may have taught that doctrine has never been accepted by the church as her doctrine and she is not in any way responsible for it. The strangeness of that statement is Brigham Young. The prophet of the Mormon church who made that statement called it a doctrine and he even said this at the end of the sermon now. Let all who may hear these doctrines pause before they make light of them or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

I think the question that I would raise if a latter-day St. was to give me that rebuttal that you just read from BH Roberts, who has more authority to speak on this issue Brigham Young being the president of the church are BH Roberts, who held a lower position and authority now Mormon could argue yeah but Brigham Young died so that all of a sudden nullifies everything. Brigham Young had to say. If nothing else that should raise a bunch of flags for anybody who's having this kind of a conversation's truth. While the guys alive and then when the prophet dies and all of a sudden all his so-called shrews are no longer relevant any longer that you be a huge problem for us and talking with our latter-day St. friends. Christians don't treat the words of the prophets of God as spoiled. It is not as though it's something that has a shelf life. It's not fresh food that can kill bad. Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but my word will never pass away.

The grass feeds the flower fades, but the word of the Lord stands forever, the word of God is said in Hebrews to be living an active, sharper than any two-edged sword, so the word of God being God's very word. It has an extension a few of the attributes of God. It's appropriately reflecting the nature of God in being something that can't be said to be untrue, it it reflects upon the character of God. It's it's terrible, it's stable and so and so many claims to speak for God. God does in omnipotent, wise act in preserving the words of this person not to speak rank heresy do not with me that we do as just a historical matter.

BH Roberts is not denying that Brigham Young taught it.

Instead he saying Brigham Young may have taught it, and then he vaguely says we have had quite prominent people in the councils of the church hold to these views. I just find this is incredible. He's basically the software admitting this is been held to by people high up in our church is perhaps been taught by Brigham Young but you're not allowed to make charges against our church unless we say so Christmas it becomes a part of the official documents this this minimalist standard of things only being binding if there any official documents is not a standard Mormonism itself follows that Brigham Young promoted an expansionist maximalist version of what counted as binding. Even today in recent general conferences you had the 14 fundamentals that were rehashed which teaches that we are essentially there are authoritative sources beyond the standard works that we ought to pay attention to the modern manuals of the LDS church will often celebrate things that are revelatory the delivery, and that the source of the Lorenzo Snow couplet. For example, was couched in revelatory terms even the recent LDS church positions on baptism of say children of gay parents that this kind of back-and-forth on that, but his various claims that the eldest leadership is operating by revelation and we just talk to Mormons all the time who celebrate the fact that they have living prophets that are delivering revelation. Another complaint that BH Roberts had was the point made in the 10 reason statement that the Mormon church is polytheistic, it teaches a plurality of God's BH Roberts doesn't really seem to deny that he just doesn't like the way it said he goes back to this idea that they're trying to present this position in the most odious way as possible. In other words, it's not so much that we don't really believe that we just don't like the way you say it.

Have you had a latter-day St. say that to you Aaron.

Well it's not so much of what you're saying is false. I just don't like the way you're saying that, which of course is the fact that you're just saying that all is probably what's bothering the guy seems like some of the controversial Mormon teachings Mormons preferred that they be stated with euphemisms or with rhetorical flourish or a little bit of ambiguity.

It's like certain Mormon doctrine functions best in public when it's kept ambiguous phrases like becoming like God or statements about God's nature not I like to use a lot of crisp clarity God in Mormonism is a cosmic regional deity over one branch of the family tree of the gods and he has a potentially endless ancestry of relationally superior deities, that is not how I Mormon with talk but when I unpack that it essentially ends up being affirmed. That is interesting about God when you talk about the true God. When you when you speak to his nature.

It is is beautiful. It is strong and stable. The attributes of God are compelling talking about God's eternal holy past holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come. I've often heard complaints about the rhetoric used even if the descriptions are accurate will even hear BH Roberts. He doesn't deny that the latter-day Saints believe in a plurality of gods. In fact, he goes on and says we shrink not from the charge that in this sense in our doctrine, there is a plurality of God.

So he's admitting that that is a part of LDS teaching. This is what I find very interesting in this whole discussion as we do now.

We raise our objections to what we see in Mormon teaching Mormons act or fame. In this case would BH Roberts how it said. But like you were explaining it. Still, something that they believe just be honest with us and say yes I do believe that give us something to talk about. Don't act like like you said, let's not talk about it because it bothers me. She could say but here BH Roberts isn't denying it at all. So what they said in this statement was absolutely correct. So much so that BH Roberts really didn't have an out.

He couldn't explain it away. All he could do as he does in other points that he's addressed so far is to agree, and I make note here that this the charge of the seventh at reason given by the Presbyterians, but we cannot fellowship Mormons that again this is a 1997 document part of this point was that in Mormonism.

The gods were once men who became God's, and that men in the future can become God's this is divided into two sections, God's past and our future.

A lot of modern morning and evangelical LDS dialogue tries to act like this issue of God's past is just a matter of speculation. BH Roberts doesn't repudiate each Roberts doesn't even distance himself from it. He basically says it's true that he does not contest this claim that in the Mormon faith in the Mormon system. The gods of the plurality of the gods were once men who became God's in the 1920s. BH Roberts is not objecting to this.

He basically thinks it's an accurate depiction of LDS doctrine. And that's a good point to make that I don't think we stressed enough. This week is the statement came out in 1897. This discussion is taking place a couple decades later, so it's still something that's going on in the community and the Christian community. You might say in the state of Utah. Tomorrow were going to continue looking at some of the objections that BH Roberts had to this statement titled 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 www.mrm.org you can request a free newsletter Mormonism research.

We hope you'll join us again as we look at another viewpoint is


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