So then brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh---for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba Father!" The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.
Message: Literal or Metaphor - Finding Meaning
What the Lord is Saying: It is Friday morning, June 19, 2026. Juneteenth and as such a holiday for me, though I may still work some today. In the past 48 hours, in the midst of everything else going on in my life, on Thursday, I was directed to a video by Youtube in which a Mormon podcaster (opinion writer) is responding to a video by Allie Beth Stuckey in which she states that Mormons are not Christian. This isn't anything unusual for Allie Beth, but that video did get the ire of this Mormon podcaster and others as someone who represents Christianity is not backing down but being specific about Mormons not being including in the list of Christian denominations by a Department of Defense list on June 4, 2026 which was listing religious preference codes for military personnel. The DOD then revised that announcement on June 8, 2026, not by including Mormons as Christians, but simply listing all denominations separately.
The first Mormon podcaster video was by a guy that had previously been on Allie Beth Stuckey's show that was labeled as a debate. I ended up posting a comment on the Mormon Podcaster's video page. As a note, I have been conversing with Mormons off and on over the last couple of years, meeting with them regularly, trying to understand first hand their beliefs. The conversations have been beneficial but a labor as it has been somewhat difficult to nail down their beliefs in person and in subsequent visits with other missionaries or other members of the LDS church pulled into the discussion, often as a mention what I learned previously, I am corrected. Now from their standpoint, they seem to know exactly where I stand in my beliefs as they are quick to agree with everything I state, and their beliefs are simply add-on's or upgrades. They often speak of my faith (and every other faith system) having partial truth or understanding and they have the full picture.
Here is my comment:
Well, Find me a Christian that believes:
- Children in Romans 8:16 is not a metaphor
- that non-Christians can go to heaven
- hold to an after life Spirit School World that gives everyone an opportunity to know CJCLDS / JS true prophet is really the only way
- that studies the New Testament corporately in their church once every 4 years
- that happiness is the object and design of our existence
This isn't simply 'full' vs 'partial' -- no, this is different and different is not Christian at least according to our definition, but hey, the definition for heaven, gospel, salvation, God, Jesus, Fall - are all different so why not Christian.
Now, you all definitely have the good works and God definitely wants us to do good deeds, so here's hoping for your sake that good works (after all we can do) and atonement work collaboratively instead of good works being the natural response of the person saved by grace.
Granted, my comment was a jab. While Allie Beth focused on Trinity and Baptism and the podcaster did an admirable job defending those remarks, I felt like putting forth some items that I see as clear differences that separate the faiths and whereby I don't think that LDS theology is an upgrade.
Thus far, no one has commented on my post.
Later on, on the same page, I saw this comment: "If there was no Apostasy, then there is no need for the Protestant church, but if there was an Apostasy, then the Protestant church was built on that Apostasy." This is defending the Apostasy idea. I took a moment to look up Apostasy definition and it that definition speaks to renunciation of a religion. Yet, it seems the reformation didn't want to wash away the previous faith, just remove the idea that grace and works have sort of a handshake relationship in resulting in salvation. Thus my comment in response stated, "That is true. The Protestant church argued that the Catholic Church had replaced grace alone thinking with grace plus works (i.e. after all we can do)." I have since received 4 likes for this post and my guess is people don't understand that I am one again, making a dig in stating that by defending the notion of apostasy it is ironic because the Reformation wanted to move beyond grace + works and then Joseph Smith brought the idea back. But my comment is sort of cryptic.
That was Wednesday. On Thursday evening, at home, I saw a different LDS video podcaster. This one was more of a group mentality and was basically a roundtable discussion on defending LDS as Christian again in response to Allie Beth's most recent comment regarding DOD"s first announcement. I got through most of it. These guys or more contemporary, young, and their banter is appealing. Initially, I took some notes:
- 14:08 - The host wonders if the BOM presents a gospel that usurps Allie Beth's comments of the previous gospel found in the NT. This is an interesting question as Allie Beth didn't call out the Book of Mormon but rather stated "What Mormons Believe." But the host focuses instead on the words of the Book of Mormon. I thought this was noteworthy because the Book of Mormon is not really a book that in general differentiates too much from the Bible. It is recorded that 1 in 12 chapters of the Book of Mormon and 1 in 7 verses are directly pulled from Joseph Smith's reading of the KJV. Thus, it might be easy to link the central concept of the gospel of Mormonism to the NT, but the fullness of the gospel goes way beyond the verses of the New Testament.
- 19:03 - Here the hosts focus on the ideas of central and secondary. Good points. But then he starts to go in a familiar direction that Protestants aren't correct on the gospel as the New Testament presents it mentioning that faith alone originated in the Reformation and the previous faith thinkers did not hold to justification by faith alone, but instead justification and sanctification worked in tandem. This is a bold statement and not sure if it is true. Thinkers like Clement of Rome and John Chrysostom did write of justification by faith alone. And it is hard to dispute the verses of Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:28 when looking at those verses alone.
That said, I awoke this morning with the video on my thoughts. I thought of adding this comment to the video: "You asked for comments from those not of 'The Church." I am not. In listening to your rebuttal it seems that on one hand you are stating that a Christian can simply be defined as a follower of Christ. Then later differentiating between central (I Cor. 15:1-4) and secondary (how it is received) definitions. In the secondary, then stating Protestants aren't even operating in the way Christ or the NT writers and early century believers practiced. Yet, still feeling a need to be under the umbrella of the Christian definition (which is predominantly post-Reformation denominations) and taking offense at anyone who might say otherwise. Why? Is it because Christians by their number represent the majority and Mormons one of the many minorities? Perhaps there is an agenda to align and then eventually show you are the only true Christian's? No faith system has a goal to simply play in the same sandbox but rather to be top dog."
Now, this morning in my daily quiet time I took time to first read Psalm 104, rally enjoying some of the metaphors as I am giving a lesson on July 5 in Sunday School on metaphors and preparing for that lesson, but also just really taken aback by this passage, thinking simply how God designed and ordained creation for us, for people. Even verse 15, "and food which sustains man's heart." And in response the writer praises God.
But then I turned to Romans 8, wanting to examine the metaphor I called attention to in verse 16. I took time to start with verse 1. Wow. These are some amazing verses. The first 11 verses speak of walking in the Spirit and "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." We must have the Spirit of Christ. But then in verse 12-17 states in verse 14, "all who are being led by the Spirit of God; these are the sons of God." The overwhelming theological interpretation of sons is that this is a metaphor. Then in verse 16 is "children of God" also a metaphor. The LDS folks believe this is literal. It struck me this morning, sitting under the Pergola the idea that these two beliefs are so sharply divided on interpretation. It saddens me. The division that is present.
On one hand, questions like this simply rouse up two different camps. LDS I am sure has many professors, teachers, expositors that can defend their literal take, while non-LDS will have many to support this as a metaphor. The consequences or ramifications are plentiful. Both sides will claim the other is blinded to one perspective.
Prayer: Lord, I look at these texts and thank you for them and yet hurt for the differences. I am reminded of your words to Paul in verse 7 that the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God. Help us all God to discern truth in this world that seems so confusing and has so many voices and help me to know how to keep my blinders on. On one hand I love the apologetics talk, but at times I struggle with it in a might way. Sometimes Lord I feel like I descend down rabbit trails and my brain is getting mixed up. Keep me anchored Lord and help me maybe to turn off the other views.
Note: If you are interested in other studies/devotions, check out my index of Bible Study's.
No comments:
Post a Comment