A Response Part V: Heresy!

 This will be the last chapter in my commentary on the anti-LDS blog powered by an anti-LDS website that, frankly, leaves much to be desired when it comes to accuracy.  Hence, my desire to write this response.

The link to the original blog can be found in part 1 of this series.  

We now continue to the last section of that blog.

Section 1G

He quotes another passage from his sourced website, where it correctly states that LDS theology, as it pertains to salvation, is not about escaping wrath so much as it is about being able to return to Heavenly Father. 

GethN7's reaction:

"I'm already stunned. Freedom from the penalty of the taint of sin on the human soul caused by Man's fall at the Garden, that's actual Christian doctrine. Mormons are using the same logic of Scientology that we have a past life we need to reconcile with our current one."

He's stunned.  Uh-oh.  

So first, he's once again using Protestant theology to represent Christianity in general.  Remember that we don't hold to the idea of Original Sin, but Protestants do.  (This was discussed earlier) That's the basis for this criticism.  So again, he's viewing it through the lens of Protestantism.  That's understandable, since that's what he's been taught, but it strikes me as another poor basis for judging others' Christianity.

Let me take a pause here to point out something.  There's a reason why there are hundreds of different Christian traditions.  They all have things they disagree with each other on, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are also doctrinal differences between Protestants and Latter-Day Saints.  What's frustrating in a case like this is that instead of making a simple and concise argument about why they think Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians, they just pepper you with all the doctrinal differences as a way to try and strengthen what is, frankly, a weak argument to begin with.  In my opinion, the differences in the question of Trinitarianism may be relevant, but the rest of this stuff is just details.  Jumping around from issue to issue is not a particularly effective approach.  But hey, it does make my task here easier.

So anyway, in the quoted passage above, GethN7 then goes on to compare the LDS Church to Scientology again, and then inaccurately claims that we believe we use the logic that we have to reconcile a past life with the current one.  That's simply untrue.  I don't even know where he's getting this.  Maybe he thinks he's cleverly deducing something, but remember, he's defining everything through the Protestant lens rather than understanding what we actually mean.  

Honest error?  I would like to think so, at least on GethN7's part.  Whether he's willing to acknowledge this error will reveal a lot.  Again, as I've said multiple times.  We can disagree on doctrine, but I do insist that you disagree with me on the basis of what I actually believe, and not some manufactured doctrine serving as a strawman.

The next passage he quotes jumps around a bit from discussing the basis for salvation and then slides over to the need for continued obedience to God, and then lists the Commandments, tithing, chastity, and the Word of Wisdom (a series of directives on dietary matters) as if they were all the same kind of thing.  

GethN7's reaction?  He's stunned again.

"More I'm stunned by. In Acts, which took place as Peter was STILL ALIVE (remember, Mormons accept everything up until the original apostles died), God struck down the ceremonial and ritual prohibitions that separated Jew and Gentile, and the early church while Peter was still alive concurred on this. If Mormons are actual Christians, fine, make your own personal rules for what you consider permissible, but your personal dietary restrictions are NOT canonical to actual scripture. Further, while I commend the following of the Commandments and chastity, and tithing when done by a genuinely giving spirit who does not believe salvation can be earned by doing so, the very last part is Mormon-specific and has no basis in Scripture."

So he repeats the falsehood that somehow the death of the last original Apostle is some kind of milestone of what we accept.  (This was also discussed earlier.)  But then he really seems to take umbrage at the idea of the Word of Wisdom.

Let's take a minute to talk about what the Word of Wisdom actually is and where it comes from.  The Word of Wisdom is scriptural, though not from a canon that any Protestant would accept.  It's in the Doctrine & Covenants.  See the link for all the details.  Basically, it's why we are supposed to avoid coffee, tea, alcohol, illegal drugs,  tobacco use, and so on.  A Latter-Day Saint who does not adhere to the Word of Wisdom is not permitted to go to the Temple, but is otherwise no different from anyone else and still goes to Church on Sunday, can have a calling, etc.  

So it really isn't true to suggest that the Ten Commandments and the Word of Wisdom are the same thing.  I can understand not understanding that nuance when your only source of information is a badly researched anti-LDS website, so I'd suggest a better source.  

I mean, seriously.  If you seek to understand why we believe what we do, is it so hard to just go to the LDS Church website and look it up?  What's to be afraid of?  And hey, maybe you won't be stunned as often as GethN7 seems to be.

So then he quotes another passage from the anti-LDS website where it talks about Temples.  It makes the following claims:

• Couples must be married in the Temple in order to have an Eternal Marriage.  (True)
• Every Latter-Day Saint must be baptized in a temple (False)
• Baptisms for the Dead are common (True)
• The LDS Church is big on genealogy in order to baptize those who have died.  (True)

I don't know where the writers of that site got the idea that we have to be baptized in the Temple.  Again, I have real issues with the research these people are doing.  One can be baptized anywhere there's enough water to be immersed.  I was baptized in our local church building, for example.  (Every LDS Chapel has a baptismal font for this purpose.)  In fact, you CAN'T be baptized in the Temple except as a proxy for someone who is dead.   

Remember back in the beginning of all this when our friend GethN7 said he'd be doing a respectful write-up?  Well, this is what he says about that.

"I cannot facepalm hard enough. Jesus made the point the dead are beyond saving, they had their chance to accept God's grace while alive, as recounted in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Ergo, this concept is heretical and absurd."

It would have been nice if he'd provided chapter and verse to back that up, but let's look it up for ourselves and see if we can figure out his point.  Luke 16:19-31 is the parable.  Basically, we have a rich man who lived in luxury, and a poor man, Lazarus, who suffered in poverty as a beggar.  After they're both dead, Lazarus is comforted (Heaven), but the rich man is not.  He goes to Abraham and asks for relief, but is denied on the basis that he spent his life in comfort.  He then asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his family so they won't end up as he did.  Abraham refuses, saying:

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

This is essential to understanding what posthumous baptism is about.  In the parable, the rich man and his family had access to the scriptures.  They had access to the teachings of the prophets.  They had heard God's word but had discarded it.  They had an opportunity to obey God, but instead rejected Him.  That's what the parable is teaching us.  This is about people who hear the truth but do not listen.    

But not everybody does, do they?  There have been countless millions of people who have NOT heard the Gospel.  Remember that God is a God of Justice.  Is it just for people to be tormented for something they could not change?  Every Protestant or Catholic I've ever talked to about this just dismisses all that and ignores it.  Posthumous Baptism is primarily meant for these cases.  Latter-Day Saints, as discussed previously, do understand that Baptism is essential for salvation.  When we're resurrected at the Second Coming, we need to have already been given a true and honest opportunity to have either accepted or rejected the Gospel.  Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 15:28,29

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Here, Paul is teaching the Corinthians that we will one day be resurrected at the Second Coming.  The Corinthian church at the time did not believe that, thinking there would be no resurrection.  Paul is correcting them and pointing out posthumous baptism as being pointless if we aren't to be resurrected.

So facepalm all you like, GethN7, but it's right there in the text.  

So he then goes on to suggest that these doctrines are a result of Latter-Day Saints fearing being unable to receive grace and needing doctrines that let one get out of it.  

"Speaking for myself, and let me make clear this is speculation on my part, but the Mormon aversion to the concept of being denied the kingdom of Heaven strikes me as fear they can be denied Grace, hence all the dodges around the idea of the need for an eternal sacrifice and that even the dead who died without Grace can be redeemed. Frankly, the fear of dying unredeemed is understandable, but when you have to make up something not supported by scripture to give yourself an "out" to avoid this, then that tells me you don't like the fact Grace is something you can die without."

Well, as I've shown, there IS scriptural support for these things, and I've brought the receipts.  I already said that people who choose to reject the Gospel in life are pretty much out of luck after death.  So this last part of his comment doesn't have any relevance here.  Now, we obviously would have different interpretations of these scriptural passages, but to suggest that we're making it up out of nowhere is disingenuous at best.  As I've said several times, all of this information is easily and freely available, and there's just no excuse for portraying LDS theology this inaccurately.

Another passage from the site, this one talking about the afterlife again and how we will be in the Spirit World (Paradise, as Jesus mentions it on the cross) and how we will be in our resurrected bodies.

His reaction:

"We have entered the realm of outright heresy. Our mortal bodies mean NOTHING. Humanity was made from the dust of the earth, our mortal shells, like this world, are temporal, they will pass away and in the end they will be replaced by something eternal. Mormon concepts and Christianity entirely part company on this point."

Do LDS teachings and Protestant teachings part company here?  Do they really?  Here's the text of the Nicene Creed, which is the root of all Trinitarian Christian traditions:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried.

And the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

And we believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

See that part there that I highlighted?  That's talking about a concept called Universal Resurrrection.

Examples in Christianity can be found in:

Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Matthew 22:23-31 

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

So yeah, this is something Nicene traditions and Latter-Day Saints should agree on.

The next passage he quotes is trying to detail the LDS model of the afterlife.  It is not an accurate presentation.  The commentary on it:

"Mormon concepts of the afterlife is just Catholicism with extra steps that make sure no one can truly die without a chance at Grace. By their own concepts, they have spit on the words of Jesus, who said we not marry or be given to marriage, but will be like the angels in Heaven. They also assume that they can rise to level of godhood, another heresy that assumes we are in any way equal to God."

I can tell by this comment that GethN7 has never been either a Latter-Day Saint nor a Catholic.  I've been both, and no.  That isn't an accurate statement.  He then hints at other LDS doctrines, but doesn't go into detail, so I'll leave it at that, since we are at last at the end of the blog.

On a mildly humorous note, in the closing paragraph, he says, "In the meantime, now that I have finished, this should hopefully express with good reason and civil words my reasons why I consider Mormon doctrine heretical, unworthy of being called Christian..."  It isn't clear to me how one would consider accusing someone of heresy, absurd ideas, and self-delusion as being civil discourse, but I guess we all have different standards.

In any case, he does have a part 2 to his blog, which I'll probably get around to.  For now, I leave it to the reader to decide which set of arguments is the more rational.