Oh No! We'S A Cult!

[ERMD]

I was there in the early '80s. In the early '90s, the charter was changed, and the SBC ended up with a lot less political power. Even though there is no direct connection, they still have some degree of influence, but not as much as in the 1960s-80s. Calmer heads prevail these days. Ken Starr was named president last year, which I think was a great move.

ETA: With the recent gridiron stumbles, I'm REALLY looking forward to the BU v TAMU game!

Edited October 8, 2011 by ERMD

[frankenstein]

People can make any choice they desire. That's the nature of the secret ballot and republics. But it is completely unreasonable for one characteristic (his religion in this case, but his sex or his race might fill the same role) of a candidate to override the totality of the political positions any candidate must, of necessity espouse.

Lehi

Would you vote for an a Satanist who is better qualified than all other candidates? I would wager you would not, you would use something as unreasonable as "religion" to not vote for the best candidate.

Also, "Saints" do not have someone telling them what they must believe on any particular issue, your post concerning "Saint" "Perry" and "Ev" is offensive and I say counter to the Gospel and the position of the Church on neutrality.

As for Mormonism being a "cult", I asked what religion is not a cult? The only way for any given religion to not be a cult is for that religion to create its own definition of what a cult is; and conveniently that self serving definition makes everyone but the religion to self served a cult.

Edited October 8, 2011 by frankenstein

[ERayR]

I would agree that the article is poorly written and may have been done so to make the pastor look worse than he was. However, he must have known that even if made in a 'private' interview, his words would be on public display.

Apparently he is now saying he was talking in a theological, not sociological sense....whatever that means. The connotations of the term "cult" in the view of the SBC seem clear from the listings of many of the anti cult contigent that align themselves with it. Since he said the same thing in the past and was likely aware of the reaction, I expect he knew exactly what he was doing, but may have been surprised by the lack of support generally speaking.

This Pastorhas gotten away with this kind of behavior before. He expected to continue to get away with it and I think he was surprised to be called on his bigotry. Even so he has done some political damage to Mitt Romney amongst the like minded.

I have a hard time believing it was coincidental. Nothing in these campaigns is.

[ERayR]

Having gone through this in the previous election (individuals using scare tactics to lower the appeal of LDS candidates), it is interesting to observe the process this time around to see if there have been any changes as well as to explore the reasons for those changes when I see them.

There have been no changes. The Pastor was an expendible asset and will continue to nibble at the edges.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, first let me say that I enjoy your posts and find them to be interesting and respectful, an example of the kind of respectful give and take that is sadly missing from much of the discussion about my faith. The issue as I see it here is the way Mr. Jeffress chooses to make his declaration of support. It wasn't enough to simply endorse Perry because he is a good evangelical Christian, no, it was necessary to trot out the tired old label of "cult" to charaterize the faith of Romney. A label deliberately calculate to conjur up visions of human depredation and fear.

Thanks for the reply Lost in Ohio,

Sorry I got out of turn.

I don't disagree that this is what Jeffress was doing. I don't know if Jeffress could be accused of trotting out the tired old label. Many SBC members, apparently Jeffress included, have strong oposition to the theology of LDS and would term such beliefs as non-Christian and cultic. IMO, it's the default position of the fundamental sector of the SBC. As a member of the SBC, myself I don't particularly agree with that position, but by association, I am what I am and the situation is what it is.

It is true that one of the beliefs of my faith is based on the idea that there was a restoration of the fullness of the gospel, which of course necessitates an apostasy. I guess I always find it amusing that anytime a Mormon takes exception to the type of deliberately inflamitory langauge used by Mr. Jeffress and so many others in public discourse against our faith we immediately hear "But Wait! You believe there was an apostasy and therefore consider me an apostate! So there you hypocrite!"

I do feel there is a degree of hypocrisy in such claims. Seriously, if LDS believe any other sort of Christian is a member of an apostate faith then I don't see any high ground for them when faced with pejorative claims like Jeffress issued.

You may find it amusing on some level. I dunno what to make of that.

While it is true in a technical sense then that any other faith is apostate, what you won't find is leaders of my church using the same kind of sensational language in public discourse to disparage the faith of others. The notion of deliberatliy labeling another Christian an “aposate” in order to shape discourse in our favor is something most members of my church wouldn’t do. What we will do is to recognize that there are many sincere followers of Christ, some of whom do not choose to accept what we believe to be the fullness of the gosepl. For us that ends the discussion by and large and we leave you free to go your way, without further need to malign, judge, and revel in our own self-righteousness. I think by and large we let the principles of the gospel stand for themselves when taught, to be accepted or rejected by the hearer, without the need to deliberatly mischarectorize other faiths. You won't find in any LDS bookshelf the latest copy of "The maze of Evangelicalism" or "Beware of the Calvanists". Nor will you hear President Monson announce from the pulpit "Vote for Mitt Romney he is a good Mormon, and not an apostate heritic like Rick Perry" or, “To vote for Perry is to vote for Satan!”.

Is there a difference between "apostate" and "technically apostate"?

Certainly none of your present and recent past leaders have publicly stated anything pejorative of other Christian faiths. IMO, their has been a push to "fit in" in some respects by your current leadership, so such divisional statements would be counter productive.

However, and I won't bother "trotting" out the statements from the JD and so forth, your past leadership wasn't near as silent on the matter.

I don't find your malapropism of book titles a strong suit for you. Certainly the actual titles are intended to explain why the author feels that LDS views are incorrect. However each year the CoJCoLDS sends out tens of thousands of missionaries to explain to the world why they are wrong if they aren't LDS.

Rather, as a religion rooted in revelation, what you will hear is encouragement for members to study, pray, and vote for the candidate they feel they should.

Yeah.. I am with you there. I totally "got" this encouraging sentiment expressed by your members, when Matthew G started his thread by insinuating that members of the SBC were a bunch of stupid Forrest Gump's.

I’ve no wish to argue, but I'm trying very hard to search for the beam in my own eye on this issue, and I can't really see it. J

My pick isn't with you in specific Lost in Ohio, just the slant on the thread.

Regards,

Mudcat

[frankenstein]

Is the pastor a bigot for his "religious" view on the LDS faith?

If the pastor is a bigot for religious view of the LDS faith, then are the LDS bigots for their religious views on particular issues?

I do not agree with the pastor, and I think the less 15mins he gets the better. I do think though, that before we LDS get up in arms, have we individually tossed out labels towards entire groups?

[cdowis]

Lost in Ohio,

Thanks for a well articulated answer. I do want to draw you back to this notion that leadership type folks from your particular faith group have declared that any Christian that isn't LDS, is an apostate.

CFR.

Your hate speech, your bigotry will not be tolerated in this forum.

My parents, my ancestors did not belong to the LDS church, but they were not APOSTATES. Gandhi was not an APOSTATE.

CFR that the "leadership" teaches that they were apostates. You had better look up that word in the dictionary before you respond. I am very angry at you and your accusations of what I believe.

This is hate speech and it will not be tolerated.

Ratchet down the inflammatory attacks.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Minos

[Calm]

It is not hate speech if it is a common misunderstanding. I've seen it enough among sincere posters and elsewhere, I do not jump to the conclusion that they are getting it wrong purposely. It does not help to overreact to it.

I would say that LDS do not commonly use the term "apostate" for individuals save for those who are not only exmormons, but are active against our faith, but they do use the term "apostate" to apply to various faiths. I can understand why Mudcat would infer that as a member of an apostate faith, he is an apostate in LDS view, but most LDS in my experience don't make that same connection, instead they see other faiths as a result of the Great Apostasy and therefore they might call a faith "apostate" (not all do), but when it comes to individuals, they must personally reject the faith after being a member of it, iow personally apostatized in order to merit the label and usually the activity level is attached to it...probably due to the usage over time of the use of the label when talking about exmembers who persecuted early church members, most in my experience don't use it for talking specific individuals now, but they may use it in a theoretical sense (discussing apostate behaviour, that kind of thing).

Since I have on rare occasions heard and seen an LDS call a nonLDS Christian who was never LDS an apostate (contrary to our leaders' direction who are very specific in using it for exmembers who act against the Church) on message boards so that I would not be surprised if Mudcat has encountered this, I can understand how Mudcat might make an error in assuming this is how LDS generally talk about it, but he would be wrong and I consider LDS who do use this label to attack all nonLDS Christians as being arrogant to do so. I would not personally describe any denomination as "apostate" that hadn't broken off from the original ancient church (of which I don't believe there are any left having changed too much over the years) or from the modern church....Protestant and Catholic therefore are not apostate churches for the LDS, in my opinion.

[Sevenbak]

This Pastorhas gotten away with this kind of behavior before. He expected to continue to get away with it and I think he was surprised to be called on his bigotry. Even so he has done some political damage to Mitt Romney amongst the like minded.

I have a hard time believing it was coincidental. Nothing in these campaigns is.

Political damage? As if the ones who won't vote for him on account of his religion are going to change? Damage was certainly done, but it wasn't to Mitt, it was to Perry.

[Zakuska]

Here is a good article on the "Great Apostasy" .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

Protestants most significantly starting with Martin Luther, and Evangelical Christians not following the rites of Latin Catholic and Orthodox Christian denominations have formally taught that the Bishop of Rome, along with the Catholic Church, greatly abused the original teachings and practices of the primitive or original Christian church as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles.[6] They teach that the Papacy arose after the Roman Empire and slowly became corrupted as it strived to attain great dominion and authority, civil and ecclesiastical [7][8], but did not give up the pagan beliefs held during the Empire, instead it arrayed itself in a Christian garb on the heathen one that had dominated during the Roman Empire. Following the Protestant Reformation, Protestantism separated itself from Catholicism, and the subsequent denominations spawned from the Reformation have considered their own teachings to be restorative in nature, falling back to the basic tenets of Biblical Christianity and Sola Scriptura. Although each denomination may differ in application, the essential ideas of the Reformation remain foundational. In turn, these views are taught in the modern descendant denominations and historically, these types of doctrinal stances account for the continuing separation of the denominations from the Catholic Church.

Protestant groups differ slightly in their perception of the types and the extent of errors evident in Catholic-Anglican-Orthodox traditions, and therefore their proposed corrections also differ, but all agree that the Catholic-Anglican-Orthodox tradition is to some important degree counter-biblical in the sense that it moves away from Scripture to reconcile many of its teachings and doctrine. This alleged "corruption" and resistance to reform by the traditional, especially Catholic, churches may sometimes be called The Great Apostasy by some religious groups. Although Protestant Christianity, as a whole, rejects the overall concept that the original Church (established by Jesus Christ) was thrown into complete anarchy and chaos through Catholicism, it does however assert that there was gross abuse of Biblical authority (especially by the Papacy) and a wandering from clear Biblical teachings prior to the Reformation.

In effect, some groups see themselves as uniquely restoring original Christianity. In their case, the term Great Apostasy is used more technically than above, directed in a sweeping way over all of Christianity beyond their group, indicating that true Christianity has not been preserved, but rather restored. These various groups differ as to exactly when the Great Apostasy took place and what the exact errors or changes were, but all of them make a similar claim that true Christianity was generally lost until it was disclosed again in themselves. The term Great Apostasy appears to have been coined in this narrower, technical sense, by "Restorationists". The term may sometimes be used in this sense by other groups claiming their unique authority as representing Christianity.

[Calm]

http://lds.org/study...&query=apostate

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59).

Hmmm....looks like I am wrong to insist on the "act against the Church" qualification.

However the use of "apostate church" is rare on lds.org (and thus can be said to be rare in lds official publications at least) and generally refers to a generic organization, usually Christianity in the early days of the Apostasy.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).

http://lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/keeping-covenants-and-honoring-the-priesthood?lang=eng&query=Apostate

[Calm]

Since authority is the fundamental issue for LDS in regards to the Great Apostasy and in some ways individual apostasy because often the rejection of one's leaders is part of one's rejection of one's faith, I am posting this article from the Newsroom because it has several quotes that are excellent in my opinion for describing how current leadership view other faiths:

Christian churches regard the question of authority — the divine right to preach, act in the name of God and direct the Lord’s church — in different ways. Some, like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches, emphasize a continuous line of authority from the early apostles. Some who broke away from those churches say they find authority in the inerrancy of the Bible. Others rely heavily on a sense of “calling” to the ministry. Latter-day Saints have a distinctive view of priesthood authority that helps define them.

The New Testament describes the church established by Jesus Christ as one with structure and form. The apostles were at its head, and as recipients both of ordained authority and revelation, they were charged with guiding the church and keeping its doctrines pure as it expanded throughout the known world.

The fact that the original church of Jesus Christ would eventually fall into a state of apostasy was foretold by ancient prophets and by the apostles in Christ’s day.

Although Latter-day Saints believe that divine authority was lost in the ancient church after the death of the apostles and required a restoration by divine intervention, they do not dismiss or diminish the validity of other people’s religious experiences:

• Much of the true doctrine taught by Jesus Christ is found in churches today.
  
• Members of other churches who accept Jesus Christ and try to live by the principles he taught are entitled to divine guidance and inspiration in their lives.
  
• Faithful Christians who are not Latter-day Saints still go to heaven, and those who live according to all the truth and light they have will open themselves to further light in the hereafter.
  
• Anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Redeemer of the world is a Christian, regardless of differences in theology.
  
• The Bible is a revelation from God, of immense value for the powerful impact it has to change the lives of men and women. It is not diminished by the existence of additional scripture.
  

For Latter-day Saints, the restoration of priesthood authority in the first half of the 19th century was a literal act through angelic visitations from those who held the authority anciently. Divine authority was restored to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through a visitation of the resurrected John the Baptist in 1829 near Harmony (now Oakland), Pennsylvania, and sometime afterwards through the appearance of the resurrected ancient apostles Peter, James and John.

Today, all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who hold the priesthood trace their authority directly to these visitations and bestowal of the priesthood of God on Joseph Smith and early leaders of the Church. A person receiving the priesthood today customarily sits while a person who already holds the priesthood stands and places his hands on the recipient’s head and formally confers that authority.

The “Apostolic Keys” of priesthood authority today — by which is meant the right to direct the Church — are believed to be vested in the modern apostles in the same way that the ancient apostles had the authority to direct the early church.

Scriptures foretelling apostasy

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Isaiah 60:2

For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

Isaiah 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

1 Timothy 4:1

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

The validity of other people’s religious experiences

• “The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Joseph Smith, quoted in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nded. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1949), 5:499.
  
• “We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you. We have not come here to berate you. … Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good.” President George Albert Smith, quoted in Sharing the Gospel with Others, comp. Preston Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1948), 12-13; italics added.
  
• “The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Light of Christ,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 11.
  
• “Informed Latter-day Saints do not argue that historic Christianity lost all truth or became completely corrupt. The orthodox churches may have lost the ‘fullness’ of the gospel, but they did not lose all of it nor even most of it. Many Evangelicals caricature or overstate the actual LDS view, which is that the orthodox churches are incomplete rather than corrupt. It is their postbiblical creeds that are identified in Joseph Smith’s first vision as an ‘abomination,’ but certainly not their individual members or their members’ biblical beliefs.” Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61.
  

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/authority-in-the-church

[MatthewG]

Yeah.. I am with you there. I totally "got" this encouraging sentiment expressed by your members, when Matthew G started his thread by insinuating that members of the SBC were a bunch of stupid Forrest Gump's.

My pick isn't with you in specific Lost in Ohio, just the slant on the thread.

Regards,

Mudcat

That is a false quote, I actually said:

Such stupidity in the 21st century, to me, is mind blowing. He is part of the SBC so I shouldn't expect anything less from a group of Forest Gumps.

I said labeling us a cult is "such stupidity". In the information age, with 24/7 internet, 24/7 news networks, for an organization to still refer to 1 of the most well known international religious organizations in the world as a "cult", is blatant ignorance and stupidity. It's meant to insult and degrade. Now, I know there are many baptists who don't agree with such a statement, those that DO agree with it, spread it and use it, have the IQ of Forrest Gump leadership or not.

[Calm]

Certainly none of your present and recent past leaders have publicly stated anything pejorative of other Christian faiths. IMO, their has been a push to "fit in" in some respects by your current leadership, so such divisional statements would be counter productive.

Actually I think it is not about "fitting in" and more that they have become wise to the fact that missionary work as well as other gospel endeavours will be better served by not causing aggravation and contention when there is no need for it, thus use of hyperbole and other inflammatory language common to the social climate of the beginning era of the modern church is now avoided, not only because it's not 'in fashion' anymore among most religious speakers (alas, it is still among a few), but because the results end up dividing where unity can be beneficial to all and also it obscures the actual differences by placing too much focused on contrived differences. It is much more effective to explain the uniqueness and desirableness of our faith when we are not having to stumble over and clean up unnecessary confusions.

[Calm]

That is a false quote, I actually said:

Such stupidity in the 21st century, to me, is mind blowing. He is part of the SBC so I shouldn't expect anything less from a group of Forest Gumps.

I said labeling us a cult is "such stupidity". In the information age, with 24/7 internet, 24/7 news networks, for an organization to still refer to 1 of the most well known international religious organizations in the world as a "cult", is blatant ignorance and stupidity. It's meant to insult and degrade. Now, I know there are many baptists who don't agree with such a statement, those that DO agree with it, spread it and use it, have the IQ of Forrest Gump leadership or not.

Your quote implies that SBC is a "group of Forest Gumps" since that is what Jeffress is a "part of". If you meant to limit it to solely those who accept the idea that the LDS Church is a cult, you should have been clearer and not used the SBC as your reference.

Your post 5 also referred to the SBC as a whole....

"As an organization the SBC does apparently"

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[MatthewG]

Yes the organization, as in the people who are in charge of it.

[Calm]

Yes the organization, as in the people who are in charge of it.

The organization is not only the leadership, but the people who are members of it. For example, when we say the LDS Church, we are not just talking about the authorities, but the general membership.

If you mean leadership, you should say "leadership of the organization", not just "the organization".

Lack of precision in language can cause a lot of unnecessary offense. As ones who have been on the end of such problems, we should put in a lot of effort to being careful in how we write.

Having said all that, I still disagree with you calling the leadership of the SBC a group of Forrest Gumps. I do not see them at all as mentally deficient, really sweet and gentle men. The first condition is obviously wrong, the last two I wouldn't know since I don't know any of them well enough.

We could have a repeat of Bill Bennett's words along the lines of 'you don't do the LDS faith any favours by saying such things'.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[MatthewG]

Next time I'll use this then: However you want to say. The people in charge of the people who have public platforms such as this Pastor are either evil people and the spawn of the Or they are . With few exceptions, all the hate anti-Mormon literature I burned in Brasil was paid for and distributed by the SBC. They are an un-Christlike institution.

[KevinG]

The good pastor recanted and says we are not a cult.

[MatthewG]

The good pastor recanted and says we are not a cult.

CFR

[Calm]

They are an un-Christlike institution.

My opinion...

Some of the things the SBC does/supports as an organization and among the leadership are unChristlike. Other actions are Christlike, see worldhungerfund.com for an example.

Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Sevenbak]

The good pastor recanted and says we are not a cult.

No he didn't. He's been saying the same thing for years, and said it again just today. Now he just has more attention.

Perry distanced himself from the "good pastor", but the damage to Perry has been done.

[Mike Reed]

Not sure yet... but I will probably vote for Huntsman. I think cults are cool.

[MatthewG]

No he didn't. He's been saying the same thing for years, and said it again just today. Now he just has more attention.

Perry distanced himself from the "good pastor", but the damage to Perry has been done.

The Damage done to perry was done long before this article was written but that is beyond the point of this thread. What is the point the thread is how a Pastor is using inaccurate words about our religion to try and derail a politician's chances at a nomination.