Answers to 7 Questions Dallin H. Oaks Part 4

.1 examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a biblical perspective viewpoint when 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 this additional viewpoint on Mormonism on your host Bill McKeever Felder director Mormonism research ministry and with me today is Eric Johnson. My colleague got him are M we been looking at an article in the June 2020 edition of & magazine and as we've mentioned & is a monthly periodical geared more for adult members in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on the June 2020 edition there was an article starting on page 76 titled answers to seven questions from young married adults and it comes from a talk that was given by Dallen H. Oakes, who is a member of the LDS first presidency we been looking specifically at question number five that has to do with that doubt a spouse may have regarding their faith. Question five reads this way, my spouse has gone inactive due to doubts regarding church history and doctrinal issues. How should I go about researching and responding to these issues. The very first sentence in Oakes's answer is this bias suggests that research is not the answer now in the first show I mentioned that a person reading this might assume that Mormonism is kind of admitting than that it is anti-intellectual because certainly, as Christians, and we talk to people who have may have doubts about different aspects of the Christian faith. The last thing that we would say is that research is not the answer.

We most certainly think research is the answer, but we want to read you a statement by Russell M. Nelson, the 17th president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He responds to that charge of anti-intellectualism in a book titled the power with in us page 36 he writes to the charge that the church is anti-intellectual. We ourselves should be the greatest evidence to refute such an erroneous statement individually. We have been encouraged to learn and to seek knowledge from any dependable source in the church we embrace all truth, whether it comes from the scientific laboratory or from the revealed word of the Lord. We accept all truth as being part of the gospel, one truth does not contradict another. And we should mention that when he uses the word all when he says we embrace all truth. Or we accept all truth. All is in italics so that is emphasized. There during this week we've been showing statements from various LDS leaders that agree with what Russell M. Nelson says here, but we've also been showing statements from other LDS leaders that seem to be more reluctant in embracing knowledge or truth from any dependable source. As Russell M.

Nelson declares in this statement here so we want to ask this question, then why is it that some latter-day St. leaders are so reluctant to encourage their people to read and gather their information from all sources, including we would argue sources such as Mormonism research ministry Utah lighthouse ministry or other organizations that focus on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and how we believe that position does not concur with the position of the Bible there was a talk that was given by a Mormon leader by the name of Vaughn Featherstone Vaughn J.

Featherstone was a Mormon apostle, he gave this talk in the devotional message September 24, 1985 and it was titled the last drop in the chalice. In this devotional. He refers to Elder Boyd Packer and apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Elder Packer said they leave the church, but they can't leave it alone and that's for my Utah State University baccalaureate address. He says they publish theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit. None of it is worth casting an eye upon do not read the anti-Mormon materials that is not the way you resolve questions about the truthfulness of the restored gospel simply go back and read and ponder and pray about the book of Mormon and you will know it is true. Those who try to dissuade us from the truth want to tear down what we have, but they do not have anything to replace it when it's gone. A person who has sexual hangups should not read pornographic material as a means of dealing with his or her problem. Likewise, a person who is weak in the faith should not read pornographic theological material.

It only destroys and takes away. It never replaces that which was lost on Bill we gotta point out, as you said 1985. There is no Internet and the way that you got pornographic material in those days you had to go to the liquor store and buy your pornography and so today it's a much different case, but what is being said here is that a person should not look at anything else except what the church is officially teaching and I meant to say that work for many many years but then the Internet comes out in the mid-1990s and now people are getting information in the privacy of their own homes that they didn't know was available to them in the first place. It appears that they get a lot of mileage out of that word pornography and comparing anything written by someone outside of the church is writing critically of the church just attaching that word pornography seems to go a long way. It certainly meant to be an ad hominem, which of course is a logical fallacy.

They did the same thing when the film the God makers came out in the mid-1980s. It was also referred to.

If I remember correctly is spiritual pornography or something like that. That's because that word has shock value, but is that really what people who were writing about the church are trying to do. Are they trying to really give something that is so horribly and accurate.

I would disagree with that.

It's a good way to keep people from reading something that might cause them to question even more but I don't think it's a good description of what is actually being done. The reason why I say that is as I've said earlier in this series. Most of what is being produced by people such as ourselves and other ministries dedicated to evangelizing those of the LDS faith is to present their own material to show them that their own material even causes questions and should cause questions for the thinking latter-day St., but in this quotation cited by Featherstone when it says that they do not have anything to replace it when it's gone will.

That certainly is not the case when it comes to us.

We have been offering a substitute to Mormonism for over 40 years and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it's understood in the New Testament. We firmly believe that that truth is the only truth that will set an individual free. Mormonism does not do that. It's not true and it really puts people in bondage to what law keeping commandment keeping the very thing that the apostle Paul preached on and many of his epistles setting people free through the gospel of Jesus Christ not by putting more commandments on top of an individual that can never be performed. One of the worst things we see is when somebody leaves the LDS church and heads over to atheism or agnosticism. It makes us very sad because while we don't believe Mormonism is true, we don't believe atheism is true either.

And so when we are trying to tell somebody that here are some of the problems in Mormonism were not trying to get them to move over to atheism, but rather we want them to keep Jesus we want them to keep God, but understand that the Bible is teaching the truth and when you understand what the Bible is teaching and how Mormonism contradicts it. You won't want to follow Mormonism anymore, but you do want to have a relationship with Jesus.

There was a book that was written by a BYU professor at the time. Stephen E.

Robinson and another evangelical professor from Denver seminary, a man by the name of Dr. Craig Blomberg. They work together on the book called how wide the divide on page 14, Stephen E. Robinson. I think this is best to try to poison the well when it comes to the efforts of people such as ourselves, and he does so by using Craig Blomberg as an example to support his point.

What is he say on page 14 of how wide the divide, I might add that the worst way for evangelicals to learn about Latter Day Saints is to ask other non-Mormons or to read non-Mormon literature about the Saints as Prof. Craig Blomberg has discovered it is a rare thing indeed for non-Mormons writing about the Saints to get it right even when they are trying to and most contemporary non-LDS writing on the Mormons is frankly not trying to get it right. I think that would also fall into the category of ad hominem.

It's unfortunate that Dr. Blumberg said that because if that's really true, then I guess that puts a huge? On everything that Dr. Blomberg has written about Mormonism since he himself is not a Latter Day Saints so really that statement becomes very self refuting. But why would reading what, let's say, people such as ourselves put out be the worst way for evangelicals to learn about the Latter Day Saints if were trying very hard to be true to the context of the statements that we are citing.

You would think that that would be a good way to learn. You may remember Eric. We had a number speaking engagements in the state of Virginia years ago I received a phone call from a Latter Day Saints man who wondered why a Christian church would have someone like us come out to teach evangelicals about Mormonism. The irony of that conversation is that throughout the conversation.

Not only was this gentleman ignorant of many of the things I was bringing up to him in many areas that he thought he knew he got it wrong in you see he was suggesting that someone like himself should teach this class and I gently pointed out to him, but I think our conversation for the past several minutes proves why that would not be a good idea. Just because you're a Latter Day Saints doesn't mean you have a good grasp of your own history and theology.

In fact, this gentleman got many things wrong and that's why the church felt to bring someone like us out because we have spent our lives trying to explain this religious organization in a way that's understandable and I might add accurate it's offensive when somebody like Stephen E. Robinson says that most contemporary non-LDS writing on the Mormons is frankly not that's italicized.

Not trying to get it right.

We do our best to explain what Mormonism teaches. We disagree with it but we certainly have a motive of telling it as it is. Thank you for listening you would like more information regarding his research ministry. We encourage you to visit our website at 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 as with most Christian organizations is a research ministry depends on the generous financial support of friends like you. If you like what we do and how we do it, would you consider helping a more immediate financial obligations really go to my website MRM.org the right you'll see in only click there and follow the instructions. MRM is a Christian nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization and your gifts are tax-deductible, only that they are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support of this ministry