Mormons and The Book of Romans

One question people have asked me through the years is "what do the Mormons do with Paul, and the doctrine of justification?"  The matter has recently resurfaced with the publication of Grace Is Not God's Backup Plan, an LDS writer's "urgent paraphrase" of Paul's epistle to the Romans.

According to Bruce R. McConkie (the author of the standard text Mormon Doctrine, 408), "in summarizing the plan of salvation, Adam taught: `By the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified'" (Moses 6:60).  One would think that if you were going to define the doctrine of justification you would first turn to the Apostle Paul, not to the Book of Mormon.

McConkie continues, this time addressing the supposed misreading of Paul which Mormons are all to happy to correct.  "Indeed, one of the great religious contentions among the sects of Christendom is whether men are justified by faith alone, without works, as some erroneously suppose Paul taught (Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 3:19-28; 4:5; 5:1-10; Gal. 2:15-21; 2 Ne 2:5), or whether they are justified by works of righteousness as James explained" (Jas. 2:14-26).  So, James trumps Paul without comment.  2 Nephi 2:5, which is quite vague, is cited as a proof text, to the effect that Mormons reject justification by obedience to the law of Moses.  It reads, "and men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil.  And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever." 

Joseph Smith made himself pretty clear where he stood on the matter.  "To be justified before God we must love one another: we must overcome evil; we must visit the fatherless and the widow in their affliction, and we must keep ourselves unspotted from the world: for such virtues flow from the great fountain of pure religion, strengthening our faith by adding every good quality that adorns the children of the blessed Jesus. We can pray in the season of prayer; we can love our neighbor as ourselves, and be faithful in tribulation, knowing that the reward of such is greater in the kingdom of heaven. What a consolation! What a joy!” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 76).  If, as Smith teaches, we must demonstrate sufficient love and good works to be justified, then my reaction is not to be "consoled" or "joyful."  My "good" works only condemn me all the more!

Now comes a Mormon writer who has written a paraphrase of Romans, entitled, Grace Is Not a Back-Up Plan.  In an interview recently posted on an RNS blog, the author (Adam S. Miller) contends,

Mostly we neglect Romans. A lot of that has probably just been reactionary, a way of distinguishing ourselves from our Protestant cousins. For a long time, what was most important to Mormons was showing how we were different from other Christians. That’s contributed, I think, to a general neglect of Paul and of Romans in particular. We tend to see Paul as their guy.

We’re often not very good readers of the New Testament, especially the second half. Once you get out of the history associated with the gospels and with Acts, it’s rougher going for people. One of the most interesting things about Romans is that it’s a 10,000-word explanation of how key gospel elements fit together—grace, sin, the law. That kind of long theological explanation is rare in scripture and it isn’t easy for us to work through.

Paul is a loose thread in early Christianity. He’s evidence of an ad hoc messiness in the original church that we as Mormons are often uncomfortable thinking about. He doesn’t fit well with the tidy institutional story of the institution.

There are many points of response one could offer to these comments, but I will limit myself to just two.  First, Protestants (at least historic evangelical and confessional Protestants) are not "cousins" to the Mormons, who, based upon the quotes above from Bruce McConkie and Joseph Smith, openly reject Paul's doctrine of justification as heartily as they do the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus.  Mormonism is a heretical sect--period.  Mormons continue to masquerade as a Christian Church, and here is yet another attempt to co-opt traditional Protestant theology and to sound like mainstream evangelicals.  "We like Romans too . . ."

Second, the only way a Mormon can read Paul's letters and not become an Evangelical or confessional Protestant, is to read Romans in the form of a paraphrase, such as the one mentioned above.  Mormons have a rather poor track record when it comes to paraphrasing Paul.  It is hard to forget Joseph Smith's abominable "paraphrase" of Paul's statement that grace is a free gift from God, received trough faith.  In an obvious re-working of Ephesians 2:8-9, in 2 Nephi 25:23 (Book of Mormon) we read; "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."  Grace only comes "after all we can do."

So, when Mormons paraphrase Paul, we all ought to be a bit nervous.  When they do it with "urgency" we should be very nervous.

Who Is Watching Joel?

Who is watching Joel Osteen?  Not I!  But he does amaze me.  How can he preach on the exact same topic every Sunday--"God wants me to be better"--and, yet make it seem different?

When it comes to Christian media, and who accesses it, the numbers are revealing.  Who Is Watching TV or Listening to Christian Radio?

Only 8% of Americans admit to watching Christian television regularly--I'll bet the demographics here are interesting.  Probably older women with blue hair, who live below the Mason-Dixon line, and east of Mississippi.

24% watch Christian TV "sometimes," 27% "rarely," and 40% "never."

Christian radio fares a tad worse.  10% listen "regularly," 17% "sometimes," 19% "rarely,"  52% "never."

Podcast numbers are low (the media is new).  4% "regularly," 10% "sometimes," 11% "rarely," 72% "never."

The numbers also show that

67 percent of Americans never or rarely watch Christian-based programming on television. Those who do watch at least sometimes are overwhelmingly self-identified evangelicals (69 percent) and weekly churchgoers (62 percent).

71 percent never or rarely listen to Christian radio. Those who do are similar to the Christian TV crowd — 67 percent are evangelicals and 57 percent are weekly churchgoers.

84 percent of Americans never or rarely listen to Christian-themed podcasts. Books and movies fared slightly better: 33 percent said they at least sometimes read Christian-based books. And 40 percent report seeing a Christian movie in the last year.

The American Religion -- Mormons Observing Lent?

This article caught my eye--Six Ways Mormons Can Enjoy the Spirit of Lent.  Why would Mormons want anything to do with Lent?--something Mormons have historically associated with paganism creeping into the church shortly after the age of the apostles.  Well, if American evangelicals are now attracted to such things, Mormons will do the same.

Notice the way in which the author of this essay (Kelsey Berteaux) explains how easily the Lenten season can be made to fit right in with Mormon notions of works-righteousness ("grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel") . . .

Though Latter-day Saints don’t observe the traditions of Lent, we can always learn a thing or two from it as we search for things that are of good report and praiseworthy. After all, we can always use a reminder to be better and have a more meaningful Easter.

Lent is well-known as a time to sacrifice. For the next 40 days (plus Sundays, which aren’t counted as part of the 40-day Lent tradition), make a “negative” change by resolving to take something bad out of your life. You could try giving up a TV program, excessive social media use, bad music, junk food, or something else you struggle with.

Here is the part that really jumped out . . .  A citation from the Book of Mormon is actually adduced to support the practice.

The idea behind this tradition is captured beautifully in the words of Lamoni’s father:

“I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day” (Alma 22:18).

There are other ways Lent can be co-opted by Mormons.

As with LDS fasting, traditional Lent followers donate the money saved from eating a sacrifice meal to the poor and needy. Consider donating the money you saved to fast offerings along with your normal monthly donation.

During Lent, incorporate the color purple into your life in some small way. Consider putting out a purple table runner, buying purple flowers, or hanging a purple picture in your home. Then, every time you see the item (or any other purple item you encounter during your day), think back on the Savior and His sacrifice on your behalf. Also remember the commitments you’ve made as part of your Lent celebration.

The point of observing Lent—however you decide to do it—is to find more meaning in the Easter season and draw closer to Christ. The best, and perhaps simplest thing you can do is resolve to learn more about our Savior and His sacrifice.

The pressing issue here, of course, is that the Mormon "Christ" is none other than the spirit-brother of Lucifer, who was raised by the Father--who, in Mormon theology, is also a glorified, immortal, and resurrected man.

Since Mormonism consistently seeks to masquerade as a "Christian" denomination, well then, if the evangelicals are interested in Lent, Mormons need to be as well.  Got to keep up with the Jones' you know.

Only in the bizarro world of American religion . . .

ISIS --Who They Are and What They Want

Here's a link to a very informative essay in The Atlantic on ISIS/ISIL, which details their agenda, their ideology, and their eschatology, which drives much of the movement and its leaders.

What ISIS Really Wants

"It's Good to Be the King"--Unless You Are a German King in Great Britain

Americans love the Royal Family and are quite fascinated by them.

In 1981, countless Americans stayed up very late to watch the fairy-tale wedding of lady Diana Spencer to Prince Charles, only to spend a very sleepless Saturday night years later watching the news coverage when Diana died in Paris in a horrific 1997 traffic accident.  Americans express great admiration for Queen Elizabeth, and we comb the tabloids to keep up with the doings of Kate and Prince William.

This fascination is aided by the fact that Great Britain has been our greatest ally through two world wars, the Cold War, and in the seemingly endless war on terror.

A recent essay in the BBC New reminded me that although Americans greatly admire Great Britain and the House of Windsor, during the Great War, the English people had big problems trusting their own monarch.  The UK was led by a man (King George V), whom many considered to be a German sympathizer, and who happened to be Kaiser Wilhelm II's first cousin.  

King George V cut a striking figure.  But he was a Hanoverian king, whose family name included the suffix "of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha."  This might not be that big a deal, until your nation is engaged in a fight to the death with Germany.  Throughout the war years, there was an increasing wave of suspicion that England's royals were not terribly loyal to England's cause.  And so with the stroke of a pen, the "Hanovers" of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, became the "Windsors," the Royal Family we now know and love.

According to a recent essay in the BBC News (Click Here), the growing pressure of anti-German sentiment in the UK in the years between 1914-1917, brought about a significant change in the Royal Family's identity.

So in 1917 the royal family saw their name change overnight, princes lost their titles and became lords, the Battenbergs opted for literal translation and became Mountbatten, and the quintessentially royal and English "Windsor" was introduced - the brainchild of the king's private secretary Lord Stamfordham.

"Prince Louis of Battenberg went to stay with his son at a naval base in Scotland and wrote in the visitors book 'arrived Prince Hyde, left Lord Jekyll'," says Mr Little.

The BBC News essay goes on to note, this name change had far-reaching consequences for many immigrants.

But the royals' decision to change name was a path also trodden by immigrants to the UK in the 19th and 20th Century, particularly Jewish.

For Jews and other immigrants arriving in the 19th Century to live in an East End populated by co-religionists a name change was unnecessary, but for those aiming for middle class respectability it could be a temptation.

It may be "good to be the king," just not a Hanovarian king from Saxe-Gotha, while ruling over a British empire, which happens to be at war with Germany.  It is worth noting that while the Hapburgs and Hohenzollerns lost all titles and rule, the Windsors live on, beloved in the UK, as well as here in America.

"Would You Like Fries to Go With That Burger?"

Real Clear Religion recently ran a column on Ugly Clerical Vestments.  This was my pick.  Can't tell if it is a burger or a "Sloppy Joe."

More Sad Fruit of the "Moses Model" of Church Ministry

The Phoenix Preacher reveals the annual (and not public) budget of an unnamed Calvary Chapel.

The figures are pretty staggering.  The pastor's annual salary is 320K, plus 30K annual vacation allowance, a 50K annual retirement contribution, $550 monthly auto allowance, a 750K life insurance policy, plus stuff like auto maintenance, cell phones, book royalties, etc.  The weekly church attendence is about 3,000 (Calvary Chapel's do not have church membership) and they have substantial revenues.

What a church pays its pastor is that church's business.  The problem is the budget is not approved by the church--the members do not even see an annual budget, nor do the people know what the pastor is being paid.  The budget was approved by a "board" of the pastor's choosing (personal friends who live far away, and who conduct church business meetings over the phone, and do things like approve budgets, etc.)

Caveat emptor!  If you go to a church like this, and don't vote with your feet, well then, you get exactly that for which you ask.

Since many pastors are tempted to so the same (if they could), God places us in a biblical (Presbyterian) form of church government so that the pastors are accountable to the elders (consistory or session) for their life and doctrine, and so that all things are done decently and in good (i.e., biblical) order.

Meanwhile, like most Reformed and Presbyterian churches, Christ Reformed Church will hold an annual congregational meeting (ironically, ours is this coming Sunday).  We will elect elders and deacons from among the congregation, men who do things like prepare an annual budget (including my annual salary and benefits) which is, in turn, presented to the congregation for their approval.  This is a very public activity conducted by the church and its members.

If you are in a church where the "Moses Model" rules the day, don't be surprised by what happens in the shadows.  Ask that all things be done in the open, so that there are no secret budgets or "board members" who are not members of the church.  There is a reason why Presbyterian and Reformed church government has well-defined church orders (constitutions) and well-tested rules of procedure.  We are all sinners who need checks and balances, pastors included.

Under the "Moses Model," pastors and their boards operate in the dark and do as they please--including the passing of budgets like the one described above.

The Unintended Consequences of Making the World "Safe for Democracy"

Of late, I've been reading and reflecting a fair bit upon the long-term impact of World War One, especially the religious and geo-political implications of the Great War. 

In the essay linked below, former Reagan budget director, David Stockman, offers a rather bleak assessment of the legacy of President Woodrow Wilson, focusing upon the far-reaching but unintended consequences of World War One.

In steering the USA into a European war, Stockman contends, Wilson did not make the world safe for democracy, but actually ensured the rise of National Socialism in Germany, along with the rise of Bolshevism in Russia, and the pro-war nationalists in Britain and France--thereby guaranteeing a second world war.  Stockman also argues that the Great Depression is the inevitable blow-back from Wilson's risky monetary policies to finance the war.

In The Epochal Consequences of Woodrow Wilson's War, Stockman contends,

[Wilson's] unforgiveable error was to put the United States into the Great War for utterly no good reason of national interest. The European war posed not an iota of threat to the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE, or Worcester MA or Sacramento CA. In that respect, Wilson’s putative defense of “freedom of the seas” and the rights of neutrals was an empty shibboleth; his call to make the world safe for democracy, a preposterous pipe dream.

Actually, his thinly veiled reason for plunging the US into the cauldron of the Great War was to obtain a seat at the peace conference table——so that he could remake the world in response to god’s calling.

But this was a world about which he was blatantly ignorant; a task for which he was temperamentally unsuited; and an utter chimera based on 14 points that were so abstractly devoid of substance as to constitute mental play dough.

Or, as his alter-ego and sycophant, Colonel House, put it:  Intervention positioned Wilson to play “The noblest part that has ever come to the son of man”.  America thus plunged into Europe’s carnage, and forevermore shed its century-long Republican tradition of anti-militarism and non-intervention in the quarrels of the Old World.

Needless to say, there was absolutely nothing noble that came of Wilson’s intervention. It led to a peace of vengeful victors, triumphant nationalists and avaricious imperialists—-when the war would have otherwise ended in a bedraggled peace of mutually exhausted bankrupts and discredited war parties on both sides.

By so altering the course of history, Wilson’s war bankrupted Europe and midwifed 20^th century totalitarianism in Russia and Germany.

These developments, in turn, eventually led to the Great Depression, the Welfare State and Keynesian economics, World War II, the holocaust, the Cold War, the permanent Warfare State and its military-industrial complex.

So, What Does Your Cat Really Think of You?

Several recent studies of the manner in which cats relate to humans (like purring and rubbing on our legs), confirms what some of us have suspected all along . . .  Cats manipulate us, and they really don't like us.

Your Cat Really Doesn't Like You

The Fast Food Object Lesson

No doubt, many of you have seen the clever display in Dr. Jaqueline Vaughn's chiropractic office:  Two Year Old Fast Food. 

To make a point about the importance of good nutrition, Dr. Vaughn purchased a McDonald's cheeseburger and a Taco Bell chicken taco in early 2013.  Despite being left on display in her office for nearly two years, there is no mold, no smell, and no noticeable deterioration in either the burger or the taco.

The intended lesson for Dr. Vaughn's patients is that fast food is bad for you because of the preservative chemicals in it.

But might we draw a completely different conclusion from the same display?  If the chemicals in a McDonald's cheeseburger and a Taco Bell chicken taco have preserved them from decay for nearly two years, why won't those preservatives do the same for those who eat this stuff?  Is it not possible that eating fast food, along with the preservative chemical additives, will actually preserve the innards of those who eat it?  Look what the chemicals did for the cheeseburger and taco!  Not quite the message that Dr. Vaughn intended.

Meanwhile, I am downing my daily nutri-bullet concoction for lunch, wishing it were a McDonald's cheeseburger or a Taco Bell chicken taco.