Mormons-The Modern Day Christians

Jesus Christ-Founder of Christianity

I received this email which had been forwarded around since Oct. 14, 2011.  It is written by a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in response to Pastor Jeffress's inflammatory statements that Mormons are not Christian and that the church is a cult.  Robert Starling does an excellent job of explaining exactly what a Christian is and that by Pastor Jeffresses definition of Christianity, the original Christians in Antioch, the Catholic Church and Protestants churches are not Christian either.  This is a definite "Must Read!" -R. Murdock



Letter to Pastor Jeffress of the 1st Baptist Church of Dallas
By Robert Starling
CEO  Trefoil Productions LLC
 

Dear Pastor Jeffress,

I’m just one of the millions of people who saw and heard on TV news shows your statements that “Mormonism is a cult” and “not a part of orthodox Christianity”.  As a faithful lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I felt a strong reaction to those statements, as you might imagine.  My remarks here are only my personal thoughts, but I assure you they are heartfelt.

My reaction was twofold.   First, I saw your remarks as an unfortunate “below-the-belt” swipe at Mitt Romney in the hopes of advancing your own favorite political candidate.   While you certainly have the right to do that, I think many Americans join me in feeling that such a move was beneath a prominent religious leader such as yourself.  

Second, as a devoted believer and follower of Jesus Christ I was saddened that you felt the need to speak out against my faith and beliefs.  I’m sure there are those who think it was done with malice, but I’ll try to do the Christ-like thing and give you the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps you’ve just been misinformed about “Mormonism” as many others have been. 

But it might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with part of what you said, although perhaps for different reasons than you might imagine.

You said that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian” (and by association myself and the other six million-plus Americans who are Latter-day Saints).  But I believe you need to be more specific.  There are many different kinds or “flavors” of Christians.  I agree that the LDS people are not Baptist Christians or Evangelical Christians or Catholic Christians, etc.   I will even agree that we’re not part of  “orthodox” or “traditional” flavor of Christianity, if by that you mean the post-Nicene church that became the “universal” or “catholic” version of Christendom.  

I believe my faith to be the original church of the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and yes, those who were first called Christians in Antioch,  - that same church now restored in these latter days.  So I call myself a “latter-day Christian", with theological roots that precede the “historical” or “orthodox” version that was the product of the various councils and creeds.  That “orthodoxy” eventually became so corrupt and so apostate that the Reformers broke away from it in protest of its having “fallen away” from Biblical truths (2 Thess. 2) and “changed the ordinances” (Isa. 24:5) so that the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) was no longer recognizable as the church that Jesus organized. 

There were many enlightened Christian thinkers and theologians in history who, like Joseph Smith, believed that Christianity had become apostate and that a restoration of the New Testament church of Christ was necessary.  John Wesley the founder of Methodism wrote:

   It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased; . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens . . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, pp.26-27

As I’m sure you well know, John Smythe the founder of the Baptists first left his position as a Church of England minister and joined the Separatists, but then dissolved his congregation to re-form it as the first General Baptist church among English expatriates in Amsterdam in 1609.  He felt that the “historic” or “orthodox” Christianity of his time had wandered astray, especially with regard to the apostate doctrine of infant baptism.  Those first Baptists were considered a “cult” by many Protestants in the “traditional” Christian denominations that persecuted them unmercifully.

Around 1640, Roger Williams of Providence, Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist church in America refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that there was:

… no regularly‑constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor could there be until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming, I am seeking.

 (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

If I understand your words correctly your definition of a Christian (and that of most Evangelicals) is a pretty narrow one, far different from the standard meaning found in most dictionaries.  Personally I think anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and as his/her personal Savior who died for our sins and was bodily resurrected on the third day is a Christian.  C.S. Lewis described such people as “mere” Christians.

But your narrow definition would exclude anyone who:

1. Does not believe in a closed canon of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

2. Does not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

3. Believes in living prophets and apostles as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believes in continuing revelation from God to man.

     I could go on.  I’m very familiar with the standard arguments against “Mormonism”. 

But the Bible says that believers in Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26).  I would respectfully submit that those Christians:

1. Did not believe in a closed canon of scripture.  (some of the New Testament had not yet been written.)

2. Did not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  (it would not be written for 300 years)

3. Believed in living apostles and prophets as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believed in continuing revelation from God to man.

So if you’re going to say that Mitt and I are not Christians based on those reasons, you’ll have to say that the believers in Antioch were not Christians either according to your definition.

You said in your Hardball interview that “Mormonism” is a “cult” because:

Joseph Smith Jr.

1. “Mormonism came 1800 years after Jesus Christ”

2. “Mormonism has its own human leader, Joseph Smith”

3. “it has its own set of doctrines”

3. “it has its own religious book, The Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible”

Your exact following words were:  “and so by that definition it is a theological cult”.  You made a weak distinction between a theological cult and a sociological one, but most people will not even notice that fine differentiation.  It was obvious to any sophisticated viewer that your main goal was to keep repeating the word “cult”.   It’s such an inflammatory buzz word that I’m sure your goal is to use it as often as you can to scare people away from “Mormonism” without seriously considering our theology and our beliefs.  It’s a word used to end or avoid discussion, not to foster it.  As a Latter-day Saint I welcome the opportunity to “stand ready to give a reason for the faith that is in me”, but those who sling around the word “cult” with respect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seek to cut off debate rather than to encourage dialog.  It’s as though they are afraid of an open and honest discussion.

But following your own definition of “cult” for a moment, I’d like to respectfully submit that:

St. Peter

1. Roman Catholicism came 300 years after Jesus Christ.

2. Roman Catholicism has its own human leader, the Pope (or Peter if you accept the Catholic claims that he was the first Pope)

3. Roman Catholicism has its own set of doctrines (Mariology, transubstantiation, priestly celibacy, veneration of  “saints”, indulgences, etc.)

4. Roman Catholicism has its own religious books (9 deuterocanonical more than those found in the Protestant Bible – also used in Eastern Orthodox churches)

And even your own Baptist flavor of Christianity in some ways fits your definition of what makes a cult;

John Smyth

1. “Baptistism” came 1609 years after Jesus Christ

2. “Baptistism” had its own human leader John Smythe – a Church of England minister (see footnote below from the website of  the Baptist History and Heritage Society)

3. “Baptistism” had its own unique doctrines, including the “believer’s baptism” of adults.

4. “Baptistism” was considered a cult by the “orthodox” or “traditional” or “historic” Christian denominations of the time.  In fact Baptists suffered severe persecution from other Christians who believed in the “mainline” doctrine of infant baptism prevalent in that era.  Thousands of Baptists were martyred for baptizing adults.

One of the dictionary definitions of a cult is that is a small isolated group that is out of the mainstream.  That certainly does not apply to my church.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest religion in America, and the second largest Christian church in Washington, Oregon, and California (after Catholicism).  You mentioned that there are 15 million Southern Baptists.  By 2012 at the present rate of growth there will be more Latter-day Saints than that.

Pastor Jeffress, in order to be consistent and truthful you would have to admit that the same definition you’ve used to brand “Mormonism” a cult applies at least in part to  Roman Catholicism and “Baptistism” as well.  Are you willing to say that on national television?  I would hope so.  I would hope that you’d want to be totally consistent and truthful. 

What I believe happened to “the faith once delivered to the saints” (is this).  There was a great apostasy that fundamentally changed the New Testament church of Jesus Christ into something so different that those Christians at Antioch or Peter or Paul would not have recognized it in the Dark Ages that came upon the earth.   (Amos 8:12)  That apostasy required the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:21 to occur before Christ’s return.   That restitution or restoration of original Biblical Christianity was what was looked forward to by Roger Williams.

I testify to you that that restoration has come, and the original Christianity is back on the earth in its fullness as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If you would like to investigate these claims I’ll be happy to “bring forth my strong reasons” for “the faith that is in me.”  I would welcome a thoughtful dialog.

Cordially yours,

Robert Starling

A Latter-day Christian

(footnote to above reference to John Smyth)

BHHS -- Baptist Beginnings http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution. John Smyth was a minister in the Church of England. As a student and later as a pastor and teacher. …   By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a "covenant," rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to

disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.

Will you pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 flat tax plan?

In the recent CNN/GOP debate, Rick Santorum stated that Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes on 84% of Americans.  After the CNN debate, one of the news analysts agreed that from their number crunching, this could be true.  I asked one of my intelligent math wiz friends to do his own analysis, and this was his response:


By Brian Larson:
As far as I can tell...right now...Looks like the states with no income tax and high sales tax will end up losing with the 9-9-9. Also the people with High income tax and low sales tax really dont lose anything they just end up saving more money than spending it. In turn, hurting the recovery of the economy. This is all real general though. I think to get a real analysis you would really need to do this for every tax bracket and state to get an over all comparison to how it would effect the nation as a whole. So thats my partial analysis.

It sounded like a great idea at the start but looking into it further I think it does more harm then good for the economy. HOWEVER, in the states with high income taxes it actually increases employment. This is due to the cost of labor is now cheaper. So if companies can find ways to cut capital spending, then more jobs would be created. Granted the Government gives some sort of incentive to higher these new workers to keep production levels high enough to cover the wages. So it really is a mix of how the consumers will end up and how corporations will end up. Personally, I think that the corporations will end up winning in his 9-9-9 plan. What's new right! LOL! So there you have it. My ASU degree might come in handy sooner than I thought!

Thoughts on the 99% - Occupy

The possessions of Occupy Oakland protestors are seen strewn about Frank H. Ogawa plaza Tuesday in Oakland, Calif. Occupy Oakland protestors were evicted from the plaza early Tuesday morning. Photo courtesy of Ben Margot/AP

While scanning through the status updates of my Facebook friends, I came upon this status thread by a friend who served an LDS mission in the Japan Tokyo South Mission at the same time I did.  I've always liked a lot of his comments and especially loved this post.  I whole heartedly agree with his thoughts and wanted to make them more accessible to others as not everyone is FB friends with the intelligent Michael Brady.  Here are his thoughts on the whole Occupy issue- R. Murdock

By Michael Brady-

Wall Street, the financially "rich," and the U.S. government are not the problem. Individuals are the problem. They succumb to greed and power. De-institutionalizing is not the answer. People taking accountability for their actions is the first step toward the answer. The next step is realizing that their actions have caused personal and societal harm. Changing personal actions is the final step. If people--ALL people--can be taught, correctly understand and apply correct principles, they can govern themselves in ways that are individually and collectively beneficial.

I doubt the majority of those misrepresenting us "99%" understand comparative advantage, or even zero-sum game theory, let alone the terms.

Would there be any poor among us if the following things happened: 1) Everybody did their share; an honest day's work, based on the abilities of the individual, 2) Those applying for and administrating welfare were honest, -- for Latter-day Saints, I'll throw in 3) Everybody paid a generous fast offering.

Furthermore, another call to repentance for the "entitled": I watched President Obama's inauguration. He said: "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. ...All this we can do. And all this we will do."

How the crowd cheered! And looking at photographs of the National Mall the very next day, I was inexpressibly disappointed in the amounts of GARBAGE that LITTERED the grounds of our beautiful capital. If individuals can't be counted on to pack out and throw away the waste that they bring in, how can we count on them to contribute to the picking ourselves up and dusting ourselves off part?

We must be united in effort and individually committed to the cause. The litterbugs who rationalize "They pay people to pick up my garbage, so littering is okay" will need to experience a change of heart. To quote a religious leader, "This isn't a program of 'give me.' This is a program of 'self-help.'"

Individuals must rehabilitate themselves, each and every American, each and every citizen of the world, and then the "system" will be rehabilitated by natural consequence, on the basis of an improved personal and social consciousness and conscience.

People will be happier, simply because they know that they are better people, that they have improved and contributed to the improvement of the greater good. They will be enabled to become better fathers and mothers, better friends, better CEOs, better welfare recipients, better citizens.

The next questions are: how do we begin to teach correct principles? What are these correct principles? Where do we find them? How do we know that they are correct?

In a Christian setting, the answers are very obvious. I believe Stephen R. Covey to be a leading authority on how to present religious principles in ways that translate into the vernacular appropriate to different social settings. His Seven Habits are genius (borrowed from Jesus Christ), and the first three begin with the individual.

DISCLAIMER: By posting this link, I am not claiming to be a disciple, or even a fan, of Glenn Beck. In fact, I'd like to officially put a little distance between him and me right now, on the record. But this clip is well done and representative of how I feel about the whole situation down at Wall Street. http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19882747&topic_id&v=3&tcid=fb_video_19882747       

 These are some of my favorite comments that Michael received from his post:

Beau- I think you're right Mike, it starts with self. People who are angry at others for not funding them won't ever change that mindset - no amount of money in the world can do it. What these folks should be doing, rather than congregating and asking for handouts and saying death to capitalism is knocking these companies on their duffs. I'd bet there are folks out there right now who could create a company that would be the next Apple or a bank that would cater to those who are left behind by the big banks or fleeced by the payday lenders. Let's do that instead of whining.

Michael- @Beau: No amount of money can change that mindset because funding them not only enables the problem, but gives it momentum. I was calling around to some homeless shelters one day, and the advice one of the workers gave me was: sometimes the best way to help a homeless person is to say "no." Otherwise, they'll never realize that they have the ability to shape their own lives, instead of exploiting others.

Fred- Love of money is still the root of all evil. You can have anything in this world for money, and people who go to work for the megabanks don't do it because they want to help people. They do it to enrich themselves so they can have more than they need. On the other hand, people who go too deeply into debt to buy too much house, hoping to mimic the behavior of the predatory wheeler dealers by "flipping" it end up being willing victims of the very bloodsuckers they are trying to emulate. It's not enough to be honest with others; you have to be honest with yourself. Work for what you get, be happy if you have sufficient for your needs, and remember that more than enough is too much. Use your surplus, if you have any, to help others.

Jodi- I think it's obvious from all comments as to how complex issues these are, which is why I also believe it is dangerous to work in absolutes i.e., "people take advantage of the system therefore it isn't right to blame the system" or to even suggest that the way the system is is needlessly causing suffering. Just because there are homeless people who may not do their part does not mean that they don't need help, or that they don't deserve our help. I feel the need to distance myself from these kinds of discussions because I'm not sure my blood pressure can handle it any longer. I find myself longing to throw myself back into the scriptures not just for comfort but also to regain some sanity after the whirlwind of blame, anger, judgment and prejudice infecting the rhetoric of our politics and even every day lives. What I love about the gospel is it's simplicity and I for one have never been able to find a scripture which condones loving, serving or providing for others on condition, but there are well over a thousand describing the opposite which is that we have no right to judge who is worthy or deserving of our love, time and means since all of those things are God given anyways. King Benjamins speech where he says that we have no right to say that the beggar has put his petition to us in vain, or brought upon himself his misery, because we are all beggars to God who has given us all that we have both temporally and spiritually, is pretty much the truth that I prefer to fall back on and have form my life philosophy. Not to mention the bulk of Christ's teachings which emphasize the heart of the matter which is without charity we are nothing. I have worked for five yrs now with the seriously mentally ill, extremely low income population and so I get to see these issues affecting people firsthand. I also have an entire family who have also suffered from the very bad choices of a few. So I guess to end this I of course agree individual accountability being the key but I do not think that means that we shouldn't raise our voice in protest when other people abusing their accountability has caused others to suffer. The civil rights movement is a good example because it went way beyond individual accountability and into societal accountability for suffering and abuses we were allowing to happen right under our noses. I respect the Wall Street protests because if nothing else they are bringing awareness to the issue of NO accountability in our market besides profiting off of others to make a few extremely rich being dangerous, and quite frankly not fair. People took on mortgages that they couldn't afford, and displayed habits of greed which made them suffer, but there were also thousands of wise, hard working, saving and responsible people (my family included) who through no fault of theirs had their futures taken from them so, yeah, I feel there is a lot to be concerned and incredibly frustrated about. I also have a difficult time ever seeing the need to bring someone like Glenn Beck into a conversation even though after all of the incredibly hateful, mean and unchristlike rhetoric he has spewed he happens to have a valid point. Let's leave that wolf in sheep's clothing out of our conversations completely and stick to the Godhead and our prophets when forming opinions on issues which ultimately involve our brothers and sisters. 

Michael- In the simplest of terms, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can save any of us, as individuals or as societies. Indeed as the gospel teaches, if we as individuals would like to be saved, then serving self and ignoring society, i.e., your neighbors, does not warrant salvation. See Moses 7:18.

While good intentions are meritorious in God's eyes, effectiveness will do more good than misguided attempts at change. Hopefully the "Occupy" movement will be catalyst to a more effective output than YouTube videos that mock the protesters.

Barry- After scanning the comments, I would say that personal responsibility is indeed important. But it's not the whole point. If we adopt that as the whole point, we risk ignoring other ideas of the Savior, especially charity. Personally, I would rather help those that may not NEED it than not help those that truly do need help. I see that as erring on the side of the Lord.
Not everyone will embrace personal responsibility and not everyone is capable, there are legitimate reasons to seek help.
Finally, one cannot serve both God and Mammon. Profit before people is NOT the Lord's way. That's why I tend to distrust corporations. That and the decreased personal responsibility of corporate leaders.
I could rant on, but I should save it for another day. ;)

Michael- So far I agree with pretty much everything that has been added to this discussion, yet it still seems that some are at odds with some of my sentiments. I suppose I didn't articulate myself well enough, because I feel like we're all saying the same thing, yet disagreement still exists.

Charity and pride are central to every issue due to the fact that the absence of charity and the presence of pride will inevitably cause problems.

I believe that giving commodities and money to a family whose breadwinner is unemployed is charitable. I believe it is uncharitable to sustain that family indefinitely while father and mother laze about, simply because their needs are being met by the efforts of others. True charity is helping a person be more like Christ; enabling poor behavior is helping a person become less like Christ. If I were to help the father, I would assist with his temporal means until he becomes self-sustaining; in the meantime, I cannot rob him of the process of personal growth by experiencing the humility that is requisite to be sustained by the spirit, and ultimately accomplishing, with his wife, everything that is necessary for the innocent children.

Jesus Christ did for me what I could not do for myself. So must we help others who cannot do for themselves, but then we help them to become more able. This is what Christ does with us through covenants and the principle of upward harmonization.

The unemployed father, and the greedy CEO, and you and I all face the same issue, and we all have the same problem. As we become accountable to our Lord and to ourselves, we grow into positions where we can benefit and bless the lives of other children of God. But if we are greedy, selfish, lazy, entitled, unaccountable, or any of the other "Mammonistic" traits that are bringing our nation down, then how can we serve God, as Barry points out?

Finally, we will all be struggling with losing our pride and nurturing our charity for a long, long time. I am not calling for perfection in these areas (though Christ did). Every father and crooked CEO will hopefully make movement in the right direction. However slow the process, progress is still progress.      

 

The Book of Mormon Musical, A Mormon's Perspective

I've been pretty fascinated with the attention the vulgar musical "The Book of Mormon" has brought to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I will never see it because I feel extremely uncomfortable around profanity and vulgarity. However, I truly believe that the attention generated by the musical can be good. Here is a copy of an email I received originally sent by Mormon actor, Michael Ballam, who actually saw the musical and gives some good insight. At the end, I've included a video of a song from this musical. I actually really like the song "I Believe." There are some funny parts that make fun of Mormons...but it's good to have a sense of humor, and in reality, it's quite moving in some ways. Also, having been a missionary myself, I can relate to some of the feelings of this young elder - R. Murdock

Michael Ballam on the Book of Mormon Broadway Musical

(Michael is an actor, singer and Professor of Music at USU.)

I spent the evening with Hal Prince & Sheldon & Margie Harnick last night as they were honored for their lifetime achievement in the theatre in Manhattan. Hal produced/directed Damn Yankees, Pajama Game, Fiddler on the Roof, West Side Story, Sweeny Todd, Phantom of the Opera, etc etc. Sheldon wrote She Loves Me, Fiorello, Apple Tree, Fiddler on the Roof, etc. Sheldon and Margie were VERY offended by Book of Mormon because they didn't like the depiction that one of the Elders had never read the Book of Mormon before going out into the field. I think I am perhaps the only Mormon they know, but they are VERY protective of me! I assured them, that such a thing is VERY unlikely to happen, but it did make for an interesting dramatic scenario. (Now that I think about it, there may be more out there than we know).

There is a song called "Turn it Off" which implies that Mormons shut down their base impulses. In other words, if they have a pornography or sexuality issue, they just don't think about it, and move on to other more productive things. I know that is rather simplistic, but there is some truth to the fact that we feel in order to overcome our problems we need to block the impulses and move on to better and loftier things. They thought it made us look like unfeeling, simple folk, which we are not. Perhaps I was SO WORRIED about what might take place in that musical, I was pleasantly surprised that they made the church look like good people. I asked him what he thought the message was and he said, "Those Mormons DO believe some peculiar things, BUT they all seem to be nice and happy! So, just because you don't get it don't knock it." I'm ok with that.

The Book of Mormon Musical is such a perplexing issue. We live in a very mocking world. Our humor has degenerated to ridicule and shock value. The irony of this musical is that the information center in Manhattan has been inundated for request for Books of Mormon. Somehow, people who see the musical ask themselves, "What is it about these people that make them happy and loving?" As a result, they want to read the book. One of my friends in NYC is going out and giving away Books of Mormon outside the theatre and requesting to put them (FREE) inside the theatre. If the authors are really sincere when they say they have deep respect for the LDS church, it should not bother them.

I saw it in previews and was stunned beyond belief at how vulgar it was. I never dreamed I would live to hear such vulgarity uttered from a stage. I was numbed within minutes. I focused more attention on the audience than I did the stage trying to assess the response of those present. There were clearly defined groups. There were the South Park, young outrageous kids who were there who guffawed at every shocking obscenity (how long can you shock people before they're unshockable?), then there were the mature, Broadway devotees who had furrowed brows trying to understand WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THIS. Then there was another group I couldn't figure out. They were somewhat restrained in their reactions. At intermission I took out my pad of paper to write down some thoughts when someone from behind me said, "Brother Ballam?" I thought maybe it was the destroying angel who had come to wisk me off to an eternal punishment. It was a sweet lady with her husband who had come from Salt Lake City with 150 other Mormons to do work in the Temple. They came to check things out. During the second act THOSE were the folks I watched.

Act II is QUITE different than Act I, and the tables turn about the influence of those courageous Elders and the impact they have on the people of Uganda.

There is a baptismal scene that is riveting and the audience became VERY quiet as those dark black actors whose behavior had changed from anger and hostility to peace and joy as they came onto the stage dressed in white... it was something to see. The final statement of the musical as I read it was: Yes, some people believe some crazy things (like Jesus coming to the Americas after his crucifixion and ancient Jews leaving Jerusalem in 600 BC and crossing the sea... both ideas get a chuckle, you can tell it makes the audience think (Captain Cook...white god??? Ancient temples in meso-America, etc), but there is SOMETHING about these people that is good. They are happy and loving and forgiving. There has to be something to it. I thought it was a subtle love letter to Mormons, BUT it is in the midst of a vulgar show that could NEVER play before our audience.

The next night I sat at the opening night party of HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS next to the widow of Jule Styne (who wrote FUNNY GIRL). She knows the boys who wrote B of M and said I should contact them and explain that I think it could play before an LDS audience (of which there are 14M worldwide) if it weren't vulgar. She thinks they might re-write it. We'll see. I didn't get the message that religious people are out of touch with reality, I got the message that those WONDERFUL, COURAGEOUS, CLEAN-CUT youngsters who dedicate AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, two years of service in parts of the world for which they have no experience or tools, MATURE very quickly and develop deep love for the people they serve. I think that is the take most people had leaving the theatre.

Of course, I felt like going home and washing my mouth and ears out with soap. It has generated HUGE interest in the Mormons in Manhattan and in a positive way. The "Mormon Jokes" in it are the kind you would hear given at ward parties. We do have a sense of humor about ourselves, and yes, we are a PECULIAR people and intend to remain so. I think the church has reacted EXACTLY the right way by not protesting or showing offense. We have been good sports about it, which I think will prove important in the perception the world has for us. We ADMIT that our story is unlike any other and we make no apologies for that.

Who knows, maybe were it not for the over the top vulgarity and profanity that has come to be the hallmark of our entertainment world, that segment of the populace would never have had ANY contact with what Mormons believe or who they are. If that group goes away knowing nothing more than the fact that Mormons are all over the world trying to help and serve and hold to their unusual beliefs it might do some good. In the meantime, we have to take the higher road and realize the power of the Book of Mormon has lasted for 2600 years and will endure for eternity...the musical will not.

-Michael Ballam

"I Believe" from the Book of Mormon Musical

Pastor who called Mormonism a cult would do well to follow basic Christian principles

By R. Murdock

Today a Southern Baptist minister from a mega-church, endorsed Rick Perry, a true Christian.  Afterwards when talking to reporters, he said he did it because Mitt Romney is not a Christian, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) is a cult.

Robert Jeffress just created a huge PR headache for Rick Perry who's campaign later had to come out and assure everyone that Rick Perry does not think that Mitt Romney is a member of a cult.

The funny thing is that Jefress stated "I think Mitt Romney's a good, moral man, but those of us who are born again followers of Christ should prefer a competent Christian." So is he saying it's better to be competent than good and moral?

Jeffress later went on to say that if the choice comes down to Obama and Romney, he would plug his nose and vote for Romney (because apparently it really isn't that big of a deal to be part of a cult these days.)  He gives his reason here:

 

Jeffress Statement:

 "I would rather have a non-Christian who at least supports biblical principles than a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces unbiblical positions." 

My Restatement of what he's actually saying:

"I would rather have a member of a cult who is good and moral and at least supports biblical principles than a professing Christian like Barack Obama."

 

I know, it's confusing, a true flip flopper.  Now it's better to have a cult member than a Christian. This guy really needs to figure out exactly what a Christian is, and then act like one. (Hint: Those who followed Jesus Christ during biblical times were called Christians which was a derogatory name, just like "Mormon" started out as a derogatory name as well.  A Christian is a follower of Christ.)

 

As a Born-Again Christian,  I'm assuming Mr. Jeffress probably believes that as long as you profess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, then you're saved by grace.  Obama and Romney both claim to have done this, so it really doesn't matter what they do, think or follow after that. 

(Note: Mormons believe that we are saved by Christ's grace after all we can do.  That's why many are perceived as "good" and "moral," because they believe that being a follower of Christ, AKA Christian, actually means following His example and trying to do what He would do.)

Mr. Jeffress also stated in an interview to a news organization that Mormons are not Christian because they worship Joseph Smith.  This is totally NOT TRUE.  Mormons only worship Jesus Christ.  In the Book of Mormon, which is another testament of Jesus Christ, it says "(Christ) is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God."

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, which testifies of Christ.  We honor Joseph Smith the same as a Baptist would honor Moses, who brought forth the Ten Commandments; or John the Beloved who wrote the Book of Revelation.  We are grateful to have the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Ten Commandments.  But in no way do Moses, John the Beloved/Revelator or Joseph Smith save us from our sins, nor would we EVER worship them.

I have no doubt that Mr. Jeffress loves and worships Jesus Christ.  He is not a perfect follower or Christian, and none of us are.  When someone says, “I believe in Christ.”  Who are we to judge what is in that person’s heart. Christ knows perfectly who His followers are.  They are the ones who hear His voice and do their best to follow Him.

With the deep love Mr. Jeffress has for his Savior and Redeemer, how would he feel if someone came along trashing his faith and told him that he does not follow Christ, believe in Christ, worship Christ?  How would he feel if someone said the Southern Baptist Convention is a cult?  I don’t think he would like that at all.

A person's faith is deeply personal and sacred.  The personal relationship they have with God is something great to be treasured.  No one likes to have such treasures maliciously and publicly attacked, belittled and misrepresented.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm called a Mormon because I believe in the Book of Mormon, which like the Bible, testifies that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Savior of the world and all mankind.  I am a sinner and would be lost without the perfect love and sacrifice of Jesus.  I know He loves me.  He gave His life for me and suffered unspeakable pains on my behalf.  I try to show my love and appreciation for Him by doing my best to follow His perfect example.  Everyday I fall short of taking upon me His name.  But I repent and He forgives me and I keep trying.  I am honored to be a follower of Christ.  No matter how many times people say that I am not a Christian, I know that the One person who matters the most to me, knows who I am and knows I do my best to follow Him.  I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  I'm grateful for His grace and mercy.  He wants me to be happy, and when I follow Him, I have joy in my life.

Those like me, who follow Christ, and those who do not, would do well to remember one of His simple yet profound teachings:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

 Painting by Greg Olson, a Mormon and a Christian who loves Jesus Christ