Are Mormons Becoming Protestants?

Are Mormons becoming Protestants?  Of course not.  Even if they would accept us as one of them, we would betray the gospel of Jesus Christ and his prophets if we became Protestant.  Yet I have heard some online who feel there is a spirit among some Latter-day Saints to become more Protestant-like.  Whereas in past generations Latter-day Saints have celebrated our differences from the traditional Christian world, today it seems more common to dwell upon the common ground we both share.  Is this a good thing?  Is this a change in our doctrine?  Is this trend from the rank and file membership, or is it being taught our prophet-leaders?

Thoughts on Interfaith Relations
President Gordon B. Hinckley has consistently advocated dialogue and mutual respect in interfaith relations. He has admonished members of the Church to cultivate “a spirit of affirmative” for those of differing religious, political, and philosophical persuasions, adding that “we do not in any way have to compromise our theology” in the process. He gave this counsel: “Be respectful of the opinions and feelings of other people. Recognize their virtues; don’t look for their faults. Look for their strengths and their virtues, and you will find strength and virtues that will be helpful in your own life.”

When members are not well grounded in the teachings of their own faith, how are they to resist being taught rather than teaching?  I ask this question in the light of this passage from the Doctrine and Covenants:

Doctrine and Covenants 43:15

Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed: Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit;

When all about me are trying to find common ground with the Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, etc. I get an uneasy feeling.  Can one always teach respect for another’s faith without putting himself into temptation?  If we spend much time in highlighting the good in the faiths and beliefs of others, is there a chance we will imply to the unsophisticated that one faith is about as good as another?  If the Methodist faith is so wonderful, why not be a Methodist? Surely God wouldn’t mind.  He loves all of his children.  And if I am a Methodist, I won’t have to quit smoking and keep the Law of Chastity.  Suppose I wanted to marry.  Suppose my future spouse is a Methodist.  What is going to best persuade me to marry a Latter-day Saint instead?  Will I do best by learning all the good things about Methodists and their teachings, or by learning what is false about their teachings?

This has puzzled me as long as I have been a Church member.  If I accentuate the false teachings of the sects of apostate Christendom, I am encouraged to cling to the gospel as a drowning man clings to a life raft.  If I do the opposite and look constantly for the good in their denominations and teachings, I will minimize the importance of the differences between us.  In which case, I might as well be a Protestant.

Joseph Smith had almost nothing good to say about the Protestant denominations of his day.  Just read his writings and sermons to confirm this.  The gospel was restored because traditional Christianity had become rank with apostasy and false doctrine.  Brigham Young and the other successors to Joseph Smith had this same negative and almost militant view of “the sectarians.”  Yes, there is a lot of truth in all religions.  Yes, there are good people in other churches and bad ones in the LDS faith.  Are these wonderful people in other faiths wonderful because of their churches or in spite of their churches?  I’ve also met wonderful atheists, agnostics, humanists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Muslims.

Whenever I hear someone complain that I express negative thoughts about this or that false teaching in another church, I am told that such negativity will cause us to lose new converts.  Maybe so.  But is there any danger that failing to emphasize the falseness of their teachings will cause some of our members to misunderstand and become confused about our own teachings? Many of our members are not particularly interested in doctrine and might decide various teachings of other denominations are superior.  Why should we worry more about bringing others into the Church than we do about keeping those we already have?

For a number of reasons, the Church is true.  The other churches are not.  There is more to it than that, but that is most basic.  The whole idea of a true church implies that the others are false.  Baptists don’t ever talk about this or that denomination being “true.”  I never heard that until I became a Latter-day Saint.

I think we need to love and respect people of other faiths.  That does not mean that we need to love and respect their false churches.  If we forget this, our ability to retain the members we already have will go down as the number of new members goes up.

Can we love the sinner and hate the sin?  Yes, of course.  Can we love the Baptist or Methodist without loving his false church?  I think so. Is this distinction too fine for some to understand? I hope not.

When I became a Mormon it was because I knew the Baptist faith of my childhood was teaching nonsense about the Jesus Christ.  Had the Church made an effort to underline the things we had in common, I would have seen no reason to become a Mormon.  If just being a good person is all God requires, I can do that anywhere.  I do not need to be a Mormon to do that.

Is the faith of the Latter-day Saints part of the ecumenical movement?  I left the Protestants behind because I knew that philosophizing, voting, participating in conclaves and conventions, and learning about other faiths has no bearing upon what is true and what is false.  Truth and falsehood need no excuses or explanations.  If a thing is true, it is true regardless of what the “ecumenical” opinion is.

I think it is wrong to think well of the false doctrines promoted by the other churches.   It is wrong and it is also spiritually dangerous. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Doctrine of Jesus Christ And The Faith To Keep His Commandments

Many years ago after his resurrection in the Old World, Jesus Christ visited the Americas and taught this simple but amazing doctrine recorded in the eleventh chapter of 3rd Nephi:

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

Easy to say. Not so easy to do.

A little further in the chapter the Savior says:

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

Simple isn’t it? Believe and be saved. Don’t believe and be damned. But I was at first puzzled by verse 40. How could this be? The Church of Jesus Christ teaches a great deal more than this simple doctrine, doesn’t it? Does that mean it “cometh of evil?” I just cannot believe that. Is not this Church the one that brought forth the Book of Mormon and these words in the first place? What would we know about the Savior’s teachings in ancient America if it were not for this Church?

Then it struck me. The gospel as taught by the Savior’s only true Church is 1) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2) Repentance, 3) Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and 4) receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Isn’t this just another way of saying the same thing. I think it is.

The Savior said “believe” and ye shall be saved. But what did he mean by believe? He said to be baptized. Could it be that the word “believe” means “believe enough to be baptized?” I have noticed that in the scriptures the word “believe” is sometimes used differently than we use it in 21st century English. The word “believe” carries with it the connotation of having faith. And faith by nature demands action, in this case the action to be baptized. The Savior might just as well have been saying “Have faith in me” and be saved. If a man says he has faith in Christ or that he believes in Christ and then refuses to keep the Savior’s commandments, does he really believe or is he merely giving lip service?

I don’t believe a man has faith in Christ unless he makes his best effort to keep the Savior’s commandments. And the first of those commandments is to be baptized. If a man does not have enough faith in Christ to be baptized, he doesn’t have enough faith to be saved because he doesn’t really believe in Christ. “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” the Savior said in the 14th chapter of John. If we do not do our best to keep his commandments we are proving that we do not love him, that we do not have faith in him, and that we do not believe in him.

The Savior has made his doctrine clear. We cannot deny it or we will be damned by His own words.

Scriptures That Nobody Understands

Do you understand all the scriptures that you read?  If you do, you are a better man than I am because much of the Word of God is utterly opaque and confusing to me.  And I have learned that none of the scriptural commentaries, even those most admired, are able to shed enough light on some of them to enlighten me.  I guess I am just dense.  Or perhaps it is true that we learn line up line…, etc.  And I have many more lines and precepts to learn before I can understand them.

For instance, what does this passage in D&C 64 mean:

37 Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations.

38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.

39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.

40 And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead.

41 For, behold, I say unto you that Zion shall flourish, and the glory of the Lord shall be upon her;

42 And she shall be an ensign unto the people, and there shall come unto her out of every nation under heaven.

43 And the day shall come when the nations of the earth shall tremble because of her, and shall fear because of her terrible ones. The Lord hath spoken it. Amen.

Who or what are these terrible ones that will strike fear in all the nations of the earth?  And why would Zion want to strike fear in other nations?  Verse thirty-seven seems to suggest that the day will come before the Second Coming when Zion will be a sovereign and independent nation.  How can that be?  Aren’t we just a church?  Sure, we are the Kingdom of God on earth, but that is a heavenly kingdom only.  Isn’t that right?  Perhaps some might sugggest that this describes a period of Zion’s history after the Second Coming and during the Millennium.  But are there going to be nations of the wicked upon the earth during the Millennium that Zion will have to strike fear in them?  This is just a very puzzling scripture.  And when I go to the commentaries, nearly all of them just skip over this passage when they are commenting on D&C 64. I don’t understand it.

Here is another one in 3 Nephi 20:

43 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.
44 As many were astonished at thee—his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men—
45 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

It is repeated in the next chapter, 3 Nephi 21:

10 But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

I have never heard an explanation of these passages that satisfied me.  Some say the “marred servant” is Jesus.  But that makes no sense because it is Jesus that is speaking here and when has he ever referred to himself as his own servant?  It is clear to me that he is referring to a prophet.

Others say this is a reference to Joseph Smith.  But Joseph Smith was never so marred in his visage that he astonished others because of his appearance.  And the use of the word “visage” connotes and denotes a man’s face.  It calls to mind a horribly disfigured face.  Does that describe Jesus or Joseph Smith?  I don’t think so.

Still others suggest that this refers to a future prophet, one that has yet to make his appearance upon the world scene, one that will come before the Second Coming.  This explanation does not seem to contain any unnacceptable inconsistencies, but perhaps that is because it is the most open ended, the most vague.

So which is it?  I just don’t understand the passage, and it has occurred to me that perhaps no one else does either.  But I’m sure that won’t stop some from explaining it to me.  It never has in the past.  One thing that may be relied upon is the pride of those who imagine that they know a great deal more than they really do.  Ask a question on the Internet and it will always be answered regardless of whether or not the answering person has any knowledge of the subject.

Of course, my own ignorance is great too.  I simply do not understand these two passages and have been unable to obtain that understanding in spite of the efforts that I have made to do so.  Furthermore, the scriptures are full of passages like these, passages that no one knows the meaning of.  These are the passages that are the most interesting to me.  I collect them.  I find the scriptures that I do not understand to be far more interesting than those that I do.  After all, if I already understand a thing, there is no way that I can learn it, is there?  To learn, I must focus upon the unknown.  Otherwise, the concept of line upon line, precept upon precept doesn’t have any meaning.

I hope to share some of the other scriptures that puzzle me on this blog from time to time.  Are there any that puzzle you?