I created these videos and posted them on DefCon back in September of 2010. Since then, we’ve received many new readers to the blog that may have missed them. So I’ve decided to dust them off and re-post them here so that our new readers can see what happens when a 19th century Mormon meets a 21st century Mormon.
Enjoy!
Celestial Marriage
The Missouri Prophecies
Back in 2008, I made a cult flyer/gospel tract combo available to the readers of this blog to download for free. Since then, this flyer/tract combo has undergone refinement and is now in its fifth printing.
This flyer/tract combo was drafted as a way to inform the public about the truths of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, and to provide them with the true gospel of Jesus Christ. It was originally designed to hang on doorknobs in the area where I live and was in response to the constant canvasing of neighborhoods by these two cults. But since its inception, this flyer/tract combo has also found its way into the hands of numerous people throughout America and has even found its way to the shores of Africa (with another box full currently en route to Liberia as I write this).
The cult flyer is a single tri-fold (printed on the front and back). The tract comes three to a page (printed on the front and back). Each tract fits nicely inside the cult flyer as an insert.
Please feel free to download, print, and make as many copies of each of these items as you wish to distribute as you see fit. You can even put your church name, website, or other personal information on them to help in your evangelistic contacts if you so desire.
Voddie Baucham has written a though provoking article (just read some of the more than 300 comments that follow it!) about the current cultural battle over the covenant of marriage. Here is a small excerpt, here is a link to the entire article. 
It’s hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it’s difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it’s especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.
The idea that same-sex “marriage” is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual “marriage” and civil rights is Michael Gross’s article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase “Gay is the new black.”1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.”2
I wonder if the murder of these 248 children will get as much attention (including around the clock news coverage) as the Colorado murders. Methinks the answer, sadly, is no.
Why? Because murdering 12 people in a movie theater is a crime, but murdering 248 children in their mothers’ womb is a “choice.”
It’s what happens when the culture of situational ethics and the culture of death collide.
From RT.com:
A fishing trip in Russia’s Urals ended with cries of horror as a man found canisters filled with human embryos, some already shaped to baby bodies.
Lids on the bright blue containers apparently unlocked as the canisters hit the ground, and many embryos spilled out. The little bodies, no longer than 15 centimeters, shrank, turning into mummies.
“A friend of mine called at night and said he went fishing and wanted to get some wood for his fire. He found some abandoned water canisters and wanted to take them for his house. And when he came up, he saw… little baby bodies,” a local told Russia’s Channel 4.
Arriving Monday morning, police found 248 embryos aged 12-16 weeks in and around the four canisters. Labels attached to tiny hands and legs listed family names of assumed mothers and some digit codes, which may refer to the pregnancy period, date of abortion or the hospital where the body originated from.
The 50-liter canisters filled with formalin seem to have been thrown out of a vehicle not far from a road leading to Nevyansk, a town on the slopes of the Ural Mountains.
Nevyansk authorities immediately said the canisters could not have originated in their town.
“Our area is too small; we can’t have so many stillborns, miscarriages or artificial abortions,” they said.
Later it was revealed that the horrifying content was “biological waste” from at least three hospitals in Ekaterinburg, the region’s major city.
“It appears a waste disposal company has failed to carry out its duties properly,” remark local authorities as the investigation continues. The Ministry of Health has been requested to determine which companies provide embryo disposal services to Ekaterinburg hospitals.
In Russia, embryos are subject to immediate disposal as they are classified high hazard waste. Prior to disposal, they are to be kept in special packages, not in canisters with formalin. It is also out of practice to attach labels with any information, at least in Ekaterinburg hospitals.
But the bodies found near the Urals not only fall out of this description – the labels show they may have been stored for over ten years.
Some medical experts believe the embryos might have been meant for studies or other purposes, as they contain stem cells. The cells are widely used for immune illnesses treatment and in cosmetic procedures.
Prosecutors are talking tentatively of criminal charges, but most probably the guilty party will bear an administrative punishment.
See more here (with news video).
Martin Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) offers a sobering warning from the grave:
“If the West goes down and is defeated, it will be for one reason only: internal rot. . . . If we continue to spend our lives in jollification, doing less and less work, demanding more and more money, more and more pleasure and so-called happiness, more and more indulgence of the lusts of the flesh, with a refusal to accept our responsibilities, there is but one inevitable result—complete and abject failure. Why did the Goths and Vandals and other barbarians conquer the ancient Roman Empire? Was it by superior military power? Of course not! Historians know that there is only one answer: the fall of Rome came because of the spirit of indulgence that had invaded the Roman world—the games, the pleasures, the baths. The moral rot that had entered into the heart of the Roman Empire was the cause of Rome’s ‘decline and fall.’ It was not superior power from the outside, but internal rot that was Rome’s ruination. And the really alarming fact today is that we are witnessing a similar declension in this and most other Western countries. This slackness, this indiscipline, the whole outlook and spirit is characteristic of a period of decadence. The pleasure mania, the sports mania, the drink and drug mania have gripped the masses.”
In this week’s sermon, The Subtlety of Satan, Pastor Murphy gives a scathing indictment on what today’s version of a “Christian” is:
“(Today’s Christian is) someone who has made the decision to be an emotionally well-adjusted, self-actualized risk-taking leader who knows his purpose, lives a no regret life of significance, has overcome his fears, enjoys a healthy marriage, is an attentive parent celebrating recovery from all their hurts, their habits, their hang-ups, and that practices biblical stress relief techniques, is financially free from consumer debt, fosters emotionally healthy relationships with his peers, attends a weekly life group, volunteers regularly at church, tithes off his gross, and has taken at least one humanitarian aid trip to a third world nation. . . . Never once do you read in that modern contextualized interpretation that a Christian is one who sees their sin, confesses their sin, repents of their sin, and receives the gift of salvation in Christ alone. That’s how far we’ve come. So Christianity now is dictated and defined by culture.”
Pastor Murphy also exhorts his congregation to “connect the dots,” between the many dangers we are warned about repeatedly in Scripture and what is being taught under our noses in many churches and by many Christian authors and leaders today.
”The mood is that if you have a reformed soteriology you get a pass on everything else.” -John MacArthur
What Mac says is so true – Calvinistic preachers are assumed to be orthodox because they have one doctrine correct. Yet those who serve as elders in the local church are to preach the whole counsel of God’s Word. This will humble any man and cause the sheep to be less dependent on the preacher and more on the Lord.
As we’ve pointed out in other posts, here and here, for example, the Bible has plenty of warnings about being deceived and misled by men. No man is above having his teaching tested against Scripture, because only the God Man Jesus was and is without error – and He is the Word of God!
HT: Sola Sisters
I recently finished Jon Krakauer’s book, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. I found the book to be very revealing of early Mormon history (much of the stuff modern day Mormons prefer you didn’t know about). Namely this book tackled Mormonism’s twin doctrines of polygamy and Blood Atonement (and detailing the hellish results those unbiblical doctrines wrought on Mormons and non-Mormons alike).
Although this work was a scathing revelation of Mormonism’s twisted and violent history, I could not help but detect the author’s occasional sympathetic bent toward Joseph Smith and the Mormon organization as a whole.
Sympathy or poor research in some instances (I am not certain which), but one example of less-than accurate reporting is when Krakauer said that when Joseph Smith fired his gun at the angry mob (the gun that was smuggled into the Carthage jail), he wounded “at least one.”
However, Mormonism’s own History of the Church cites that Jospeh Smith actually “snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.”
I must say that there’s a chasm of difference between “wounding at least one” and “two or three were wounded . . . two of whom . . . died.”
Another instance in the book where the author would have done well to have done better research is when he writes that Calvinists teach that God is “bent on making humans atone for Adam’s original sin.”
If Krakauer did his homework he would have known that that is not the historic Calvinist position (and never has been). Calvinism teaches that God’s Son (and Him alone) is the only One able to atone for mankind’s sin that was inherited through Adam and for the sins man commits daily. It is actually the belief of Mormonism (and Roman Catholics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists, and Muslims, etc.) that man can atone for or add to Christ’s atoning work on the cross; and this in direct opposition to Galatians 5:4.
In all, although the author was incorrect on a few points, I found the book to be a fascinating look into both the mainstream LDS organization (the one’s who broke away from the original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) and the varios fundamental LDS organizations (the one’s who still follow the original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) with the Lafferty brothers’ murder of Erica Lafferty and her baby, Erica, on July 24, 1984, as the back drop of the book.
The book, although containing a critical overtone toward all religion, horrifyingly exposes the results of following Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s teachings faithfully, showing that Mormonism (much like Islam) is a violent religion full of lies, deception, adultery, sexual immorality, and forever marked by the bloodshed of innocent men, women, and children.
The battle continues to rage within the evangelical community – for whom did 
Christ die? Did He die for all who ever lived or did He die for the elect? Read the lyrics below and listen to the sermon from James McClarty and humbly see if what these men represent is true. Not, do you like it; not, does it line up with your thinking. Is it in line with the clear teaching and intent of God’s Word, for the glory of His name?
You can download the sermon here.
Mission Accomplished, Shai Linne:
Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide
For years it’s had Christians lining up on both sides
By God’s grace, I’ll address this without pride
The question concerns those for whom Christ died
Was He trying to save everybody worldwide?
Was He trying to make the entire world His Bride?
Does man’s unbelief keep the Savior’s hands tied?
Biblically, each of these must be denied
It’s true, Jesus gave up His life for His Bride
But His Bride is the elect, to whom His death is applied
If on judgment day, you see that you can’t hide
And because of your sin, God’s wrath on you abides
And hell is the place you eternally reside
That means your wrath from God hasn’t been satisfied
But we believe His mission was accomplished when He died
But how the cross relates to those in hell?
Well, they be saying:Lord knows He tried
Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one
Working as a unit to get things done
Our salvation began in eternity past
God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass
A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever
When it comes to the church, peep how they work together
The Father foreknew first, the Son came to earth
To die- the Holy Spirit gives the new birth
The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them
The Spirit is the One who resurrects them
The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them
The Spirit renews them and produces fruit in them
Everybody’s not elect, the Father decides
And it’s only the elect in whom the Spirit resides
The Father and the Spirit- completely unified
But when it comes to Christ and those in hell?
Well, they be saying:Lord knows He tried
My third and final verse- here’s the situation
Just a couple more things for your consideration
If saving everybody was why Christ came in history
With so many in hell, we’d have to say He failed miserably
So many think He only came to make it possible
Let’s follow this solution to a conclusion that’s logical
What about those who were already in the grave?
The Old Testament wicked- condemned as depraved
Did He die for them? C’mon, behave
But worst of all, you’re saying the cross by itself doesn’t save
That we must do something to give the cross its power
That means, at the end of the day, the glory’s ours
That man-centered thinking is not recommended
The cross will save all for whom it was intended
Because for the elect, God’s wrath was satisfied
But still, when it comes to those in hell
Well, they be saying:Lord knows He tried
The following article from the Mormonism Research Ministry was written by Bill McKeever:
“The events leading to the death of Mormon founder Joseph Smith are much like the events surrounding his life—full of contradiction. To hear Mormons tell the story, Smith did no wrong; for others, he did no right. Like most stories, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.”
Continue reading here.
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession both identify the office of Pope, within the Roman Catholic Church, as antichrist. Many modern evangelicals have lost 
sight of the reason for The Reformation and think Vatican II brought Rome closer to Protestant soteriology. This is a sadly mistaken conclusion, as Rome has never refuted The Council Of Trent, which proclaims damnation on all who hold to salvation by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. To this day, Rome proclaims an infused grace from their false Christ that empowers the Catholic to work his spiritual birth by his own efforts.
Below is a snapshot of the Preface to a 50 page booklet by J.A. Wylie wherein he documents the biblical case that proves the perspective in the two confessions noted above. The complete booklet can be found here. May the blood-bought saints of the living God stand firm on His Word, for the glory of the Lord Jesus.
Several years ago, my wife took up the job of organizing the library of the church we were members of. She found some material that looked questionable and asked me to help her figure out which authors should be put in the closet on the “heresy shelf”.
I spent several weeks reading books and researching popular authors and developed a “cheat sheet” of false teachers and a sample of the heresy they taught. Below is a screen shot, the file (6 pages) can be downloaded here.
While I hope this is useful, please note that it is not up to date – some of the newer false teachers this site has brought to light are not included. But the people on this list are behind most of the folks now popular that we should be aware of.
Be on your guard, for the deceiver prowls around like a lion looking for his next meal. A little leaven leavens the whole lump – so do not buy the lie that you should “chew up the meat and spit out the bones.” Test everything – hold to that which is good. When you determine a man (or a woman) to be a false teacher, from such, turn away.
This was a well done piece on Mormonism by the BBC.
Although the impetus for the documentary was presidential candidate Mitt Romney, this video uses his potential presidency as a springboard to delve into Mormonism’s seedy underbelly (unfortunately they never mention such morsels as Mormonism’s racism and blasphemous doctrines like Blood Atonement, paying for your own sins in Hell, and their god having physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus . . . just to name a few).
Regarding the highly visible tragic failure and death of Joe Paterno, having been disqualified by
his actions and those of his subordinates, Baucham asks if Paterno would have been disqualified if he had been an adulterer or abusive husband or derelict father. No profession in our culture disqualifies a man for his failure as a husband or father – except that of the church elder.
The man of God, called to serve His church as an undershepherd, is held to a higher standard than any other man. Further – the elders of a church must also be exemplary in these roles to be qualified! Not perfect – such a false human standard cannot relate with compassion with sinful people.
We learn from Ephesians 5 that family is important because of its portrayal of Christ and His people. To live a life worthy of the gospel, we must be faithful husbands and fathers before we can be faithful preachers and pastors.
You must listen to whole thing – it’s only 40 minutes. The message really takes off around 16 minutes in. Some humor with a hammer wrapped in love. Voddie gives a glorious word picture of the covenant of marriage, and the provision for how we do this. MP3 download here.
The new-paradigm church is offering a purely commercialized, yuppie brand of Christianity found nowhere in the New Testament. . . . Is a person coming to Christ in order to bolster her self-esteem or experience a great thrill, truly born again? If [average church goer] Mary does not clearly understand that the real issue on the table is her personal sinfulness that has offended a holy and righteous God, does she understand the gospel at all? If she believes that Christ died on the cross to save her from a poor self-image in order to give her a fulfilling life brimming with excitement, has she not been presented with a gospel so hopelessly muddled that the true gospel is still a mystery to her? Can such a person, who so totally misunderstands the purpose and nature of Calvary, be saved, even though she has prayed the “sinner’s prayer?” From my understanding of the true gospel I would have to say probably not. And if a multitude of these kinds of Marys are now flooding into the local church, what kind of church is being created?
– Gary Gilley
This post is not to throw stones but to point out to all of us how dangerous our unexamined 
thoughts are. We see this in casual ways when we infer what wasn’t written or implied – such as when we read Bible passages that are very familiar. Another way is when we defend a position – in politics or religion, related to style of worship or doctrinal distinctives. What follows is an example of a blogger for whom I have much respect has written a post to make the point that we each should “draw the line” on what music is good and proper – ostensibly in worship.
This post is NOT a forum to debate whether “Christian rap” or “Christian hip-hop” is good; the reason for this post is to examine the subtle tendency we have to use faulty logic (making sweeping arguments without discriminating actual facts) and misapplication of Scripture (based on unexamined presuppositions).
In this post http://5ptsalt.com/2012/05/16/christian-rap-is-a-lost-cause/ the author condemns a form of music by saying it “uses the ways, lusts, pride, dress and manner of the world.” And he gives no example of “Christian rap” that fulfills this charge. Nor does he acknowledge that nearly every generation of Christians makes a similar charge at what’s new in music – as Spurgeon did with organs in churches. Handel used grand orchestras to portray his message of God’s glory and people today still love some of his music without loving his Lord. Was Handel as guilty as the un-named “Christian rappers”?
In his follow-up post, http://5ptsalt.com/2012/05/17/qa-where-do-you-draw-the-line-in-music/ he conflates rap and hip-hop, condemning both as wanting to redeem the culture. He has a quote attesting to this under LeCrea’s picture – but does not tell us who spoke those words. It appears to be the author of the post, as those exact words appear later in the post. In making this claim of what the goal of “Christian hip-hop” is, he fails to provide one shred of evidence in support. LeCrea does not make any statement, in the video linked to, that the culture should or can be redeemed. The quote from Tripp says that “many today believe the hip hop culture is unredeemable” and how he hopes to REACH that culture with the gospel. He does not claim to want to redeem the culture – he wants to invade the hip-hop culture with truth.
The author slams several people as supporters of “Christian hip-hop” and, therefore, advocates of the unbiblical mission of redeeming the culture; naming Mark Dever and Thabiti Anyabwile in this regard. But in the video of Thabiti Anyabwile that is linked to, he DOES NOT say that culture can or should be redeemed, by hip-hop of anything else. He said that music (in this case, hip-hop) that carries reformed biblical truth can pierce the culture and form worldviews. There is no evidence that Thabiti or Dever support cultural redemption in either post.
Making these allegations without providing evidence and while misapplying what documentation is provided is wrong headed. Truth is important. Those who push for cultural redemption or cultural reformation should be properly exposed – with clear and convincing evidence rather than unsupported allegations. But we who claim Christ must be truthful and honest in our examination of the facts and allegations. I fail to find anything of substance in these posts, only mere allegations and a refusal to answer questions about sources and basis for judgment.
It is my prayer that the author of those posts repent and honestly report departures from biblical truths without resorting to half-baked arguments based on misquotes or neglect of the facts. It is my prayer that you and I likewise investigate the cause we do not know, as did wise Job (Job 29:16). We should think the best of brothers and sisters in Christ and be slow to throw allegations at people. Discuss the issues, use facts and sound logic. May God have mercy on all of us – for we each fall short in myriad ways each day.
This week’s sermon of the week is Are You Prepared to Die? by Albert Martin.
I found the following quiz for Arminians at Chosen by Grace Alone via Bob Hanks’ blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eph. 1:11 …[W]ho [God] worketh all things after the counsel of His will.
Q. If God works all things after the counsel of His will, how much does He work to the will of you, me, Satan, etc.?
A. None.
B. 20%
C. 50%
D. 85%Is. 14:24 Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying , Surely, as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.
Q. How much of what He wants to come to pass, doesn’t?
A. All of His thoughts will come to pass
B. Some of His thoughts will not come to pass
C. A few of His thoughts will not come to pass
D. A lot of His thoughts will not come to passRom. 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many bretheren: and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.
Q. How many do you think have been called, justified, or glorified that He did not first foreknow or foreordain?
A. Write in your answer: ___________________
John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Q. Where does this scripture say that Jesus laid down his life for the sheep and the goats
A. It doesn’t
B. It doesn’t, but I just know He meant the goats, tooJohn 6:65 No man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
Q. How many come to Jesus that were not first given to him by the Father?
A. 0
B. 5,000
C. 5,000,000
D. 10,000,000John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me
Q. How many that the Father gave Him will not come to Him?
A. Two
B. A couple of thousand
C. A couple of million
D. Trick question, it says they will all come unto himJohn 10:28 I [Jesus] give unto them the (true followers, or ‘sheep’) eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Q. How many sheep do you think have been snatched from either God’s or Jesus’ hands?
A. None
B. 50,000
C. 500,000
D. 1,000,000Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Q. Considering this, and other related scripture, God having to blot out a name from the book of life would mean:
A. God makes mistakes.
B. Some have been snatched from Jesus’ hands?
C. God didn’t know that some of His sheep were really goats.
D. None of the above.Q. Could a person whose name was written in the book of life from the foundation of the world not have become a Christian (or have saving faith in God if born before Jesus)?
A. No
B. Yes
C. This confuses me, but I’m going to believe the Bible.
D. This confuses me, and I’m going to pretend this isn’t in the Bible (be honest).Matt. 13 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Q. Jesus himself declared that one of the reasons why He spoke in parables was that the truth might be concealed from whom it was not intended. Is this fair?
A. No.
B. Yes.
C. Who are we to question God?
D. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse.Rom. 8:28 To them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose.
Q. How many things do not work for the good of those who love God?
A. 10% of all things
B. 40% of all things
C. 85% of all things
D. Trick question, the Bible says all things work for the good of those who love HimMark 14:30 And Jesus said unto him (Peter), Verily I say unto thee, that thou, today, even this night before the cock crow twice shall deny me thrice.
Questions:
A. Could Peter not have denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed twice?
Answer here: ____________________________
B. Did Jesus make Peter deny him, or did Peter do it of his own free will?
Answer here: ____________________________Exodus 4:11 [God Himself asks the rhetorical question] Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or dumb? Who gives him his sight or makes him blind? Is it not I the Lord?
Q. Is this fair?
A. Yes.
B. No.
C. Who are we to question God?
D. I’m going to pretend this isn’t in the Bible.
While some professing Christians are busy blurring the lines between Christianity and Mormonism (see here and here for example), at least the secular media isn’t being hoodwinked by Mormonism’s slick PR campaign.
Case in point: The following video that aired on MSNBC. I do not know who Lawrence O’Donnell is, but hats off to him for his courage to peel back the facade of Mormonism on national television.
And in the event that the inevitable Mormon apologist comes along and attempts to obfuscate Mormonism’s long history of racism with that was just Brigham Young’s opinion, or the LDS church never taught that, or this was an isolated remark taken out of context, or the myriad of other lies used to hide Mormonism’s history, I simply direct your attention to this post where many more racist quotes from Mormon leaders can be read.
Richard J. Mouw wrote an astounding article for CNN in which he used the subject of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an attempt to legitimize Mormonism.
Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary who claims to “know cults” and has “studied them and taught about them for a long time,” for some reason seems utterly incapable of spotting one right in front of him.
God gave us a means by which to identify a false prophet, false teacher, or cult. Through the pen of Paul He told us in Galatians 1:6-9 to watch out for anyone (even an angel from Heaven) that preaches “another gospel.” If anyone (which includes religious organizations) preaches “another gospel,” they are anathema! Mr. Mouw, however, is actively directing us away from Scripture and toward human reasoning by advancing his own means of how to identify those that are accursed. From Mouw’s article:
“[A cult’s] adherents are taught to think that they are the only ones who benefit from divine approval. They don’t like to engage in serious, respectful give-and-take dialogue with people with whom they disagree. Nor do they promote the kind of scholarship that works alongside others in pursuing the truth. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, haven’t established a university. They don’t sponsor a law school or offer graduate-level courses in world religions. The same goes for Christian Science. If you want to call those groups cults I will not argue with you. But Brigham Young University is a world-class educational institution, with professors who’ve earned doctorates from some of the best universities in the world. Several of the top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have PhDs from Ivy League schools.”
You read that right (I actually had to read it twice). The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science are cults because they have not established a university, sponsored a law school, or offered graduate-level courses in world religions, but Mormonism is not a cult because they founded Brigham Young University and several of their top leaders have earned degrees from Ivy League schools.
Is the Watchtower organization taking notes?
So, according to Mr. Mouw, is there anything else that differentiates a cult from biblical Christianity besides whether or not they’ve established colleges? How about the person and work of Christ?
Nope.
“Cults do not engage in . . . self-examining conversations. If they do, they do not remain cults.”
Really?
Well, what about the presence of a works righteousness theology being the hallmark of a cult? Surely that is something Mr. Mouw would recognize as error, right?
“These [Mormon] folks talk admiringly of the evangelical Billy Graham and the Catholic Mother Teresa, and they enjoy reading the evangelical C.S. Lewis and Father Henri Nouwen, a Catholic. That is not the kind of thing you run into in anti-Christian cults.”
So, an apostate organization only needs to pay lip service to Graham, Lewis, Teresa, and Nouwen to no longer bear the status of a cult?
Mormons have been very successful at disguising their true beliefs by adopting Christian terminology with radically different definitions (it has obviously worked to pull the wool over Mouw’s eyes), but now they’re taking the deception a step further. By appealing to two prominent Protestant icons (both with arguably suspect theology) and two Romanist icons, they have now been able to convince Mouw that they are no longer a cult and that their false gospel is somehow no longer a threat to a man’s soul. (Whatever happened to discernment?)
Christ Alone Wyoming 