Controversial Issues, Religious Movements

Mormonism is not a Cult according to Richard J. Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary

According to Richard J. Mouw, Mormonism is not a Cult.  Richard Mouw has had his eyes blinded concerning Mormonism.  This is of great concern for the body of Christ and the message of the gospel because Richard J. Mouw is the president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena.  The reason why this is a concern is because this message is false and misleading, and many students and teachers will be influenced by Mouw.

Here is a quote from Mouw concerning Mormonism:

“Most scholars who study religious movements have long abandoned the use of the “cult” label with reference to Mormonism. With about 14 million adherents around the world, the church has moved into the religious mainstream. Mormons are outstanding business leaders, world-class academicians, novelists, authors of bestselling leadership manuals, influential members of Congress and much more. Not the kind of community we ordinarily associate with a cult.  This is not convincing, though, to my fellow evangelicals who are writing critical emails to me. Yes, they say, Mormonism has become quite sophisticated. But a sophisticated cult is still a cult. I am naive to think otherwise, they tell me. I am urged to read books that will provide me with the truth about Mormonism. have read most of those books, and I have studied and taught about cults for many years. I have also spent the last dozen years meeting with Mormons — scholars and church leaders — to engage in lengthy theological discussions. These dialogues have included several other prominent evangelical Christian leaders. Based on these conversations and my own careful study, I do not believe Mormonism is a cult. However, I am not convinced that Mormon theology deserves to be classified as Christian in the historic sense of that word. I have serious disagreements with my Mormon friends about basic issues of faith that have eternal consequences. These include issues regarding the nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity and the character of the afterlife. But I have also learned that in some matters we are not quite as far apart as I once thought.” (read the full article here)

Mormonism is a Cult because they adhere to Joseph Smith as being the latter day prophet and without him there is no salvation. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:189)  Mormonism is a Cult because it teaches that all other churches are an abomination to God and that they are the only true church. (Joseph Smith Testimony/ Doctrines and Covenants 1:30) Mormonism is a Cult because it teaches another God, teaches another Jesus, and another gospel.  (click here for more info)

The Bible warns us:

“15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves…21 “Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.   22″Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’   23 “And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'” (Matt.7:15 & 21-23 NASB)
“2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.   3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,   4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:2-4 NASB)

There are numerous Scriptures that give clear warnings about being lead astray from the truth of the Gospel.  Be on guard against liberalism and deception influencing you.  For more information check out our LDS section.  (click here)

You are encouraged to share you thoughts and give us some feedback concerning this post.

Kelly Powers

Discussion

14 thoughts on “Mormonism is not a Cult according to Richard J. Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary

  1. A cult is best defined as those who tell followers to believe them above the Bible. By that definition just about 99.9% of the Christian Church is a cult. A very small number of Bible believers exist who are vilified – they derisively termed King James Onlyists. They alone still place the scriptures that God gave to us (in English – thanks be to God) above all theology, scholarship, priests, traditions, councils, private revelations, science, and philosophy. I’m one of them.

    Posted by mackquigley | December 17, 2011, 1:54 AM
  2. “a cult is best defined as those who tell followers to believe them above the Bible”

    Hello Mack, thanks for coming and posting a comment. Your statement I posted above would be a good one for many of Cults, that is true, but not for all. Those in the Oneness Movement have a high regard for the Bible and it’s authority for truth, but they are still a non Christian Cult. There are those who are known as HyperDispensationalists (the extreme sect) who have a high regard for the Bible as the authority, but they are still a non Christian Cult.

    99.9% of the Christians churches are not classified as a Cult, that is not accurate. Many are involved in denominationalism but that is not a Cult. I would also say that many who are stuck in their traditions I would wonder if they truly have become born again in the faith.

    You classify yourself as a King James Onlyist, do ya? Which English version is the 100% infallible Bible? 1611? 1612? 1613? 1632?1633? 1769? 1880? Modern Version? Though I would have agreement in putting the Bible above priests, traditions, councils, private revelations, science, philosophy, and denominational theology, yet the KJ Bible in English is not the 100% Word of God. In them you have italicized words, you have words in English language that were understood at that time that do not make sense in our English understanding today. If we want to have the 100% flawless Word of God, we would need the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts.

    I thank you for coming and sharing here, and if you know Jesus Christ genuinely as Lord and Savior of your life and it is about the work of the cross and resurrection that we have the redemption by faith in Him for salvation, then I say a hearty amen. If you are of the view that if one does not strictly read the KJ and by not doing so they are not a Christian, they you are one of those who have been deceived with the King James Only Extremism movement. I share both sides there cause I do not know which perspective you are of right now.

    Kelly

    Posted by Kelly | December 17, 2011, 7:47 PM
  3. “Incorrect.
    “A cult is best defined as those who tell followers to believe them above the Bible.” Unfortunately, Kelly, you are trapped in the Alexandrian cult.
    The Alexandrian cult says that the perfect scriptures do not exist, but they will use educated guesses (which they call “scholarship”) to present what they think the scriptures might mean. You are in this cult.
    Since you have only “teachings” (and no perfect scriptures) you are unable to define a “cult” except by your opinion concerning its “teachings” – and yet Richard J. Mouw not share your opinion although he is a Grand Wizard in the Alexandrian Cult who massively out-ranks you in terms of “scholarship” and reputation. You and Mouw and the rest of the Alexandrian Cult can now swap opinions on the topic and go nowhere since neither of you have any higher authority above your own opinions.
    The Alexandrian Cult’s gimmick is to adopt conflicting sources of authority (i.e., various manuscripts, various lexicons, various translations, and various traditions) and sit as the “decider” who choses what will be controlling. In other words, conflicting authorities allows Alexandrian cultists (such as yourself) to play God.
    I have a final authority – it is the AV 1611. That Book (in any edition, notwithstanding printing errors) is controlling final authority by which the Alexandrian cult, the Mormon cult, the Roman Catholic cult, and any other cult, is judged.
    You sound like a saved man, but you are trapped in a cult, wandering on the empty by-road of pseudo-scholarship and men’s traditions.

    Posted by mackquigley | December 17, 2011, 11:56 PM
  4. I do not have the time as I am heading to sleep here shortly but I will give a perspective reply to your tone in your emails. You seem very edgy with how you view your belief on the KJ. I respect people’s convictions, that I have no issues with. However, you have this “I am right” and “judging” attitude, and this is not in a good way but more of a prideful way. Your reply to me was nothing more than an attack towards someone like myself with a lot of judgmental comments as if I was in a cult. Really? Those who do not hold to the KJ are in a cult? Wow, what if a person reads fluent Hebrew and Greek, are they in a cult to? What if a person reads the Bible in French? Spanish? Are they in a cult to? That is a bit silly.

    I would like to encourage you as a brother, since you did not say I was not saved even though I do not hold to KJ onlyism, I would encourage you to have a better attitude to those whom do not have the same perspective as you. Now if you were of the view that this was a salvation issue, then I could at least understand that attitude, though I even wonder with those kind of people since if it is a salvation issue why not do all that can be done to help lead them to the truth instead of having attacking and judgmental comments towards those who have a different view.

    You think someone like Mouw out ranks me? Seriously? Just because someone has pieces of paper that makes them scholars? Did the 12 apostles have scholarship? You should know better than to make those types of statements. In any case, I will soon give some replies to what you have shared in regards to KJ translations and the Bible.

    Kelly

    Posted by Kelly Powers | December 19, 2011, 11:18 PM
  5. Dan 3:25

    KJV- He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    Daniel 3:25 I strongly take issue with an egregious disregard as to the importance of the implication. These words in Dan 3:25 are spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference. Daniel 3:25:

    All are familiar with the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. Let‘s take a quick look at how our Bibles translate Dan. 3:25:

    NIV- He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

    NASV-He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

    NWT- He was answering and saying: ―Look! I am beholding four able-bodied men walking about free in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt to them, and the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods.

    KJV- He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    Nebuchadnezzar himself in Dan 3:28—he understood the fourth to be an angel. So is the Son of God an angel, the KJV translation seems to predicate that Jesus is an angel much like the Jehovah’s Witness’ (or Gnostics) or so one could imply. Context is everything.

    Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a Christological sense (i.e., ―the Son of God). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase ―like a son of the gods is equivalent to ―like a divine being. (NET Bible, 1995)

    JOSHUA VERSUS JESUS
    Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, are there any implications of either verse in the KJV?

    KJV Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

    Barnes: With Jesus – This should have been rendered “with Joshua.” Jesus is the Greek mode of writing the name “Joshua.” But the Hebrew name should by all means have been retained here, as also in Heb_4:8. (Barnes, Notes on the Bible, 1798-1870)

    Clarke: Brought in with Jesus – That is, with Joshua, whom the Greek version, quoted by St. Stephen, always writes Ιησους, Jesus, but which should constantly be written Joshua in such cases as the present, in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion. (Clarke, 1715-1832)

    KJV Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

    This could mean that the implication is that if this is Jesus, he was inadequate.
    The passage is saying that although Joshua brought his people into the promised land, he could not give them the eternal rest that they needed. But by having ―Jesus here, the KJV is thus saying that Jesus was inadequate, that he was not able to save his people from their sins. In Greek, both ‗Joshua‘ and ‗Jesus‘ are written the same way— jIhsou'”. The issue is not one of textual variant, but of inattention to the details of the interpretation of the text. (Wallace, Part II: The Reign of the King James, The Era of Elegance, 2001)

    The confusion over the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1769
    Many of the KJV only-ists often state they read and quote from the KJV 1611; however that is not the case at all. In fact, if that is the case, where is the Apocrypha within their Bible, as it was in the KJV 1611? Do they realize that from the KJV 1611 to the KJV of today (1769) there were a total of 100,000 changes (mostly spelling and punctuation)? The KV has 100 places where the KJV translators used the Latin Vulgate (The longest utilized version); Erasmus always produced the Greek translation on one side and the Latin on the other. The KJV is considered the 5th revision of the Tyndale Bible and according to Daniel Wallace used 90% of the Tyndale’s translation (William Mounce, one of the top Greek scholars of today, states 80%).

    KJV Translation Methodology
    So what was the methodology that was implored with the KJV. Albert Barnes sheds some light on how this methodology was to take place.

    To these companies the king gave instructions to guide them in their work, of which the following is the substance: (Barnes, Albert Barnes on the King James Version, 1835)

    The Bishop’s Bible, then used, to be followed, and to be altered as little as the original would permit.
    –The names of the sacred writers to be retained as they were commonly used.

    –When a word had different significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the fathers, and most eminent writers.

    –No alteration to be made in the chapters and verses. No marginal notes to be affixed, except to explain the Greek and Hebrew words that could not be briefly and fitly explained in the text. Reference to parallel places to be set down in the margin.

    –Each man of a company to take the same chapters, and translate them according to the best of his abilities; and when this was done, all were to meet together, and compare their translations, and agree which should be regarded as correct.

    –Each book, when thus translated and approved, to be sent to every other company for their approbation.

    –Besides this, the translators were authorized, in cases of great difficulty, to send letters to any learned men in the kingdom to obtain their opinions.

    Cup of Java

    Posted by java37 | December 23, 2011, 7:55 AM
  6. A tale of two cults:

    (1) The Later Day Saints cult put their book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenant above the AV1611;
    (2) Java37 cult puts Clarke, Barnes, Mounce, Wallace, so-called “Church Fathers,” a shelf of critical writings, corrupt Bibles, and a television set above the AV1611.

    No difference: both evade God’s Final Authority – AV 1611.

    Posted by MackQuigley | December 23, 2011, 11:07 AM
  7. Cup of Java:

    Thank you for taking the time to share some interesting information concerning the KJ translation. What you have shared demonstrates that the English KJV is not the 100% flawless. As I shared before it is about communicating language of what the Hebrew and Greek texts said. Mr. Quigley is truly one sided and set in his ways on this it seems and is not open to examination of what he has proposed from what you shared. Instead he launches an attack on what you said and who you are, which is very disappointing. Good job on your post.

    Posted by Kelly Powers | December 23, 2011, 9:34 PM
  8. Mr. Quigley:

    Since this blog post is about Mormonism, so I am gonna say lets stick to that topic, and not KJOism. Your attitude has been bad from the start and I would like to encourage you to rethink how you post from now on with trying to be more constructive and not so aggressive in attacking. The brief information I have shared and what Java has shared was enough for you to give a constructive reply in an attitude of brotherly love, but you failed. Thus I do not see the need to continue in going any further there since you will simply ignore it and attack the person whom writes it. It was you whom first put forth your stand for the KJ and your attack on those whom are not of your view.

    So, with that said, I do wish you well in Christ and your walk. I ask you before you give any replies or future posts to consider 1 Peter 3:15, Colossians 4:5-6. We as followers of Christ are to stand for truth, that I take a stand on. But as we stand for truth we also are to be grace spoken and meek with those whom have questions about our faith and beliefs.

    Kelly

    Posted by Kelly Powers | December 23, 2011, 9:44 PM
  9. MQ fyi your post was deleted cause you were rude and do not wish to have a real brotherly discussion. I have been fair thus far but if all you intend to do is be slanderous in your comments, they will be deleted.

    Posted by Kelly Powers | December 23, 2011, 11:16 PM
  10. Keep up the good piece of work, I read few blog posts on this web site and I conceive that your site is really interesting and has got lots of good info.

    Posted by Mariam Steinbrook | December 25, 2011, 9:06 PM
  11. Sorry Mr. Quigley, the points still stand, as you cannot deny or refute them. You go ahead and seek a translation approval of a monarchy king, I will not do so. The KJV is mere man’s tradition as scripture is tradition. If the KJV wasn’t good enough for Paul, then it is not good enough for me… :)

    Anyway, Mormonism in my book is still classified as cultist:

    1. They create their own book (As does JW) and add unauthorized scriptures
    2. Their leader claimed prophet-hood status, yet did not prove such status.
    3. They separate themselves from orthodoxy (deny and contradict early councils)

    Posted by java37 | December 27, 2011, 12:51 PM
  12. I didn’t read any of those quigley ad hominem comments, Kelly.

    I went over to his blog-site to check this Quigley down under person out, and all I can say is wow.

    Posted by java37 | December 27, 2011, 1:02 PM
  13. Cup of Java:

    Thanks for your comments. As to MQ his post was removed cause it was rude and ranting. I have no problems with people sharing comments, that is the purpose of why I it set up. Hovever, if someone is going to insult and slander and not give a real discussion, it will be handled in a proper manner.

    btw I appreciate your williness to contribute to various posts.

    Posted by Kelly Powers | December 27, 2011, 1:30 PM
  14. mormonis is not only a cult but a dangerous demonic teaching,this movement need to be rejected by real christian. there is no place for them in the gospel message of salvation in JesusChrist period

    Posted by Anonymous | January 16, 2012, 12:24 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: