Understanding Obama & Romney "by their fruits"

In response to the previous post- Mitt Romeny: Stake President of the United States, my dad, Carl Uda wrote the following response: 

 I, too, know what Mitt Romney went through while serving as a bishop (I have served as a bishop for the past three and a half years). Knowing what he went through as a bishop, I can say that I know what manner of man he is. Mitt Romney is a good and caring man.

I have always taught my children, "You can always know what type a person a man is by the fruit he bares, for 'by their fruits you shall know them.' "

That has always been the standard by which I have determined what kind of person a man is - not by his good looks or his great wealth or by his good words alone, but by his good works - and it has never failed me. Even when men bash someone and ridicule him and disparage him, they don't denigrate or lessen his good fruits or good works, which are done in secret. Instead, they starken the contrast between themselves and that man of good fruits.

I have never personally met Mitt Romney, but I can say that I already know him and feel a certain kinship for him because of our common experiences as bishops, which, by the way, are not very common. We share a common bond as bishops, even though I have never removed a hornet's nest from my neighbor's swamp cooler like Mitt did. 

It is my belief that Mitt Romney isn't trying to be POTUS because he wants power and recognition or fame. His motives are as pure as the desire to bless people's lives as only a bishop, struggling with the challenges of his ward family, can experience and understand. There are no polls that will tell a bishop how well he is truly doing. But when the 47% start to attend church, do their home and visit teaching, pay their full tithing, fulfill their callings, treat their families and neighbors kindly as they would want to be treated, stop abusing drugs and alcohol, repent of their sins and make life altering changes, then a bishop can feel good about strengthening the ninety and nine (or the other 53%) before leaving them to find the one (or before returning to the 47%) to minister to them for the purpose of blessing their lives and bringing them to Jesus Christ.

Not a moment do I believe that Mitt Romney meant that he doesn't care about the 47% who wouldn't vote for him. That isn't in his DNA. As a bishop, sometimes one must focus time and resources where it can do the most good. It doesn't mean the sinner can't be saved. It just means that, at that certain point in time, the sinner is not ready to be saved. You focus resources where it won't be trampled under foot by the ungrateful. 

Of course Mitt cares about the 47%, but he knows if he can go out and hire more willing laborers from among the remaining 53% pool, he will surely get the fields harvested faster and more efficiently, and then, all will be blessed.

Please don't be too quick to believe the harsh and venomous judgments tossed upon Mitt Romney. If you must compare Mitt Romney to Obama, put those two men's fruits of the totality of their lives, side-by-side, point-by-point, and you judge what manner of men they are, remembering to judge righteouss judgement, for that judgement with which you judge, so shall you be judged. Let the words of the Holy Book guide you and let the Holy Spirit fill your hearts with inspiration to choose the doctrine of Christ and not the doctrine of the world, for the world hated Christ and crucified him. Please do not crucify him again, my friends. I tell you, you know the truth, for the light of truth is within all men, and it is within you, but when you choose against that light and you kick against the pricks, you only bring sorrow and pain to yourselves and to this great nation.

Farewell and good bye and let us pray for God's wisdom to be upon us all, that we may come away victorious, for we are in a war, and we fight not against men, but against powers and dominions and principalities. Our cause is just. This November 6th, vote your conscience. Remember this always, what manner of men ought ye be?

Mitt Romney: Stake President of the United States

I received this as an email forward and have no idea who wrote it, but it provides good insight into the qualifications Mitt Romney has based on the work he did in his church as a bishop and stake president:

Stake President of the United States

A few years back, a hive of hornets decided to make its nest on top of a second-story swamp cooler outside my cousin’s Boston-area home.  My cousin made an ill-fated attempt to remove the hornets, which resulted in a two-story fall and a broken arm.

This looks like a job for your home teacher, said my cousin’s home teacher.

The home teacher brought over his own ladder and clothed himself in homemade beekeeping gear.  He then made his way to the hornet’s nest and gathered the whole thing up in a garbage bag, avoiding any stings or the more severe injuries that had beset my cousin.  He did this with no public fanfare, no accolades, and no thought of collecting payment for his efforts.  And, who was this noble home teacher?  A man by the name of Mitt Romney.

Now, unless you’re familiar with Mormon lingo, you probably got lost when I introduced the phrase, home teacher, or you may have conjured up images of some kind of private educational tutor who was taking care of my cousin’s kids.  That would have left you wondering why a tutor thought it was their responsibility to wrangle hornets.

But if you're a Mormon, the phrase made perfect sense, as did the rest of the story. You would know that every month, every member of a Mormon congregation receives a visit from two home teachers, who share an inspirational message but, more importantly, are charged with the responsibility of looking out for the family’s welfare.  So, if a family is struggling, the home teachers are the spiritual first responders, and a good home teacher jumps at any opportunity to be of service.

Among other things, Mitt Romney is a good home teacher.

People who look to Mitt’s faith for clues about how he’d govern as president usually miss the target by a wide margin.  They rip the more obscure elements of Mormon doctrine out of their theological and historical contexts, polygamy or underwear or planetary real estate and think they’ve discovered or explained something.  They haven’t.  The world at large, as it focuses on unusual theoretical elements of Mormon doctrine, all but ignores the eminently practical aspects of Mormonism as it is manifest in each Mormon's daily life.

Consider the fact that, home teachers receive no compensation for what they do.  In fact, neither does anyone else in a Mormon congregation.  The whole enterprise is supervised by a lay clergy that will often work over forty hours a week in their unpaid positions in addition to their real jobs, you know, the ones that actually earn them money.  Mitt Romney has spent his entire adult life in these kinds of high-responsibility, time-intensive positions.  He has been both a bishop, a leader of a ward that consists of a congregation of about 500 people,  and a stake president, who oversees a stake, which consist of about six or so wards, giving him ecclesiastical responsibility for thousands of people.

So what does this mean?  What, precisely, does a bishop or a stake president do that eats up so much of their time?

Go to a Mormon meeting on any given Sunday, and you’ll see three dudes sitting up by the pulpit.  The guy in the middle is the bishop, and he’s already spent most of the day in meetings where he reviewed the ward's staffing needs and organizing relief efforts for families who may be struggling with health, financial, or spiritual issues.  He’s also been meeting one-on-one with members of the church who look to him for counsel and support for personal problems that would turn your hair white.  Usually, he's been doing all this since before the sun came up, so don’t be surprised if he nods off while the meeting progresses.

Please keep in mind, too, that there are no elections for bishops and stake presidents, nor are there reelections.  Each leader is called to serve, and they accept the responsibility dutifully, no questions asked.  They then serve for a period of time, usually between five and ten years, after which they are released, meaning they rejoin their congregations as lay members and have no more responsibility than anyone else.

The call to serve can come to any priesthood holder in good standing, but it usually comes to a certain personality type.  Remember, bishops and stake presidents are confronted with massive organizational challenges accompanied by the most intimate, personal, spiritual struggles imaginable.  So, they must lead without being authoritarian; they must judge without being judgmental, and they must minister without offending.  That means the people who get this assignment are often more even-tempered than exciting, more reassuring than revolutionary, and more competent than colorful.  Sound like any particular presidential candidate you might know?

Those who remain baffled by Romney's cool public persona have not spent a whole lot of time with an LDS stake president, a role for which Romney provides the quintessential example.  If one truly understands his background, one shouldn’t expect a President Romney to dazzle the masses with rhetorical virtuosity.

One should instead expect him to remove practically and quietly the hornet’s nest from the nation’s second-story swamp cooler.

Mormon Mommy Blogs: What’s the Allure? It’s not that complicated folks!

By R. Murdock

I recently read a political article about the Romney campaign seeking to capitalize on the popularity of Mommy Blogs.  It also highlighted a mommy blog written by Mitt Romney’s daughter-in-law.  The media managed to snag some candid shots of the Romneys before the blog was made private.  While the main headlines of the story focused on a picture of Romney with messed-up hair, the writer also attempted to define mommy blogs, explain the allure and focus on the Mormon Mommy Blog phenomenon.

Popular Mormon scholar and writer, Joanna Brooks, explained these blogs as a reflection of traditional Mormon gender roles. She stated:

            "In conservative Mormon culture, having large, beautiful, well-appointed families conveys a great deal of status. It's an approved path to visibility and power for Mormon women."

 

The author of “C Jane Enjoy It” and Mormon mommy blog pioneer called these blogs mommy porn. She said there is a relentless pro-family theme. While secular mommy blogs delve into the challenges of motherhood, LDS offerings tend to keep things upbeat, portraying family life as an unadulterated joy. She sees something theological in blogs like Romney's, with perpetually-proselyting Mormons using them as tools to convey the blessings of their faith. "I mean, you put your kids down, and you go and read someone else's blog whose life is like perfection... It's almost Photoshopped, but instead of a perfect body, it's the perfect experiences."

These descriptions rubbed me the wrong way.  While I have no argument regarding those who read these blogs, they are missing the mark in a BIG way when explaining the motivation behind those who write them.

Let me explain.  For those who qualify themselves as full-time homemakers, they can attest that Motherhood is a very thankless job.  Yes, there are definitely moments of fulfillment and purpose, but the daily grind and the same-old same-old routine is not only monotonous, but sometimes feels pointless. 

Please understand that I believe there is no greater calling then being a mother.  Mothers not only fulfill basic needs, but are given ample opportunity to teach every skill that children will need to be successful in life.  A mother’s charge is to teach what is right and wrong and other fundamental principles needed to be a decent, productive and useful human being.

But these lessons are not taught in quick easy sessions.  They are taught over a lifetime through hands-on experience, life’s lessons and from a degree earned at the University of Hard Knocks.  The rewards do not come often.  Sometimes mothers won’t know if what they’ve done today means anything until their children are adults.  

What does this have to do with mommy blogs?  Are Mormon moms really trying to portray their so-called “perfect life” in the blogosphere to gain status and power in their large circle of Mormon friends and family? The answer is simple: No!  

I think the biggest motivation these Mormon moms have is to show the world what they did today; to put their work on display and say, “Look at what I made!”

Those who don’t stay at home all day with children and instead work at a desk or in an office, or anywhere outside the home, for that matter, should understand the desire to be recognized for your work. If you work with a team and complete an important presentation, or make a big sale, or close a huge deal, you want your boss and your colleagues to pat you on the back and say good job!  Maybe you’ll even get a raise or a promotion for work well done.  Likewise, if you spend a couple weeks working on a presentation you eventually reach a point when you are finished.  The work is complete and you can see the fruit of that work.

As moms, we don’t have that.  We are never finished. We can change 10 poopy diapers in one day and the baby never says, “Gosh mom, you are so good at wiping my little bum. Thanks for your hard work!”  But mothers continue their work, day in and day out, sometimes with little to no recognition. 

There are milestones in motherhood when we feel like we accomplished something: like potty training, getting a child to sleep in their own bed, or weaning a child off the binky. But who is there to pat us on the back, give us a raise and a promotion?  No one really, until mommy blogs came about.

Here we have a medium where we can throw the perfect birthday party for our daughter, take pictures and blog about it to show the world how awesome everything looked after our hard work.  Some cynical person might look at that and say, “Gee, these mommy bloggers are always trying to paint such a rosey perfect picture of their life.”  But they are wrong.  We simply want people to see what we did, and to get acknowledged for it!  The comments section of the blog is what motivates these moms.  From here they get the encouragement, praise or even advice that they need to continue to do their jobs without going absolutely insane. 

In fact, if you scrutinize Facebook or any other social media site, you will see that they are driven by the underlying desire in human nature to be noticed, to be appreciated and to be acknowledged. Is it any wonder why Facebook has become so phenomenally successful? Not really. As human beings, we crave acceptance and appreciation. It is a part of our DNA, whether we admit it or not.

Yes, as Mommy Bloggers we may take pictures when everyone is dressed up and perfect, but perhaps it’s because that is such a rare experience and takes an astronomical amount of effort to get everyone looking perfect and smiling at the same time.

Maybe they aren’t the most popular of Mormon mommy blogs, but I’ve seen plenty with half naked kids after they just finished drawing a beautiful mural all over their bedroom wall with poop.  Is this our perfect life?  No, but it’s what happened to us today and we want the world, or at least the bloggernacle, to know that despite this awful thing we had to deal with today, we didn’t go crazy! We cleaned up the mess and everyone is happy again.  Then all our friends (and for some lucky few, a lot of strangers) can go comment on our blog and say how amazing we are for handling that situation so well.  We get credit, we get noticed and we get appreciated for our work that day.

What’s the allure of Mormon Mommy blogs?  That’s simple: It’s a much deserved pat on the back!

:::

Original article referenced: Buzzfeed article by McKay Coppins http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/mitt-romney-wants-to-follow-you-on-twitter

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.

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