This broadcaster has 662 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
November 11, 2019 9:54 am
Prepared to engage Mormon missionaries may knock on your door. Perhaps the book is 101 will help Mormonism 101 published at your favorite Christian bookstore .1 examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a perspective view .1 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 of your point on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder director Mormonism research ministry with me today is Eric Johnson.
My colleague at M.
R. M. A number of books have been written by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints telling about their experiences and what happened to them in order to join the church in the first place. So you have a lot of books out there that are testimonial we want to look at a book, though, that I think is part testimonial and part doctrinal. It's a book titled immersion in Mormonism, especially for new members and also teens and members who struggle gain and retain a stronger testimony when one title limit is in it was written by the converts is this on the cover, written by a convert. Charles Abbott Charles Abbott lives in Provo, Utah, and describes himself as an attorney.
We did some checking and he is an attorney that's involved in advertising, not criminal laws far as we know, but he is an advertising attorney not to take that away from him. But there are a lot of things that Mr. Abbott says in this book that even though he's writing it for new members in teens and members who struggle when you say Eric and looking this over some of the arguments that he seems to use our not often used by Mormon apologist anymore.
A lot of these arguments are questionable, but he's very convinced that there good argument so he uses words like overwhelming and we were discussing this as we are prepping for the show. What is that really mean when a person says that something like the evidence for the book of Mormon is overwhelming how they arrived at the conclusion. What is overwhelming for one individual might be quite an adequate when it comes to another individual. And of course we would say in our study of the book of Mormon in our study of Mormonism as a whole. When someone says that they've come up with overwhelming evidence for the book of Mormon. For instance, we just have to shake her head and wonder what is that even mean while the date of the book is 2014 and the author said he was 76 years of age. At that time. I think it's pretty clear that he's writing this book toward the end of his life to explain his conversion to Mormonism and I think probably for his family for them to be able to read this in years to come.
To see how this man at the age of 20, decided to leave the Episcopal Church to become a convert and become a latter-day St. effect on page 1.
This is what he writes. I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It's interesting throughout the book he does not spell latter-day right.
He said he uses a D with no-I found that it to be interesting, but he joins the LDS church when he said I was 20 years old. It was the best decision I have ever made in my life. Why, because through my membership in the church.
I have been blessed with everything that is really important and can you imagine Bill if your granddaughter or great-granddaughter of this man reading this and how he starts off so strongly grandpa our great grandpa was a faithful latter-day St. a look at all it did for him and certainly I want to continue in the same way that grandpa did billing going through this book or something that and maybe I overlooked it. Maybe you didn't catch it. If he talks about all these things that are really important to him is on. He doesn't place a lot of emphasis on forgiveness of his sins. Now I don't see a lot of emphasis on that at all.
There's a lot of emphasis placed in other areas but not that I would think that if I was writing a book and I was going to talk about my relationship with Jesus Christ. I think the first and foremost thing I would mention is the fact that I have forgiveness of my sins, yes. And so, as I mentioned, he did go to a and Episcopal Church in his early years, and is not until he's 20 years of age that he decide she's going to check on the books of different religions now guess why he's going to do this well. He meets a girl and this girl's name was already and she was a latter-day St., and was not going to have anything to do with him unless he was in Latter Day Saints so that was going to be a big motivation so as he starts to do this research on page 10. He says what I learned is that there are many areas of disagreement among the Christian churches in much of the book he's going to spell these out why he does not agree with the things of what Christianity has taught for 2000 years compared to what he found as he did his research in Mormonism. You, as you mentioned, he was a freshman at the University of Washington but when you read that part of his testimony when he says he went down to the stacks at the University library found the shelves with books on religion were Began to select the few to read again. I don't know how much he really studied this topic. I don't know how in depth.
He really studied this topic, but he says as he was going through these books he ran across a book called a marvelous work and a wonder which of course was written by Mormon apostle by the name of LeGrand Richards. You're right, as is that he's doing this. It seems as a result of him meeting this morning girl that he was very interested in. She spells it ORANEE that's how she spells her name he learned that there were many areas of disagreement among the Christian churches.
I wonder if he ever took the time to study to see how there were many areas of disagreement among many of the latter-day St. churches or the restoration churches as they are known because since Mormonism's founding. Back in 1830. It's been well documented that there have been over 200 splinter groups of Latter Day Saints. Now, many of those don't exist today, but many do. Did he ever bothered to look into all the contradictions as he sees them between those Latter Day Saints movements and the one that he adheres to the one that's headquartered in Salt Lake City.
He doesn't say call me suspicious but I would probably doubt that he has looked into all those controversies and why there are so many splinter groups that disagree with the church that is headquartered here one of the problems that I had as I read this book is. I knew that he is a lawyer. I didn't know that is an advertising lawyer and so you did that research spell, but he talks about being a lawyer and I'm thinking in the court of law you're going to use evidence you're going to use good reason to come to conclusions and so I was fascinated when I saw the title and then I found out that he was a lawyer as I'm reading and I was disappointed with the type of research. He came up with because he was coming up with an accurate portrayals of what Christianity teaches. Now I want to get into one of those is the issue of who is God, and especially the Trinity. This is what he writes on page 12. He says I determined right then and there to try to find out which of the many churches was right now that sounds like a Mormon statement if I've ever very Joseph ask if and will face as I study the beliefs of the various churches I learned that the doctrine of the Trinity, which has been accepted in one form or another by the Catholics, and most of the Protestants was a result of a political compromise engineered by Constantine, the Emperor of the Roman Empire in the city of Nicaea in 325 A.D. only stop either because when I read a political compromise.
He doesn't explain what he thinks. This political compromise is when I read the history of the Council of Nicaea. I don't see a compromise at all being made. In fact, I think that the Aryans and that was why the Council was cold in the first place was because of the controversy started by areas because I got his rear end handed tool right to put it politely. I don't know what he read. I don't know what he took from what he read, but I wish he would've explained what he thought was a political compromise because I don't see that in history now and then he goes on and says Constantine wasn't even a Christian, but instead was a sun worshiper, Constantine claimed to be a Christian. Now there's controversy over whether or not he was a true believer. You can debate that issue, but his mother Helena is the one who helped him to become a Christian and certainly was a political move as well. But when he says he wasn't a Christian. That's not what Constantine claimed.
And then he continues on and writes however in trying to unify the Roman Empire. He felt it was important to reach some sort of unity among the warring factions of the Christian church and then later he says this on page 13 the doctrines of the Trinity was nothing more than an attempt to satisfy both factions by saying that the Godhead consists of one God, who is also three God see that's why I'm disappointed here Bill because that's not an accurate portrayal of the Council of Nicaea or the doctrine of the Trinity. Will he also says that Athanasius who was a priesthood holder from Egypt and who also had many followers was teaching that the father the son and the Holy Ghost were one eternal being existing code eternally.
But at the same time were separate and distinct from each other. That's not a very good explanation of what Athanasius believed, and that certainly doesn't explain what the doctrine of the Trinity is all about.
I don't know of any Trinitarian that would've explained. That way you would think that if Athanasius being a priesthood holder from Egypt. If you're a new convert to the Mormon church truth, you're Mormon and you're struggling in you read of someone who was a priesthood holder. How would those two words affect your thinking that I was trying to read this as a Latter Day Saints and when I read that I thought wait a minute, Athanasius. He held the ironic or the Melchizedek priesthood because that's all Mormon with think ironic or Melchizedek. Now of course there was no Melchizedek priesthood in the New Testament there was a priest in the Old Testament name Melchizedek, but we don't see any priesthood named after him. So I would think he might want to look into that aspect of biblical history. I just find it amazing that something as big as the Melchizedek priesthood and Mormonism isn't even described in the New Testament as Mormons believe it fact the only time we ever read about Melchizedek is what in the book of Hebrews and it's applying that description to Jesus, but nowhere are we to learn in the New Testament that Peter James and John, for instance, had this Melchizedek priesthood. The New Testament is silent on you have to read into it to draw that conclusion because there certainly is no evidence in the New Testament to support it. So what does he mean by that.
But let's go on here were he says that Athanasius was teaching that the father the son and the Holy Ghost were one eternal being existing code eternally.
But at the same time were separate and distinct from each other. That would almost sound like with Joseph Smith was teaching layout on right. Why would you not like what Athanasius had to say.
Then, if that's what he was really teaching, but I think you're absolutely correct in that last sentence when he says the doctrine of the Trinity was nothing more than an attempt to satisfy both factions by saying that the Godhead consist of one God who was also three God's would that have satisfied areas.
There are no because that Darius did not believe that Jesus was God. He would not of like that explanation at all, he would've liked the one that he gave on page 15 as well.
This is what he said after studying these beliefs. I was confused.
I couldn't understand how God could be three beings but only one being lot confused as well. Three beings, one being three gods one God. He's not explaining it well at all when he says it was taught that the Godhead consist of one God who was also three gods. I'm a little disappointed in that kind of a conclusion because on page 13 and 14 as well as the top of page 15. He cites the Athanasian Creed if he would've only read the Athanasian Creed he would've read where it says so the father is God the son is God the Holy Ghost is God and yet they are not three gods but one God, thank you for listening you would like new nation's 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