10 Reasons Why We Cannot Fellowship with the Mormon Church

When one examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a biblical perspective view .1 limited 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 are things that of Roberto for that musical introduction welcome to this addition, the viewpoint on Mormonism under host Bill McKeever Felder director Mormonism research ministry and with me today is Aaron shuffle all of my colleague at LRM we are looking at a statement that was put together. Towards the end of the 19th century by a Presbyterian group in the state of Utah. This statement attracted the attention of other Christian groups. It was reprinted and published in different formats, including even as an article you might say in the desert news which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The title of it was 10 reasons why Christians cannot fellowship the Mormon church.

What's interesting in going through the statements.

Many of them are certainly very pertinent today. Nothing is really changed in these areas. Now a couple of areas have changed one of courses being the subject of Adam God, which, as we mentioned yesterday was still an issue when this publication came out towards the end of the 1800s.

Today were going to look at point number seven and were not going to look at all of the proofs as I've mentioned earlier, but we are going to show that they did have some examples that supported the premise that they were making so we will be looking at least at some of them the seven-point polytheism the Mormon church is polytheistic, it teaches a plurality of gods, and that these became gods having been men being men they became gods by practicing pleural or celestial marriage and the other Mormon principles that again the context is important. As I mentioned before, this is being written towards the end of the 1800s. Polygamy is still an issue.

Even though the manifesto came out in 1897 years prior to the publication of this statement, it is still a big problem in Utah.

In fact, I think even many people back then.

Especially if you're living in Utah. They knew that the manifesto signed by Wilford Woodruff the fourth president 1890 really was a vain promise they could witness this for themselves. No doubt living in Salt Lake City and other places in rural areas as well. But the statement that they teach a plurality of gods that is not change that still a part of Mormonism. Today they make one prefer this, quoting from teaching theology would by Parley P. Pratt quoting God's angels and men are all of one species one race one great family thing at one Mormon apologist particular who used almost that very same wording to describe the God that he believed and so certainly that is something that is believed by many Latter Day Saints I would assume even today. That's a great way to think about the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. While Christianity teaches that men and God are of different species could say in Mormonism there of the same species. At the same kind of being. But in Christianity and biblical Christianity.

God is altogether different kind of pain will witness go along with it as we mentioned yesterday, the Lorenzo Snow couplet has Mandy as God wants what is as God's man may be if they're using that as a pattern and that is the path you might say how God came to be God, at least, Elohim, the God of this world they don't usually talk about the gods of other worlds that doesn't seem to interest most Latter Day Saints.

It should interest us as Christians because this is a part of their theology. There is a myriad of gods out there.

Even though the Mormons may only refer to Elohim who is the God of this world, but they do have a number of crews that support that premise.

Point number eight deals with the subject of salvation. Again, this is a very important subject. As you mentioned earlier Aaron. When it comes to who God is absolutely that cannot be overlooked their own leaders have admitted their God is different and and we should take that seriously. It's not a conspiracy theory, folks, when you're quoting them okay they are admitting to this, but when it comes to the subject of salvation. Again, we have an issue that cannot be overlooked. And here's what it says under the subtitle salvation, the more the church teaches an anti-biblical doctrine of salvation, it requires faith in Joseph Smith in the books. He produced or translated in the priesthood in continuous revelation and in baptism by immersion by the hands of a Mormon, together with faith in the father son and Holy Ghost with the Mormon definition of the Trinitarian persons as conditions of human salvation uses the atonement of Christ to cover original sin, the sin of Adam and teaches its adherents to depend on good works as the basis of pardon for personal sins. It also teaches a doctrine of baptism for the dead, that is antagonistic to the Bible doctrine of retribution and that encourages people to remain impenitent. That last statement there. I think probably should've been explained a little bit more, but for the most part I think the accusation that's being made in this section is is altogether absolutely correct now Mormon might say wait a minute. You're talking about faith in Joseph Smith are you assuming that we worship Joseph Smith that that's not what the statement is saying, but certainly as we've already discussed, you have to have faith in Joseph Smith at least being a prophet of God because of all the things that he brought forth.

Why would you think he wasn't a prophet of God if he brought forth. Let's say the book of Mormon and all the various revelations that are found in the doctrine and covenants. You have to trust in the books he produced.

You have to trust in the priesthood of your mail. You have to believe in continuous revelation and you also have to believe in baptism by immersion by the hands of a latter-day St. who has the authority to do so.

So I don't think they're being incorrect when they say this, let's talk about some of the details in this statement error because I think it could be said that the references that they gave really are not hitting the salvation issue. It seems like they're going back in the rehashing maybe revelation or Joseph Smith in priesthood because some of the citations that they give have more to do with Joseph Smith's authority to give revelation and things like that. This is one of the sections that I would probably be a little bit critical of and and the reason why is what if you're going to talk about salvation, how can you not talk about the necessity of commandment keeping and yet I don't find in this list of proofs and he mentioned to section 1 verse 32. In the doctrine and covenants. This is, nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven.

Certainly, that's a denial of justification by faith. It doesn't mention doctrine and covenants section 2515 and 16, keep my commandments continually and a crown of righteousness, thou shalt receive except you do this where I am, you cannot come. It doesn't mention.

For instance, section 4278 in the doctrine and covenants it says and again every person who belong to this church of Christ shall observe to keep all the commandments and covenants of the church.

The most interesting part about this section is that Mormonism teaches dependence on good works as the basis for pardon for personal sins in the larger context of things. The hope the whole point of the of life in Mormonism is to come here and prove your worthiness in your body to participate in this merit system to be proven worthy enough to go to the celestial kingdom distinct from the bottom kingdoms where people are not as valiant and someday become a God and that the whole Mormon system of works is designed to help you merit and qualify for and earn this post more than position. They bit off more than they could shoot out here. They pay expanded it to other topics. I think there proofs are kinda going in different directions and I wish they would have focused on the merit orientation of the Mormon system very quickly. Let's discuss this one sentence in here. It uses the atonement of Christ to cover original sin, the sin of Adam and teaches its adherents to depend on good works as the basis of pardon for personal sins that we talked about the need to depend on good works for pardon for personal sins, and I've cited some passages from the doctrine and covenants that supports that the language that's used here it uses the atonement of Christ to cover original sin, the sin of Adam. Now maybe they are thinking of a statement that was made by Orson Pratt since they do cite Orson Pratt's works in this statement, but Orson Pratt is cited in the Journal of discourses, volume 1, page 329 is saying, but a universal redemption from the effects of Original Sin has nothing to do with redemption from our personal sins for the original sin of Adam and the personal sins of his children are two different things now. What's interesting is the language that Pratt uses he speaking of the original sin of Adam but yet some Mormon leaders have insisted that Adam didn't sin right this is a rats nest.

I feel bad for my Christian brothers were trying to summarize this intelligibly and coherently because Mormonism is essentially teaching at the atonement gives universally salvation from death is going to be a general resurrection, yet this is the effect is a negative punitive. You could even say a fact of something that Mormonism otherwise teaches wasn't a sin. So there's death for all.

As a result of Adam's transgression, which they say wasn't a sin. So now we need salvation from the effects of this thing that wasn't a sin and they don't even acknowledge Original Sin is a traditional category.

It's not a sin and Adams act, which they say is not a sin, even if it was a sin. They don't think that anything was imputed to the rest of humanity.

They don't think we inherit the sin nature from Adam and Eve as our ancestors. This is a tough rats nest. I wonder how a modern latter-day St. would try to interpret what Orson Pratt said in the way he said it because it certainly sounds like he's contradicting with a lot of modern Latter Day Saints would believe regarding the act on the part of Adam and Eve. Point number nine was polygamy, the Mormon church believes in polygamy doctrine is to them both sacred and fundamental they believe and teach that Jesus Christ was a polygamist. The manifesto of September 24, 1890 was not a repudiation of the doctrine of plural or celestial marriage and did not claim to be such. It was as all honest Mormons freely confess only a suspension of the practice for the time being, they hold the principal to be as eternal as God himself now. Again, this would be one of those topics that as it was practiced in the 19th century. Certainly is not how Latter Day Saints believe plural marriage to be today they do believe that plural marriage will be taken up in the hereafter. So it's still something that goes on in the next life.

But it's not supposed to be practiced here. This of course was not really the case when this statement was made in 1897, but looking at the proofs again their siding from the seer.

In point number one if none but God's be permitted to multiply immortal children. It follows that each God must have one or more wives. The evangelists do not particularly speak of the marriage Jesus. One thing is certain that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus such as Mary and Martha, her sister and Mary Magdalene and Jesus greatly loved them and associated with the much if all the acts of Jesus were written.

We no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. Now some Mormons might say but that's the seer. Brigham Young, you know he he he basically denounced Orson Pratt in the seer. Even though this was not the issue that Brigham Young had with Orson Pratt the issues of polygamy. I don't find anywhere were Brigham Young had a problem with what Orson Pratt had to say. So I would think that that citation would be very valid next week were going to finish the 10th point of the 10 reasons why Christians cannot fellowship the Mormon church and then were going to look at the response to this statement by Brigham Roberts BH Roberts thank you for listening you would like more information regarding his research ministry. We encourage you to visit our website www.mrm.org you can request a free newsletter Mormonism research. We hope you join us again as we look at another viewpoint is