This is a terribly politically incorrect question to ask, but this is a new ‘church’ that has just opened in our neighborhood. It looks like any other of a hundred denominations, but only a careful reading of their belief statement will reveal that it is not a church at all but a cult of Christianity.
Wow! A splinter Mormon group with a relativistic view of truth and the bible. Sign me up. They do a great job of burying their “mormonness.” You have go deep into their statement to find a specific reference to the book of mormon. I thought something was a little fishy when in their intro they said they were founded in 1830 in New York. It just goes to show that just because it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it may not actually be a duck.
The Mormons have come a long way from the day when Joseph Smith prayed and asked God which denomination was correct and God allegedly responded and told him that all of the current denominations were abominations. From that he had to start the one true church, and Mormonism was under way.
In recent years, the Mormon tactic has been to downplay the differences between themselves and orthodox Christianity. It’s come to the point now where they are attempting to portray themselves as just another Christian denomination.
Even playing “Now is the Time to Worship” song on the page and notice the huge cross on the front of the building. Is this a Mormon splinter group, or the Mormon’s new method of promoting their brand of faith to the masses?
In reading through this site it seems like they have taken a page from the Southern Baptist Church / NAMB playbook. They take their real name off of the sign and hide who they really are and try to be more hip and with the culture to attract people. With all of the NAMB “generic” plant churches and seeker startups out there, it is no wonder that this was a logical next step for the cults to follow along.
So how is any non-believer or weak one supposed to know the difference? A brilliant move on the part of the Mormons, and another sad example of how the generic name and seeker churches are successfully watering down the message of Christ. This opens up this kind of setup as perfectly acceptable and normal to the masses.
I think that this is traditional Mormonism couched in language that does not throw up any red flags for those who are looking for a Christian Church.
If you look closely the language is not specific enough to refute traditional Mormon beliefs. For example, there is no mention of the cross in the section on salvation and grace is not mentioned at all. As already mentioned, the book of Mormon is a dead give away and the section of Judgment is very Mormon.
C.A. Nix’s question is a good one. How is any non-believer or weak Christian to know the difference?
Yep. C.A.’s question is exactly the reason I brought this up. The folks who read this blog or run in our circles (on the CPR side-crusty, prickly, reformed) are not as likely to happen into a church like this just because it in near by and the people are friendly without examining the belief statement, but we might have friends or neighbors who would.
The only way to avoid it is to look into it critically. If it is a friend of ours who mentions it, then we can come to their aid by looking into it on thier behalf (which is something I did for my sister-in-law upon her finding a church a few years back). If not, then the person is left up to God’s grace and their own critical skills assessing what it is that any particular church may or may not believe.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c165.html
I think that placing stress upon being a creedal community can help the weak believer.
Memorizing creeds (a statement of systematized doctrine) has long been recommended by the Reformed Tradition in order to disciple, and protect the Body of Christ.
Of course, I recommend the Westiminster Confession of Faith and for memorization, the Shorter Catechism, but there are others.
C.A., thanks for the reference!
Jason, I agree. Also, this quote from Pascal comes to mind… “Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
We need to be people who model biblical thinking and discernment in our lives and to our families and friends. We need to be people who know what they believe and why they believe it. I also think that this can be contagious. It’s my view that a lot of Christians don’t think (or at least don’t think critically) because they haven’t seen it modeled. We live in an age that is big on piety (religious feeling and action), but often short on substance and thinking. People are starving their minds and don’t even realize it.
It is my hope that we infect those around us with a desire to see the Christian mind transformed and redeemed for Christ. The more that this happens the less of a threat these wolves in sheep’s clothing will be—at least to believers, anyway.
The Community of Christ became the legal name of the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” on April 6, 2001. The former name is used in all their legal purposes in regard to their incorporation and the holding of property. Where did this group come from? Well, they are the splitter group that went south to Independence, Missouri after Joseph Smith was shot to death in Illinois. Bringham Young took some Mormons and went West, while the family of Jospeh Smith settled in Independence. The “Reorganized Church” actually claims to be the truest and more sincere of the two relating to the intent of “god” through Joseph Smith.
However, over time, the Salt Lake group grew and it was determined that a change is name would help disassociate them from the Utah Church. I have researched this group in the past and THAT is the reason, not some new vision or purpose that they suggest in their publications.
It is interesting that on their web site that they say regarding their heritage:
This group puts the “me” in “chameleon.”
Take a look for yourself…
Dan, I am assuming it is advantageous to them to disassociate from the Utah sect because of its more controversial doctrines (i.e. racism, polygamy, etc). Is this correct?
Also, for everyone, creeds might protect believing communities, but has God left non-believers without a witness of himself? Do they need a preacher in order to have the opportunity to convert from such false doctrines?
I promise I am not baiting for an argument.
Hey Jason, could you reword your question to the group? I’m not entirely clear on what you are asking. Thanks!
I guess my question is a variation of the classic, “What about the native out in the middle of nowhere who has never heard the gospel?”
I found it similar to this line of thinking in that in my mind, it is essentially the same thing we are asking when we ask, “What keeps the non-believer from stumbling into a cult?”
Are both the native and the non-believer simply the victim of poor circumstance, or has God given a witness of himself to them despite the fact that they have no preacher or scripture?
OK. Then to your original pair of questions, I’d point to Romans 10:14…
“But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
But somehow that seems too easy. Why do I feel I’ve been set up? 🙂
To the question of being victims of circumstance… I suppose we are all victims of circumstances at one level or another. We don’t choose the time or place of our birth, our parents, and lots of other stuff. But God is lord over circumstances. That’s part of what makes grace grace, right?
Nah, no set ups. Just curious where people are at on this issue.
How do we apply Romans 10:14 to this particular situation with a non-believer stumbling unaware into a Mormon church? Is he the unfortunate victim of circumstance (keep in mind that God is soveriegn over circumstances)? Having never heared the preaching of the true gospel, are things are about to get worse for him? If so, how does he get help that can set him back on the right course?
Isn’t it the same as with any other lost person? We apply that passage by proclaiming the truth of the gospel in whatever context we find ourselves. The context is usually contrasting the real gospel with a false one. In some cases the gospel is explained in contrast to the gospel of self reliance (I’m OK). In other cases it is in contrast with an actual false gospel, like Mormonism. In the case with this ‘church’ the challenge is in showing that the gospel that they present is not the saving gospel of Christ because they have a different Jesus.
I would say that things do get worse for the lost person that joins that church. At least before he probably had a pretty good sense that he was not on good terms with God. Now he has a false sense of security. By the way, I think this also happens with folks who go to non-heretical churches that don’t proclaim the gospel clearly, though.
I agree with all you are saying. It is unfortunate that these types of “churches” catch people through such tactics. Such people have their conscience, the light of nature, and the scriptures. If they refuse all three, then they are easy prey for such cults.