|
|
 Several months ago, Amy Schulz Johnson, daughter of Charles Schulz, the famous Peanuts cartoonist, had THIS to say regarding her interfaith relationship with her dad:
"Concerning my membership in the LDS church (Mormons) it was asked of me whether my dad and I had many discussions about religion. Ironically, we did not ever discuss religion. This is why: my dad spent a great deal of his life studying the Bible. I have images of him sitting in his big, yellow chair, reading the scriptures and marking them extensively. He taught Sunday school for 12 years out in Sebastopol, not to mention his involvement with the Church of God in Minnesota. When I told him that I was joining the Mormon church, I knew that it was a church he did not believe in at all. Because of the wonderful relationship we had with each other, it was instinctive of us to know that discussing religion would not do either one of us any good. I had WAY too much for respect for dad’s religious knowledge and he had WAY too much love for me, his daughter, to ever say anything. We never wanted to hurt one another."
Schulz loved his daughter too much to ever say anything to her? Of course, it is always possible that Schulz really did love his daughter and was not aware of the heretical nature of Mormonism. After all, Mormons do a good job at hiding what they really believe about the fundamentals of their faith (see “Lying for the Lord”). The problem with this possibility, though, is that Schulz's daughter stated that her father did not believe in the Mormon Church "at all."
It is also possible that Schulz regarded religion as merely a subjective truth. A subjective truth depends on the individual. An objective truth is true regardless of the individual. For example, for me, it is a subjective truth that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. For my wife, the opposite is true. It depends on the individual. For those who regard religion as merely a subjective truth, in us God lives and moves, and has His being. As such, subjectivists would never argue about which religion is true. If people don’t like what we like, there is no sense in forcing the issue. It would be as silly for me to argue with my wife over what flavor of ice cream is better. Subjectivists advocate learning to tolerate and celebrate the diversity of our beliefs.
Well, at least tolerate and celebrate diversity to the extent that most of us like. I wonder if Schulz would have said anything to his daughter if she joined the Branch Davidians, for example. One may argue that surely he would have warned her given the hindsight of their mass suicide. Any loving father would have to warn his child of such danger. But in a certain sense, those who join any false religion are committing mass suicide. They reject what may be objectively known of God, pursue their own lusts, and thereby experience eternal judgment (cf. ROMANS 1:18-32). If committing physical mass suicide is considered objectively wrong and excludes a religion from being thought of in merely subjective terms, then committing spiritual mass suicide should also be thought of as objectively wrong. To allow only for the physical would be special pleading against the spiritual.
If it is the case that a religion may be spiritually objectively wrong, then if Schulz was informed as to the heretical nature of Mormonism, he had a moral duty to warn his daughter. To do otherwise is to demonstrate, not love, but hate.
R. M. Sivulka
President, Courageous Christians United
[email protected]
|
| |  | | lamar says... () | | "You seem so sure of yourself. What if the mormons are right? You know you only have one chance, you have been given the opportunity, don't waste it." (6/21/08) |
| Rob Sivulka says... () | | "Mormons *could be* right. The problem is the evidence is really stacked against it. I don't have any good reason to believe it. Alma 34:32-35 is clear that you only get this life to prepare to meet God. Have you done all you could do (2 Nephi 25:23)? If you're right, I get the second heaven. But if I'm right, Mormons get hell for eternity." (6/23/08) |
| Pilar says... () | | "Maybe none of you are right and that is why Charles Schulz remained quiet. Comparing Mormonism to BD is ridiculous." (12/23/14) |
| Richkw says... () | | "The Mormons are wrong. Humans don't become gods of their own planets one day " (7/23/15) |
| Richkw says... () | | "The Mormons are wrong. Humans don't become gods of their own planets one day " (7/23/15) |
| John Michael Bond says... () | | "One could go so far as to say that Nicene based Christianity is also heretical, if coming from the Jews that chose not to accept an advancement in the knowledge of the Lord and His Father in Heaven. Just because it is not your way of believing in Christ, doesnt mean it is heretic. After all, Christianity is a heretic religion to the Jews. It is all a matter of what perspective you are willing to look at God from, for none of us truly KNOW God first hand. If we did, there would be no need for FAITH. Either way you choose to look at your neighbors as yourself, we are all children of our Heavenly Father, and for that, I can only love you for loving God. After all, it is a commandment if not a required condition of the heart in Christ. You may judge by the fruits to know of the spirit of another for actions speak louder than words. " (10/29/15) |
| Fred W. Anson says... () | | "@John Michael Bond
Simply put, this argument makes absolutely no sense.
First, Christianitity had already split from Judaism and had become a distinct religion LONG (as in hundreds of years) prior to Nicea. Generally speaking this occurred after the destruction of Herod's Temple around 70AD and Nicea occurred in 325AD. Suffice to say that by the end of the First Century AD Judaism and Christianity were distinct and separate religions. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism) This fact makes your argument an irrelevant straw man. Sorry.
So the Jews thought that the Christians were heretics - so what? The simple fact is Christians weren't looking to the Jews to establish orthodoxy, they simply didn't care what they thought. Nor did the Early Christians claim to be Jews as Mormons claim to be Christian so your argument is a double straw man relative to the modern situation with Mormonism - it's apples and oranges Mr. Bond.
Second, while the issues surrounding the split are numerous and complex none of them involved the issue of the Triunity of God, the nature of Jesus Christ or any of the other issues that were discussed and hammered out at Nicea (see http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/) were of ANY interest to the Jews. So drawing the line at Nicea is just ridiculous, utterly ridiculous - it's a non-squitur.
Third, if Mormons would cease and desist in calling themselves "Christian" and acknowledge that they are a distinct religion like the Early Christians did we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I wrote about that in this article: http://beggarsbread.org/2012/01/01/if-mormonism-isnt-christian-then-what-is-it/ I would ask the reader to consider it in light of this discussion. You're Mormons not Christians - own it.
Finally, I found your final appeal amusing since the LdS Church literally has an army of missionaries on the streets trying to reach and convert "apostates" with their unheretical (by their standards), restored, Mormon gospel. Applying the same standard that you have applied with Mr. Sivulka are we to believe that they DON'T love their neighbor? That their fruit ISN'T love? Should we assume that their actions are driven by another spirit? That they DON'T have the heart of Christ? What about your comment, ditto there Mr. Bond?
Sir, that sword cuts both ways - you can't use it on Mr. Sivulka and then be surprised when you get nicked by it yourself.
Thank you. " (10/29/15) |
| Lindsay says... () | | "We are not Mormons. We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ. If you knew anything about what we believe in and how we live and serve others, we are indeed Christians because the actually meaning of The Greek word “Christianos” is “follower of Christ”. And everything we stand for and believe in, Christ is indeed the center of it all. So next time before you start labeling us you should really read up on your facts. Just like the fundamentalist Mormons are not of the mainstream church. Like united Methodist church was founded in the 18th century. And baptist church was founded in the 17th century etc. the church of Jesus Christ was restored not founded. If you actually read the New Testament, Jesus Christ left his apostles to teach the gospel without him. And each apostle was killed off and that left everyone who was taught it to teach only what they could. After the apostles were killed off that’s when that dispensation ended leaving people to only interpret the gospel how they thought it meant which makes Catholism untrue. Because Christ’s church was taken from the world which left it no more until it was time for it to be restored when Christ knew the world would be ready and the gospel that is taught is everything exact that Jesus Christ taught. Members of any church are not perfect but Jesus christ’s Gospel is. And your intellect is as small as a seed but apparently you know nothing about Christ and also don’t know Him. " (11/26/19) |
| Fred W Anson says... () | | "@Lindsay you wrote, "We are not Mormons. We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ."
Oops, you left off the rest per D&C 115:4: of Latter-day Saints" didn't you?
And, apparently, every Prophet of the LdS Church prior to President Nelson declaring it anathema didn't get that memo about not using the word "Mormon" and its various variations did they? Especially this guy (caps added for emphasis):
‘“Look,” he went on to say, “if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name MORMON. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘MORMON means more good.’”
(Joseph Smith, “Correspondence”, Times and Seasons, May 15, 1843, 4:194; also see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299–300)
“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘MORMON,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul—civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race.”
(Joseph Smith, “History of the Church”, 5:498–99; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 9, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Willard Richards)
“The inquiry is frequently made of me, “Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?” In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of “MORMONISM” is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”
(Joseph Smith, “Sunday , July 9, 1843 – Meeting in the Grove”, “History of The Church”, 5:499)
Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “MORMONS.”‘
(Joseph Smith, “Discourse — Burden of the Prophet’s Ministry — Friendship”, “History of the Church”, 5:517); also see “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p.316)
“Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of “MORMONISM“; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers. Even the wolf and the lamb shall dwell together; the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf, the young lion and the fatling; and a little child shall lead them; the bear and the cow shall lie down together, and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall play on the cockatrice’s den; and they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountains, saith the Lord of hosts. (Isaiah.)”
(Joseph Smith, “Discourse — Burden of the Prophet’s Ministry — Friendship”, “History of the Church”, 5:517)
“MORMONISM is truth; and every man who embraced it felt himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, falls at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth…
MORMONISM is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, is truth…. [Y]ou may think that it is a broad assertion that it is truth; but … the first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same; we feel" (11/27/19) |
| Fred W Anson says... () | | "@Lindsay wrote, “Just like the fundamentalist Mormons are not of the mainstream church.”
Let me get this straight . . .
They have exactly the same creedal confession that the Salt Lake City, Brighamite Latter-day Saint denomination does; they have the same body of scripture that they do, and; they follow D&C 132 more faithfully than the Brighamite denomination does, but they’re not Mormons?
Could you explain the logic that they’re NOT Mormons to us, Lindsay?
@Lindsay wrote, “Like united Methodist church was founded in the 18th century. And baptist church was founded in the 17th century etc.”
And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint was FOUNDED in the 19th Century on April 6, 1930 by Joseph Smith in Lafayette, New York, wasn’t it, Ms. Lindsay?
So what’s your point?
“...the church of Jesus Christ was restored not founded.”
Definition of restoration
1: an act of restoring or the condition of being restored: such as
a: a bringing back to a former position or condition
(see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restoration)
So here’s the question, Ms. Lindsay, if the LdS Church was RESTORED back to a former position or condition then why do we see such a different Church in the New Testament and in the Patristic writings?
@Lindsay wrote, “If you actually read the New Testament, Jesus Christ left his apostles to teach the gospel without him.”
And? Can you please show us where He had 15-Apostles? Can you show us where He left the Office of the President of the Church? Can you show us where He left the Office of the First Counselor? The First Presidency? The Quorum of the Seventy (several of them in fact)? Etc, etc., etc.
If the LdS Church is the RESTORED Church, then why is it so different than the Church that we see in the New Testament?
@Lindsay wrote, “And each apostle was killed off and that left everyone who was taught it to teach only what they could. After the apostles were killed off that’s when that dispensation ended leaving people to only interpret the gospel how they thought it meant...”
Really? Then how do you explain the Bible? How do you explain the broad and wide collection of Patristic writings that have from the disciples of the Apostles like Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria (both disciples of John the Beloved), Tertullian, Tatian, etc., etc., etc?
And can you explain to us how and why ALL of those men demand tight adherence to the teachings of the Apostles of the original twelve Apostles in their writings?
Respectfully, Ms. Lindsay, your arguments demonstrate a woeful ignorance of both Christian Church History in general and the Patristic authors and their body of in general.
Don’t you think that you should really read up on your facts before you make baseless accusations and fallacious arguments with no basis in reality?
@Lindsay wrote, “...which makes Catholism untrue.”
Which wasn’t established MUCH later with the advent of the first universally recognized Pope in the third century, so what’s your point?
I’m not Catholic, you don’t actually expect a Protestant to argue for the veracity of the Roman Catholic Church do you?
Further, the Roman Catholic wasn’t the ONLY Christian Church back then, there were several of them, all of which are still going in some form or fashion.
Again, Ms. Lindsay, don’t you think that you you should really read up on your facts before start making baseless arguments in public? " (11/27/19) |
| Fred W Anson says... () | | "@Lindsay wrote, “Because Christ’s church was taken from the world which left it no more…”
Which is a DIRECT contradiction of what the Bible says, isn’t it?
"I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
-- Matthew 16:18b KJV
"I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."
-- Hebrews 13:5b KJV
"Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness."
-- Isaiah 41:10 KJV
Further, even Latter-day Saint scholars acknowledge that Mormon Great Apostasy is discredited by both the biblical and historical evidence. Here’s what one such scholar said:
“On careful examination, none of the New Testament passages referring to heresies within the church or persecution from without seems to predict a wholesale departure from the faith; all seem to assume that there would be faithful saints who remain on the earth until Christ comes”
(BYU Professor Charles R. Harrell, “’This is my Doctrine’: The Development of Mormon Theology,” p. 34; https://smile.amazon.com/This-My-Doctrine-Development-Theology-ebook/dp/B005FRGAFM)
Ms. Lindsay, which do both the Bible and your own scholars disagree with you?
“... until it was time for it to be restored…”
And the Great Prophet of the Restoration, couldn’t agree MORE with you:
“They regard all the sects and parties of the Christian world as having, in greater or less degrees, departed from the simplicity of faith and manners of the first Christians, and as forming what the apostle Paul calls “the apostasy.” . . .
They look for unity of spirit and the bonds of peace in the practical acknowledgment of one faith, one Lord, one immersion, one hope, one body, one Spirit, one God and Father of all; not in unity of opinions, nor in unity of forms, ceremonies, or modes of worship. . . .
Thus while they proclaim faith and repentance, or faith and a change of heart, as preparatory to immersion, remission, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they say to all penitents, or all those who believe and repent of their sins, as Peter said to the first audience addressed after the Holy Spirit was bestowed after the glorification of Jesus, “Be immersed every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
The immersed believers are congregated into societies according to their propinquity to each other, and taught to meet the first day of every week in honor and commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus, and to break the loaf which commemorates the death of the Son of God, to read and hear the living oracles, to teach and admonish one another, to unite in all prayer and praise, to contribute to the necessities of saints, and to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord.
Every congregation chooses its own overseers and deacons, who preside over and administer the affairs of the congregations; and every church, either from itself or in co-operation with others, sends out, as opportunity offers, one or more evangelists, or proclaimers of the word, to preach the word and to immerse those who believe, to gather congregations, and to extend the knowledge of salvation where it is necessary, as far as their means extend."
(Alexander Campbell, "The Christian Baptist"; https://archive.org/details/TheChristianBaptistVol17)
Yes, that’s right Ms. Lindsay, the American Restorationism movement which was started in 1823 by Alexander Campbell - who was known by Campbellites as “The Great Prophet of the Restoration” was ALREADY teaching the exact same dogma LONG before Joseph Smith hit the scene four-years later in 1827 and founded his own church 3-years after that.
So Ms. Lindsay, if you’re going to follow THE Prophet of the Great Restoration - you know, the original 19th Century American Restorationist leader - you’re in the wrong church.
Sorry.
@Linds" (11/27/19) |
| Fred W Anson says... () | | "@Lindsay wrote, “... and the gospel that is taught is everything exact that Jesus Christ taught”
Nope. The Book of Mormon gospel is not only NOT the same gospel that Jesus taught, it’s the exact FALSE gospel that the Judaizers taught in Galatia and Paul called “accursed” in the Book of Galatians. Marie Johnson did a fabulous job of explaining that here: https://beggarsbread.org/2016/04/17/the-bible-v-the-book-of-mormon-gospel/
In fact, the Book of Mormon gospel doesn’t even teach the same gospel that the current LdS Church teaches. The gospel taught by today’s LdS Church is consistent with NEITHER the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It’s is its own uniquely false gospel. This article explains, shows direct comparisons between the two: https://beggarsbread.org/2014/07/26/the-book-of-mormon-v-mormon-doctrine/
@Lindsay wrote, “Members of any church are not perfect but Jesus christ’s Gospel is.”
Has anyone argued - or even suggested otherwise? Strawman.
Yet again, as I was saying about assuming . . . " (11/27/19) |
| Fred W Anson says... () | | "@Lindsay wrote, “And your intellect is as small as a seed…”
Thank you for the insulting ad-hominem. As they say: “Ad-hominems simply mean that logic and reason have prevailed over irrationality.” So thank you, Ms. Lindsay, I appreciate you acknowledging that via your ad-hominem.
Thank you!
@Lindsay wrote, “...but apparently you know nothing about Christ and also don’t know Him.”
I see. So are we to believe that anyone who disagrees with you and/or the LdS Church knows nothing about Christ and also doesn’t know him?
Really?
Exactly when did God die and make you the Great Judge in His place, Ms. Lindsay?
Tell you what, I will simply do a very Mormon thing here and bear my testimony in the face of your insults, how’s that?
I would like to bear my testimony.
I know that the Triune God of Israel, Yahweh Elohim, is the only true God.
I know that I have been saved by accepting the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ through His death and resurrection by faith, and faith alone. I know that this was a grace gift that God gave me by choosing me. I did nothing to deserve it or and there is nothing that I can ever do to earn it - it was a gift from God. And it is through that gift, freely given and freely received, I declare that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and He is Lord!
I now have an intimate relationship with God through the gift of the Holy Spirit who helps and guides me. I am His and He is mine, His banner over me is love.
I know these things not only by the witness of the Spirit in my life but by the evidence of my changed life, thoughts, desires, and general worldview - and through the witness of the written word of God, the Bible, which is my absolute standard for all things seen and unseen.
Here I stand, I can do no other.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, my Lord, Savior, and Friend, amen.
So tell, me O Great Judge, Lindsay… does that sound like the testimony of someone who knows nothing about Christ and doesn’t know Him?
Thank you for your time and your insulting ad-hominems, they speak volumes. " (11/27/19) |
| Fred W Anson says... () | | "CORRECTION: THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ABOVE IS INCORRECT,
"Yes, that’s right Ms. Lindsay, the American Restorationism movement which was started in 1823 by Alexander Campbell - who was known by Campbellites as “The Great Prophet of the Restoration” was ALREADY teaching the exact same dogma LONG before Joseph Smith hit the scene four-years later in 1827 and founded his own church 3-years after that."
Rather, that was the date of the CITATION that from Alexander Campbell that I used in that comment.
In fact, the American Restorationism movement began at the 1801 Cane Ridge Revival - four (4) years before Joseph Smith was even born. From an independent and neutral source:
"The Restoration Movement developed from several independent strands of religious revival that idealized early Christianity. Two groups, which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith, were particularly important. The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, and identified as "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell, both educated in Scotland; they eventually used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church on the pattern set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake.
Among other things, they were united in the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that Christians should celebrate the Lord's Supper on the first day of each week; and that baptism of adult believers by immersion in water is a necessary condition for salvation. Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus. Both groups promoted a return to the purposes of the 1st-century churches as described in the New Testament. One historian of the movement has argued that it was primarily a unity movement, with the restoration motif playing a subordinate role."
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement )
So the reader will note that American Restorationism was well under way LONG before the advent of Joseph Smith in 1827. In fact, he wasn't even born when Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone unleashed it on New World.
I apologize for my error and any confusion that it might have occurred as a result of it. " (11/27/19) |
| midge says... () | | "I love Latter-Day Saints. They are kind and good and fair. Whenever I hear certain "Christians" talk negatively about them, there is always, always a smugness, a hint of sarcasm, a heck lotta pride. Whatever kind of Christians the mormons are-they are "fruits"-as in "by their fruits ye shall know them". They are the best examples of Christianity out there!" (10/29/15) |
| Rob Sivulka says... () | | "Midge--I disagree that Mormonism in general produces good fruit: http://www.mormoninfo.org/faqs-31/Doesnt-the-LDS-Church-pass-the-test-with-their-good-fruit-Matthew-715-20-3722." (10/29/15) |
| Rob Sivulka says... () | | "Midge--Further, as for smugness in being negative, please look in the mirror. Just because someone offers a criticism doesn't entail they are prideful. You're just assuming the worst of those who preach to Mormons. It may very well be that they are simply trying to love Mormons the best they can by warning them of the error that's leading them to hell." (10/29/15) |
| midge says... () | | "I think your energy would be better spent battling Isis or pornography or many other ills rather than on battling these commandment keeping, Gahndi like souls, But then you probably think Gahndi is going to hell too. Oh well at least when Donny and Marie are in hell the music will be sweet and wholesome., Maybe the devil will convert!:) Seriously, we should all be as sinful as the Mormons. The world would be a far better place." (10/30/15) |
| |
|
