In Luke 21 Jesus tells His disciples there will be a number of signs to watch for when the “end” comes. One of these signs is in verse 8 which says, “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them” (KJV). The American Standard Version (1901) renders the second underlined phrase as, “the time is at hand.”
The warning seems very clear for us. Is there anyone who has said, “I am Christ” and “The time is at hand?” It would make discernment of false Christ’s and false prophets very simple if we could just identify the people, or groups, that have said this.
In the text quoted the word Christ is in Italics in the KJV to indicate that it is supplied by the translator to finish the meaning. Other translations will supply he to finish the meaning. The Greek simply says, “I am.”
The second phrase is also rendered differently. In the Weymouth translation it says, “The time is close at hand.” The New English Bible says, “The Day is upon us.” The bottom line is that false spiritual leaders will claim a divine authority for themselves and point to an apocalyptic crisis to be avoided as a means of attracting followers.
From its very beginning the Watchtower Society has pointed to the coming of Armageddon as the crisis to avoid. Charles T. Russell’s seven volume commentary Studies In The Scriptures are full of evidence of this apocalyptic message. And, of course, the means of avoidance is to join the Watchtower Society.
A good example of Russell’s apocalyptic warning is found in Volume 2 of the Studies where he said, “Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to be begin the exercise of power in A. D. 1878, and that the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A. D. 1914, with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced” (page 101).
Volume 2 of the Studies in the Scriptures is titled The Time Is At Hand. That is part one of the Watchtower’s fulfillment of Jesus predictive warning.
But, what about the claim to be “Christ?” We know the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Christ, and that they say Jesus became the Christ at his baptism. But, do they also claim to be the “Christ?”
Jehovah’s Witnesses call the members of the 144,000, and more specifically the members of their Governing Body, the Anointed. ‘Christ’ means anointed in Greek. In The New World, published in 1942, this statement is made regarding the 144,000, “These must all be anointed with God’s spirit, that is, officially commissioned as spirit-begotten witnesses of Jehovah God. Hence, the Christ, or The Anointed One, is a collective or composite company, Christ Jesus being the Head, and the 144,000 members of his church being the body” (page 96).
This is something the Watchtower has taught since it’s beginning but is little used by Christians witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is almost completely unknown by the rank and file Jehovah’s Witness. The Watchtower Society has placed the 144,000 and the Governing Body especially, on the same plane with Jesus Christ.
There is much more to this subject but I will conclude with this last quote the most important parts of which I have highlighted.
“It is thus seen that the Church in the flesh (the Christ in the flesh, Head and body) is the Elijah or forerunner of the Church in glory, Jehovah’s Anointed. Not the nominal church, but the really consecrated Church, which on the other side of the tomb will be the great Anointed Deliverer, - these constitute the Elijah…. Our Lord Jesus and the Apostles, and all the faithful in Christ Jesus since, are of this great antitypical Elijah, prophet or teacher – the same class (Head and body) which shall shortly compose the King of Glory…. Let us not be misunderstood: We have heretofore shown that God’s plan does not extend to the converting of the world during the Gospel age. He did not intend it to do so, but merely designed the selection and trial of the Church now, and the blessing of the world through the Church, the Christ, in an age to follow this” (page 252).
That last quote came from Volume 2 of the Studies in the Scriptures, which is titled The Time Is At Hand. There you have in the very title of the book part two of Jesus predictive warning.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Brainwashing
There is a psychological term for this gradual acceptance of something that would not otherwise be believed. It is cognitive dissonance theory. Leon Festinger described it in his book When Prophecy Fails. Festinger described three elements of social psychology, and behavior modification techniques, at work in group dynamics, and in the case described in his book, a cult milieu.
He said that if you can control Behavior, Thought, and Emotions, and, you can get a group of people to do very bizarre and wrong things. Festinger said that if one of the three elements is changed the other two would be powerfully influenced to come into agreement with it. People don’t like being hypocritical, after all. Steven Hassan, author of Combating Cult Mind Control, added a fourth criterion, Information, for the acronym BITE.
When someone is recruited into a mind-controlling cult their behavior and personality begin to change dramatically. Someone who has known this person for years will be struck with the significance of the change and comment that “they are just not the person I used to know. What happened?” It is commonly called brainwashing, but is also known as mind control and thought reform.
New recruits to totalistic groups experience this “thought reform” as the starting point in behavior modification. It begins with acceptance of a totally new premise underlying the cult worldview. That premise could be that all of current Christianity is apostate necessitating a restoration. Or, it could be that God only speaks to and through a particular chosen leader and you must listen to him to hear God. This premise then becomes the foundation that must be laid for the acceptance of the teachings and practices espoused by the group. If you have accepted the premise then follow-through on the secondary teachings and life style practices must follow or the recruit will be in a continual state of cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy, in layman’s terms.
The antidote to this process is truth, unimpeachably presented. When a cultist sees the truth as truth then a similar process by which he was recruited begins to set him free. He doesn’t want to by a hypocrite after all.
He said that if you can control Behavior, Thought, and Emotions, and, you can get a group of people to do very bizarre and wrong things. Festinger said that if one of the three elements is changed the other two would be powerfully influenced to come into agreement with it. People don’t like being hypocritical, after all. Steven Hassan, author of Combating Cult Mind Control, added a fourth criterion, Information, for the acronym BITE.
When someone is recruited into a mind-controlling cult their behavior and personality begin to change dramatically. Someone who has known this person for years will be struck with the significance of the change and comment that “they are just not the person I used to know. What happened?” It is commonly called brainwashing, but is also known as mind control and thought reform.
New recruits to totalistic groups experience this “thought reform” as the starting point in behavior modification. It begins with acceptance of a totally new premise underlying the cult worldview. That premise could be that all of current Christianity is apostate necessitating a restoration. Or, it could be that God only speaks to and through a particular chosen leader and you must listen to him to hear God. This premise then becomes the foundation that must be laid for the acceptance of the teachings and practices espoused by the group. If you have accepted the premise then follow-through on the secondary teachings and life style practices must follow or the recruit will be in a continual state of cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy, in layman’s terms.
The elements of thought reform or mind control were laid out in the research of Dr. Robert J. Lifton who studied the returning POWs after the Korean War.
Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria of Mind Control
Milieu Control – the control of the environment including information, associations, time, and energy work to exclude any opportunity for opposition while also promoting the ‘party line’.
Mystical Manipulation – this is the ‘higher calling’ for the follower to be a part of a utopian goal which requires his full devotion. The followers see the leaders as having achieved this higher calling hence they are worthy to be followed.
The Demand For Purity – the utopian goal can only be achieved by purity of devotion. Any failure to succeed means impurity exists somewhere and will be searched out by those in control.
The Cult of Confession – Failure to succeed means confessions must be made. Any weakness or failures, real or perceived, are to be confessed for the sake of the group. Even confessions where no wrong was actually done can spur the group to more purity.
The Sacred Science – The ideology, doctrine and mission of the group are so sacred that they must not be doubted or questioned. To do so is one of the worst offenses possible. However, without the option of questioning, a lie cannot be uncovered.
Loading the Language – Certain words and phrases are so loaded with meaning that stark choices are implied leading to the end of critical thinking.
Doctrine Over Person – What you see, hear or think is irrelevant in the face of the group’s doctrine. You must submerge your opinions in the group’s worldview.
The Dispensing of Existence – Only those who are committed to the group are valued. Those who oppose or betray the group can be dismissed, defamed, disfellowshipped, or killed.
Conclusion:
Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria of Mind Control
Milieu Control – the control of the environment including information, associations, time, and energy work to exclude any opportunity for opposition while also promoting the ‘party line’.
Mystical Manipulation – this is the ‘higher calling’ for the follower to be a part of a utopian goal which requires his full devotion. The followers see the leaders as having achieved this higher calling hence they are worthy to be followed.
The Demand For Purity – the utopian goal can only be achieved by purity of devotion. Any failure to succeed means impurity exists somewhere and will be searched out by those in control.
The Cult of Confession – Failure to succeed means confessions must be made. Any weakness or failures, real or perceived, are to be confessed for the sake of the group. Even confessions where no wrong was actually done can spur the group to more purity.
The Sacred Science – The ideology, doctrine and mission of the group are so sacred that they must not be doubted or questioned. To do so is one of the worst offenses possible. However, without the option of questioning, a lie cannot be uncovered.
Loading the Language – Certain words and phrases are so loaded with meaning that stark choices are implied leading to the end of critical thinking.
Doctrine Over Person – What you see, hear or think is irrelevant in the face of the group’s doctrine. You must submerge your opinions in the group’s worldview.
The Dispensing of Existence – Only those who are committed to the group are valued. Those who oppose or betray the group can be dismissed, defamed, disfellowshipped, or killed.
Conclusion:
The antidote to this process is truth, unimpeachably presented. When a cultist sees the truth as truth then a similar process by which he was recruited begins to set him free. He doesn’t want to by a hypocrite after all.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Arianism and Jehovah's Witnesses
Arianism, as it is called, was first promulgated by Arius, Presbyter of Alexandria, in the Fourth century AD. In his motivation to understand the nature of God Arius began with the Gnostic assumptions common to his time and place. One of the common assumptions of Gnosticism is that God, Who is spirit, is utterly holy but the material creation is utterly unholy. Gnostics held that these two could not come into direct contact. Therefore, when God wanted a “savior” for the world His solution was an “emanation” from Himself, that was sufficiently distant from Him that is wasn’t Him, but His emanation, that made contact with the unholy world. This Gnostic assumption therefore required that Jesus could not be fully God. He must therefore be a created god.
This view, minus the Gnostic assumptions, is held today by two modern cults, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and all their splinter groups, and The Way International.
Arianism was one reaction to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Another heresy in the theological stew of that time was the Sabellian, or modalist, view of the Three in One nature of God. The Trinity is a mystery and therefore generates attempts to solve the mystery. The Sabellians concluded that the Three Persons were simply three manifestations of One Person. At one time God is the Father, at another time He is the Son, and at another He is the Spirit. But this heresy says that God is not three Persons simultaneously. Modalism is held today by the United Pentecostals and is commonly called the "Jesus Only" doctrine. This is a denial of the Unity of God in favor of the Oneness of God. The Arians were at the other end by denying the Oneness of God in favor of the three. The Son and Holy Spirit were held by many Arians to be lesser deities, and hence, they ceased to be monotheistic.
The Trinity was the view of God held by the vast majority of believers since the time of the Apostles. Various heresies came along to challenge orthodoxy but did not have the staying power of truth itself. When Arianism came on the scene it was quite successful in capturing the belief of many people.
It also came at a time when a new Roman Emperor, Constantine, was trying to unify his empire and religious division was one of the large problems he wanted resolved. This set the stage for some great theological debates between Arius and Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. At different times Arius was in the ascendancy and had the favor of Constantine who sent Athanasius into exile. At another time it was the reverse. It finally came to the Church Council at Nicaea and the Nicene Creed adopted in 325 AD. This creed rejected Arianism and affirmed the Trinitarian orthodoxy.
Arianism divided the Church for half a century. After its defeat at the Nicene Council it faded in influence. Today the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the chief proponents of the Arian view that Jesus is a created, or lesser, god. The Way International goes further than either Arius or the Watchtower Society. They hold that Jesus did not pre-exist his earthly life, nor do they affirm the lesser deity of Jesus.
The Bible is clear that Jesus is fully God with the Father and Holy Spirit. Nothing could be more explicit than John 1:1, which says, “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus existing eternally with the Father in eternity past) and the Word was with God (the Father and Holy Spirit, two Persons of the Trinity, and showing plurality of Persons in the Godhead) and the Word was God (deity, of the same divine substance with the Father).”
Friday, February 19, 2010
Book of Mormon Contradicts Bible
Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon “the most correct of any book on earth” (Introduction to the Book of Mormon). That means it is superior in its accuracy to the Bible, according to the LDS church. When confronted with a contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon a Latter-day Saint will prefer the Book of Mormon. However, there is one contradiction that Mormons recognize but try to justify. That pertains to the place of Jesus’ birth. Was he born in Bethlehem? Or, in Jerusalem? Christians and the Bible agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. History corroborates this as well.
Micah 5:2 says, “But thou Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
In the Book of Mormon, Alma 7:10 says, “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel…”
This is a clear contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Mormons will try to say that Bethlehem, just five miles from Jerusalem, is “in the land of” Jerusalem, a major city. But the Bible calls Bethlehem “in the land of Judah,” not the land of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, too, was “in the land of“ Judah.
Matthew 2:1-8 describes the meeting between Herod and the Wise Men from the East. Herod, upon hearing that the Messiah, the “King” of Israel, was born asked religious leaders where this was to occur. He was told “Bethlehem, in the land of Judah” (vs. 6).
In this same passage you have both Jerusalem and Bethlehem mentioned. There is no confusion or mixing of the locale as if to generalize the location. They are discussed as different places in the context of Jesus’ birth. It is very specific. The question for a Mormon is which is he going to believe? The Mormon will most likely believe the Book of Mormon because he has been taught that the Bible has been tampered with and is not fully reliable. However, in this case the Bible is the valid record because of Old Testament prophecy that specifically identified Bethlehem as the Messiah’s birthplace, not Jerusalem.
In a historically Christian nation where we all sing the words “O little town of Bethlehem” from the Silent Night Christmas carol the sense of contradiction is abundantly obvious.
Micah 5:2 says, “But thou Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
In the Book of Mormon, Alma 7:10 says, “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel…”
This is a clear contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Mormons will try to say that Bethlehem, just five miles from Jerusalem, is “in the land of” Jerusalem, a major city. But the Bible calls Bethlehem “in the land of Judah,” not the land of Jerusalem. Jerusalem, too, was “in the land of“ Judah.
Matthew 2:1-8 describes the meeting between Herod and the Wise Men from the East. Herod, upon hearing that the Messiah, the “King” of Israel, was born asked religious leaders where this was to occur. He was told “Bethlehem, in the land of Judah” (vs. 6).
In this same passage you have both Jerusalem and Bethlehem mentioned. There is no confusion or mixing of the locale as if to generalize the location. They are discussed as different places in the context of Jesus’ birth. It is very specific. The question for a Mormon is which is he going to believe? The Mormon will most likely believe the Book of Mormon because he has been taught that the Bible has been tampered with and is not fully reliable. However, in this case the Bible is the valid record because of Old Testament prophecy that specifically identified Bethlehem as the Messiah’s birthplace, not Jerusalem.
In a historically Christian nation where we all sing the words “O little town of Bethlehem” from the Silent Night Christmas carol the sense of contradiction is abundantly obvious.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Why Samaria?
“…and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
Have you ever wondered why Jesus included Samaria in this text? Probably not. It is easy to assume that Jesus is simply expanding the geography of the disciples’ witness of Him. And that is true. The gospel began with the Jews but was quickly taken to the Gentiles as well. The Apostle Paul would go first to the synagogue to present the gospel to the Jews then to the Gentiles. But why did Jesus include the Samaritans? Is there some reason they are listed rather than some other nearby ethnic group or geographic direction?
Here is another thought to consider. The Samaritans were a cult arising out of Judaism. They were Jews who had intermarried with non-Jews in the eighth century BC. They also moved their worship of God from Jerusalem to Mt. Gerizim against the commands of Yahweh. They still exist today in a village called Kiryat Luza on the side of Mt. Gerizim. They are a small sect of seven hundred adherents who hold to the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. Like most cults they claim to be the true followers of Moses and the Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity brought back with them a corrupted Judaism. Most cults claim to be this pure “one true” version of the group from which they split.
To some extent Jesus was telling his disciples to carry the gospel to those from whom they were alienated, heretics of their own faith. Today Christians have the same situation with the pseudo-Christian cults. Besides the fact that they are sinners like everyone else they are also exerting great efforts to convert people to their “one true Christianity“ with “another” Jesus and “another” gospel.
They come to our doorstep with God’s Name on their lips and God’s Word in their hands. What will we do with them in our effort to reach the world with the gospel? In Jesus’ day the Jews would take the long route around Samaria to avoid the Samaritans. Today Christians don’t answer the door or say they are happy in their faith but fail to give a witness. Will we take the long route around this modern “Samaria” to avoid them as the Jews did in Jesus’ day? Or, will we face the cultists as Jesus would have us do?
Watchman Fellowship exists to guide Christians through this modern Samaria rather than around it. We publish our literature and present our seminars to help you through these difficult encounters. Contact us if you want more information.
Have you ever wondered why Jesus included Samaria in this text? Probably not. It is easy to assume that Jesus is simply expanding the geography of the disciples’ witness of Him. And that is true. The gospel began with the Jews but was quickly taken to the Gentiles as well. The Apostle Paul would go first to the synagogue to present the gospel to the Jews then to the Gentiles. But why did Jesus include the Samaritans? Is there some reason they are listed rather than some other nearby ethnic group or geographic direction?
Here is another thought to consider. The Samaritans were a cult arising out of Judaism. They were Jews who had intermarried with non-Jews in the eighth century BC. They also moved their worship of God from Jerusalem to Mt. Gerizim against the commands of Yahweh. They still exist today in a village called Kiryat Luza on the side of Mt. Gerizim. They are a small sect of seven hundred adherents who hold to the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. Like most cults they claim to be the true followers of Moses and the Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity brought back with them a corrupted Judaism. Most cults claim to be this pure “one true” version of the group from which they split.
To some extent Jesus was telling his disciples to carry the gospel to those from whom they were alienated, heretics of their own faith. Today Christians have the same situation with the pseudo-Christian cults. Besides the fact that they are sinners like everyone else they are also exerting great efforts to convert people to their “one true Christianity“ with “another” Jesus and “another” gospel.
They come to our doorstep with God’s Name on their lips and God’s Word in their hands. What will we do with them in our effort to reach the world with the gospel? In Jesus’ day the Jews would take the long route around Samaria to avoid the Samaritans. Today Christians don’t answer the door or say they are happy in their faith but fail to give a witness. Will we take the long route around this modern “Samaria” to avoid them as the Jews did in Jesus’ day? Or, will we face the cultists as Jesus would have us do?
Watchman Fellowship exists to guide Christians through this modern Samaria rather than around it. We publish our literature and present our seminars to help you through these difficult encounters. Contact us if you want more information.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Who Joins Spiritually Abusive Groups?
I regularly check for cult related news at a rather unique website. You can check it too at this link. http://www.cultnews.net/
One of the things I hate to see when I go there is under the title “Clergy Abuse.” Most of the news in this category is sexual abuse but other forms also show up occasionally.
If you have not experienced spiritual abuse personally thank God for it. You probably wonder how people get caught in something so obviously bad for them. Its not easy but it extremely common. Spiritual abuse grows out of a seedbed of legalism, a performance-based relationship with God. This leads to a focus on the external, or what is visible and can be checked by others. This is what Jesus referred to in the Pharisees as “whited sepulchers.” When our relationship with God can be reduced to the external it is probably accompanied with a person or group that reinforces that view.
Anyone who has experienced this abuse needs to know three things. First, recovery can be found. Second, when you have recovered, give from your experience to others who are struggling with abuse and legalism to help them find hope again. And third, thank God for your experience (and the recovery) because you will then be a much stronger, and wiser Christian whom God will use to heal His wounded sheep.
My workbook on Spiritual Abuse Recovery was dedicated “to the ‘Wounded Sheep’ who just wanted to serve God and please Him.” I have excerpted part of Chapter Two below to provide some insight into why this is a growing, and unrecognized, problem.
Chapter Two: Who Joins Abusive Groups?
“Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”
G.K. Chesterton
The question of who joins high control religious groups seems like it would have a simple answer. It does not. Nor is there a simple answer to how it happens.
The starting place should be the question of what disposes a person to spiritual abuse? Why is a person vulnerable? What differences in people make one vulnerable and another not so vulnerable? I would love to know your answers to these questions but here is a list that may help you think it through.
Which of these statements fit you?
1) I had a lack of knowledge of the Bible.
2) I was raised in an abusive family or church so I didn’t know the difference.
3) I was not sufficiently strong in critical thinking skills or will power.
4) I came to Christ through the abusive group’s influence.
5) I was like the frog in the kettle where things changed so gradually I didn’t notice until it was too late.
6) I am easily led, or I want someone to take the lead for me….
…. People who were raised in families where dysfunction was the norm may gravitate toward a church that is like their family of origin. It’s all they know. It’s the familiar rut with an accepted comfort level. The way to break out of such a rut is exposure to a much more gracious culture. Hopefully the contrast will stir a hunger for grace and not performance. This is what the people in the Bible who knew they were sinners saw in Jesus. They contrasted Him to the self-righteous Pharisees and knew instantly that Jesus was someone to listen to.
If you would like to obtain a copy of the Spiritual Abuse Recovery workbook send me an email at the address on this blog. I will tell you how you can receive it.
One of the things I hate to see when I go there is under the title “Clergy Abuse.” Most of the news in this category is sexual abuse but other forms also show up occasionally.
If you have not experienced spiritual abuse personally thank God for it. You probably wonder how people get caught in something so obviously bad for them. Its not easy but it extremely common. Spiritual abuse grows out of a seedbed of legalism, a performance-based relationship with God. This leads to a focus on the external, or what is visible and can be checked by others. This is what Jesus referred to in the Pharisees as “whited sepulchers.” When our relationship with God can be reduced to the external it is probably accompanied with a person or group that reinforces that view.
Anyone who has experienced this abuse needs to know three things. First, recovery can be found. Second, when you have recovered, give from your experience to others who are struggling with abuse and legalism to help them find hope again. And third, thank God for your experience (and the recovery) because you will then be a much stronger, and wiser Christian whom God will use to heal His wounded sheep.
My workbook on Spiritual Abuse Recovery was dedicated “to the ‘Wounded Sheep’ who just wanted to serve God and please Him.” I have excerpted part of Chapter Two below to provide some insight into why this is a growing, and unrecognized, problem.
Chapter Two: Who Joins Abusive Groups?
“Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”
G.K. Chesterton
The question of who joins high control religious groups seems like it would have a simple answer. It does not. Nor is there a simple answer to how it happens.
The starting place should be the question of what disposes a person to spiritual abuse? Why is a person vulnerable? What differences in people make one vulnerable and another not so vulnerable? I would love to know your answers to these questions but here is a list that may help you think it through.
Which of these statements fit you?
1) I had a lack of knowledge of the Bible.
2) I was raised in an abusive family or church so I didn’t know the difference.
3) I was not sufficiently strong in critical thinking skills or will power.
4) I came to Christ through the abusive group’s influence.
5) I was like the frog in the kettle where things changed so gradually I didn’t notice until it was too late.
6) I am easily led, or I want someone to take the lead for me….
…. People who were raised in families where dysfunction was the norm may gravitate toward a church that is like their family of origin. It’s all they know. It’s the familiar rut with an accepted comfort level. The way to break out of such a rut is exposure to a much more gracious culture. Hopefully the contrast will stir a hunger for grace and not performance. This is what the people in the Bible who knew they were sinners saw in Jesus. They contrasted Him to the self-righteous Pharisees and knew instantly that Jesus was someone to listen to.
If you would like to obtain a copy of the Spiritual Abuse Recovery workbook send me an email at the address on this blog. I will tell you how you can receive it.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Questions to Ask a Mormon
A scene from a Star Trek episode finds Captain Kirk posing questions to a computer that is determined to exterminate all carbon-based life forms. Kirk poses a question to the computer that the computer cannot resolve. Finally, the computer begins repeating the phrase, “More data please. It does not compute. It does not compute….” Kirk’s questions cause the computer to lock up in a never-ending struggle to resolve the logical conflict.
Mormons are not computers or Star Trek aliens. They are not like the Romulans, Klingons or Ferengi. I have already linked those alien species to other cult groups. :-)
On the other hand the use of a question can highlight a logical fallacy for any cultist. It can send the mind into what is called cognitive dissonance, a state of confusion caused by the perception of two conflicting truths. The resolution is found only in the acceptance of one and the dismissal of the other.
There is a significant problem, however, in using logical arguments with Mormons. They do not decide what is true on the basis of logic. They determine the truth of Mormonism by prayer. In the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:4) an “investigator” is challenged to read the book of Mormon and pray that God will show the truth of it. To a Mormon the proof is in a subjective “burning in the bosom” response to their reading. This is a physical/emotional/spiritual experience. Those Mormons who have experienced it have a stronger resistance to objective evidences. That is not to say that objective evidences, or logic, are worthless because God opens the closed mind. We are simply to present the truth and leave its impact to Him.
The Objective Challenge
Though Mormons test truth by prayer Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth President of the LDS church, gave an objective criteria for determining the truth or fallacy of Mormonism. He said in his book Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 188,
“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures.”
The “accepted standards of measurement” have always been objective. They include the written revelation of God in the Bible, the natural revelation in His creation, and a rational mind that can logically weigh evidences. When the Holy Spirit speaks to the human heart His words will always be in agreement with those objective evidences. Though prayer is good it is not one of the “accepted standards of measurement” because Satan can impersonate the Holy Spirit through what the Bible calls “seducing spirits”. This presents us with the first question to ask a Mormon.
Questions About The Book of Mormon
If you have a “testimony” of the truth of the Book of Mormon how do you know it is not from a “seducing spirit” (see 1 Timothy 4:1)? Would not a “seducing spirit” be seductive, or in other words, feel good?
Why rely on a subjective test when the Biblical test of truth claims were always objective? Isaiah 8:20 “To the law and to the testimony (scripture up to that time) if they speak not according to this word there is no truth in them.”
Aren’t the scriptures “the accepted standards of measurement” according to Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation (quoted above)?
Do you know that the Muslim scripture, the Koran, is not scripture? How do you know? Have you read it and asked God sincerely whether it is true or not? Or, is it not true because you know it teaches doctrines that are not true? Isn’t that why the Book of Mormon should be tested by the same criteria, the “accepted standards of measurement,” the scriptures?
Next time you have a couple young missionaries at your door thank them for coming and say, “I’m glad you’re here. I’ve had some questions I have wanted to ask. Let me get them (print this out and put it in your Bible).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)