# Evangelicals & Mormons Together?



## Fly Caster (Nov 19, 2004)

> With Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints sitting together in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for an "Evening of Friendship," internationally renowned Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias told them Sunday night that Jesus Christ's unique claim upon humanity is that he embodied truth and sacrificed himself for a world that often does not recognize him.
> 
> But what many Utahns may remember most distinctly is the sermon that came before it. Taking the pulpit to speak of the event's historic nature, Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw addressed a capacity crowd of several thousand, offering a stunningly candid apology to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and noting that "friendship has not come easily between our communities." He dubbed the evening "historic" and apologized that Evangelicals "have often misrepresented the faith and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints." "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," he said, adding both camps have tended to marginalize and simplify the others' beliefs.





http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595105580,00.html


----------



## blhowes (Nov 19, 2004)

I think its important to figure out just exactly who Ravi Zacharias and others attending were representing. The term 'Evangelical' is such a broad term and I'm sure there are many who consider themselves to be Evangelicals who are shocked by this and would join us in condemning this. Although I/we disagree with much of what goes on in some of the Evangelical churches, I think when we read articles like this, we need to be careful not to paint all Evangelicals with a large paint brush and lump them all in - it does them a great disservice and is unfair.

For those Evangelicals who were a part of this "historic gathering", well, that's a different story. 

Just some thoughts.
Bob

Comment added: Tim, just so you know, I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but my post was more of a comment against my initial reaction to the article. My first thought was to group all evangelicals together, but then the thought came to me that that wasn't fair. 

[Edited on 19-11-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## BobVigneault (Nov 19, 2004)

The mormon church is the fastest growing church. It only makes sense that it would be the next 'passerby'.

Ezekial 16:15
"But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore because of your renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his. 16You took some of your garments and made for yourself colorful shrines, and on them played the whore. The like has never been, nor ever shall be. 17You also took your beautiful jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given you, and made for yourself images of men, and with them played the whore. 18And you took your embroidered garments to cover them, and set my oil and my incense before them. 19Also my bread that I gave you--I fed you with fine flour and oil and honey--you set before them for a pleasing aroma; and so it was, declares the Lord GOD. 20And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter 21that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them? 22And in all your abominations and your whorings you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, wallowing in your blood.
23"And after all your wickedness (woe, woe to you! declares the Lord GOD), 24you built yourself a vaulted chamber and made yourself a lofty place in every square. 25At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself to any passerby and multiplying your whoring.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Nov 19, 2004)

Broad is the path that leads to destruction! "Evangelicalism" keeps getting broader.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 19, 2004)

To quote the church lady, "Isn't that special?"


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> I think when we read articles like this, we need to be careful not to paint all Evangelicals with a large paint brush and lump them all in - it does them a great disservice and is unfair.



Even so, I think cases like this give all the more reason to separate our own theology from the label "evangelical."



> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> Broad is the path that leads to destruction! "Evangelicalism" keeps getting broader.



That's a good way of putting it - never quite thought of it that succintly before!


----------



## blhowes (Nov 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Even so, I think cases like this give all the more reason to separate our own theology from the label "evangelical."



I agree 110%

Also, to a lot of people, evangelicals are basically anybody outside of the catholic church that has a desire to share their faith. Do you think the people in this article would better be referred to as neo-evangelicals, as described here: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/neoe.htm


[Edited on 19-11-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 19, 2004)

Im part of apologia talk and have been updated on all this stuff. Moronism and the RC are pushing the interfaith envelope.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 19, 2004)

In thought not inter faith but one faith united in Christ? Guess these guys dont get it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 19, 2004)

http://www.strradio.org/current/111404.mp3 

Greg Koukl Talks about this

http://aomin.org/dl17.ram

James White as well

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595105580,00.html

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595106197,00.html
(similar related)


(Links edited to fix them. PLEASE NOTE: you need to put {url} and {/url} tags around weblinks or they probably won't work, because commas and periods break the links)


[Edited on 11/20/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> To quote the church lady, "Isn't that special?"


----------



## Average Joey (Jul 17, 2005)

I have a question.What was Ravi Zacharias doing there in the first place???Why did he accept to be there?Sad day for me.I have always like him.

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Average Joey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 17, 2005)

If it isn't the NPP it is the new 'Evangilcal Togethers' that seem to be gaining ground and perverting truth. I am not confused about this. The five solas are to be our theme. Not togetherness.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 17, 2005)

Could it be, perhaps, that Ravi simply accepted the invitation because it was yet another avenue to "preach Christ and Him crucified"?

Maybe he went, not so much to talk about Mormonism, but Christ...

I don't know, I'm just offering a possible explanation....


----------



## openairboy (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Fly Caster_
> 
> 
> > With Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints sitting together in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for an "Evening of Friendship," internationally renowned Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias told them Sunday night that Jesus Christ's unique claim upon humanity is that he embodied truth and sacrificed himself for a world that often does not recognize him.
> ...



One, Is Ravi's speech/sermon in its entirety available anywhere? This will give us a better idea of what is going on. I believe Ravi is faithful to the Gospel and have little doubt that he believes Mormonism is a perversion.

Two, what is wrong w/ apologizing for sins of our community? If we have borne false testimony against Mormons and what they believe, then we should apologize, etc. I've been a part of this sort of behavior (most predicated upon ignorance of what they believe and just parroting what I heard someone else say they believed) and hope not to in the future. Granted, with how factious the church is, there is noone to speak for "evangelicalism" or "reformed" for that matter, so of course people will object to this man speaking for "evangelicalism". 

Now, if these men maintain that Mormons are saved or calling on the True Jesus, then let them be anathema, because that is another Gospel.

openairboy


----------



## Average Joey (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> Could it be, perhaps, that Ravi simply accepted the invitation because it was yet another avenue to "preach Christ and Him crucified"?
> 
> Maybe he went, not so much to talk about Mormonism, but Christ...
> ...



I am hoping you are correct.Even so,it sounds odd.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 17, 2005)

Instead of painting with a broad, "We're sorry," brushstroke, it would have been proper to point to specific cases of error, and say, "We're sorry for this behavior." It might also have been helpful to state explicitly that Mormonism isn't simply another Christian denomination, even a goofy one. We shouldn't leave an impression that if only we had taken the time to study Mormon doctrine and practice we would have understood they were not a different religion at all.

As is was, that's not the impression that was left. Rather, modern Mormonism's latest attempts to de-marginalize themselves by changing their public face are being treated as if that is the standard by which Mormonism is to be judged. But, as J White has argued, _What_ has changed? Has Mormon doctrine? Mormon Scripture? And even if it were shown to have changed (and not just the rhetoric), what specifically was wrong about vehement opposition to the _cult_ of Mormonism?

Mr. White, and other apologists like him, would like a little Mt. 18 from Dr. Mouw. What sin do they need to repent of? Because, as it stands, Mouw's sweeping beg-of-pardon and olive branch extension and offer-of-dialog marginalizes (with reference to the speech alone) faithful apologists who have sought humbly before God for years to rescue the perishing from the damning clutches of the false religion that is Mormonism. With all due respect to Dr. Mouw, perhaps he needs to get in the trenches before he engages in "shuttle-diplomacy."


----------



## openairboy (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Instead of painting with a broad, "We're sorry," brushstroke, it would have been proper to point to specific cases of error, and say, "We're sorry for this behavior." It might also have been helpful to state explicitly that Mormonism isn't simply another Christian denomination, even a goofy one. We shouldn't leave an impression that if only we had taken the time to study Mormon doctrine and practice we would have understood they were not a different religion at all.




We are dealing with a tiny snippet--maybe he gave specific examples, maybe he stated Mormonism isn't another Christian denomination. We don't know what impression he left re: Christian/Mormon relationship. We shouldn't start poppin' off based on a tiny snippet of a story. I've been quoted in newspapers before and wondered why they made the story the way it was.



> As is was, that's not the impression that was left.



As is, that might be the impression the newspaper left. For example, hop over to reformedcatholicism and see their quote from James White. Those on the "in" know what is being said, but to a passerby, do you think it is really the impression James White desired? So, patience should be foremost when dealing w/ any controversy, but esp. when we are dealing with second and third hand info.



> Mr. White, and other apologists like him, would like a little Mt. 18 from Dr. Mouw. What sin do they need to repent of? Because, as it stands, Mouw's sweeping beg-of-pardon and olive branch extension and offer-of-dialog marginalizes (with reference to the speech alone) faithful apologists who have sought humbly before God for years to rescue the perishing from the damning clutches of the false religion that is Mormonism. With all due respect to Dr. Mouw, perhaps he needs to get in the trenches before he engages in "shuttle-diplomacy."



I didn't read the James White response, so I don't know if Mouw mentions him specifically. Reading some of Mouw's comments are deeply troubling if they are truthful, esp. any notion of participating in activities celebrating Joseph Smith's life. 

openairboy

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 17, 2005)

A Conversation with the Mormon at your Door


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 17, 2005)

Standing Together

Ravi's web site

Christianity Today

Here are some articles. 

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 17, 2005)

Paul,

Your are to funny.
A conversation with a Mormon at your door.

Just a taste....

A Conversation With The Mormon at Your Door

This is a brief example of a tactic to try the next time a Mormon comes to your door. Abbreviations: Mormon is "M" and Christian is "C." Note: These are based off real answers and encounters Mormons have given and had with me.

(Christian sitting in his house enjoying a stout, cigar, and some Calvin, hears a knock at the door)

C: (opens door and sees dudes in suit, looks them up and down and thinks to himself: welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly) Hey.

M: Hi! Would you like to talk about Jesus and His Church?

C: Sure, and what church is that?

M: We're with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!

C: Oh, well I think you should know that I have irrefutable proof that you are in error and I know you are wrong, but come in if you wish.

M: Okay.

C: Would you guys like a beer!

M: Ummm,

C: Ha! Just kiddin guys. Can I get you a coffee, Pepsi, something? Naaaww, I'm just joshin'!

M: Gulp, Okay, well, you said you knew we were wrong, how's that?

C: Well, I have a feeling inside that you are. I just feel you're wrong and therefore you must really be wrong, because a feeling can never be wrong.

M. Wait a minute. You can't say we're wrong based on your feelings. That's subjective. Your feelings may be false. They may be induced by an evil demon. Anything!


[Edited on 7-17-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 17, 2005)

I admit it. I'm partial to White. I have yet to find reason to fault him for abuse of his sources. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do give him a "safe guide" sticker. He says he felt tarred with a careless brush at best, and outright slander at worst.

Here's how I see it: I think going to speak at such a gathering was foolish (by either guy). R.Z.'s impact was surely diminished by Mouw's presentation. Surely Al Mohler would never be invited to speak--no way that guy is "diplomatic" enough. Mouw is a public figure. I know I'm not one of his "constituents" but because we are both non-RC, non-EO Christians (as someone with whom we haven't previously lined out our differences) by his simple selection he speaks for me where I am not invited. He stands up in an "Aereopagus" gathering (a pagan temple to the Earth-God of the Mormon pantheon) and ... denounces the pantheon like Apostle Paul? No. He gives no offense, and even apologizes for everybody's, including Paul's, insensitivity. He emphasizes our common (!) religious committments. Did Paul? Did Paul get a standing ovation? I know it's questionable to make fine analogies--although I think the obvious connection is valid and telling. But I just fail to see how Mouw's "bridge-building" isn't retrograde. I think his choice of language was *incautious*, when it was required to be accurate and precise. At least it sounds like Ravi Zacharias was bolder to state the differences.


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 17, 2005)

The quotes below are taken from Mouw's speech at the Mormon Tabernacle referenced above. I copied the words from http://www.emnr.org/mouw_press_release.html which is a response to Mouw. Now, how about Mouw calling Mormon's to apologize for calling themselves Christians? I have about five or six historical LDS books on their teachings right here which proves they are not Christians so I don't really know the point of all of this. I watched a lot of Ravi's speech, but I need to go through it again. You can read some of the positive responses from some of the Mormons who were at this event in various Utah newspapers. I certainly don't understand this ecumenical-like dialogue that took place.

"œOur public relations between our two communities have been-to put it mildly-decidedly unfriendly. From the very beginning, when Joseph Smith organized his church in 1830, my evangelical forebears hurled angry accusations and vehement denunciations at the Mormon community-a practice that continues from some evangelical quarters even into this present day. "œ

"œ"¦I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you."œ

"œIn just a month and a half we will greet the year 2005, which marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Joseph Smith. During this year there will be many occasions to pay special attention to Joseph's life and teachings, and I hope many in the evangelical community will take part in those events."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> To quote the church lady, "Isn't that special?"


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jul 17, 2005)

In defense of Ravi:

Letter from Ravi regarding the Mormon Tabernacle event

Many have asked how the invitation to the Mormon Tabernacle came about. Ten years ago, I was invited by the philosophy department at Brigham Young University to deliver a series of lectures on atheism and theism, a comparative study. At that time I also presented a defense of the Christian faith. Much has transpired in the intervening years as evangelical Christian scholars and Mormon scholars have held discussions on their differing faiths. Sometime ago, a group of about 150 churches and academic institutions under the leadership of Greg Johnson of Standing Together invited me to speak in defense of the Christian faith at a series of open forums on university campuses in Utah. Greg then suggested that perhaps the LDS church would open the Tabernacle for a major presentation by an evangelical Christian.

With that in mind, Greg and Bob Millet (from the faculty of Brigham Young University) approached the First Presidency with the idea and to everyone´s surprise, they graciously agreed to extend an invitation to me. Greg and Bob came to my office in Atlanta to discuss with me what this meant and how we should go about this. Needless to say, I had a lot of questions on the "œwhy" of such an invitation. What it boiled down to was that they were interested in hearing from an evangelical Christian about what lay at the heart of our faith. I asked for two personal conditions. One, that I be given the privilege of selecting the subject and two, that I bring someone to provide the music. They gladly granted both. But even after that I hesitated till several key evangelical leaders and professors from across the country wrote and urged me to accept the invitation to speak at the Tabernacle. After much prayer and reflection, I did. I selected the subject: The Exclusivity and Sufficiency of Jesus Christ. I asked Michael Card if he would come and provide the music.

November 14th was the historic moment. The last time an evangelical Christian had spoken there was in 1899 when D.L. Moody spoke. I have to say the entire weekend was one remarkable event after another. I had a personal meeting with the First Presidency. I did open forums at Weber State University and at the University of Utah. The climactic meeting at the Mormon Tabernacle was packed with an overflowing crowd. What a night it was!

From all over the world I have received numerous messages of encouragement and appreciation. Anyone who hears the tape will know the clarity of the message presented. Only the Lord gave such enablement.

To the critics who objected to my being there, I say that all my life as an apologist I have spoken across wide chasms of thought and virtually to every major religious group, sometimes at the risk of threats and violence. Differences ought not to keep us from carrying the truth to everyone. Must we not graciously build one step at a time in communicating our faith with clarity and conviction? Is it really necessary at the early stages of such openness to "œdump the whole truckload of goods," rather than first gaining a hearing and respect? I have no doubts about the differences between the LDS faith and the historic Christian faith, differences that are deep and foundational in terms of authority. But the proclamation of the living Christ can break down hearts all over the world that we might see ourselves as He sees us and call upon Him and no one else for our salvation. Must not our methods be in keeping with our message? There are numerous instances in Scripture where Jesus went to those of a contrary view and with grace, sowed one small seed at a time. I must also add that the courtesy and graciousness extended to me by every Mormon leader or professor that I came into contact with cannot be gainsaid. My earnest prayer is that the Lord was honored in what happened and that the opportunities that come from this event will multiply. There is no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved. How we communicate that name is equally important as the message itself if we are to be persuaders of men and women under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

As you hear the message presented, I pray you will hear the sound of the seed being sown. Only Heaven will reveal the fruit that has resulted.

Ravi Zacharias 

http://www.rzim.org/faqs/newstext.php?id=64

The way I see folk quick to cry 'heretic' on here, you'd have probably bashed Paul for the invite to speak at Mars Hill.....

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 17, 2005)

Kerry,

Have you listened to what Ravi said? For the record, I've never called Ravi a heretic. The setting seemed to be somewhat worshipful with a Christian musician playing and such. How should we take this at a glance? Clearly, the lines were blurred with the positive feedback that was received.

And since you made the statement about Paul and Mars Hill would you mind drawing a parallel for us? Did some of the Mormon's join Ravi and believe when it was all over with?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 17, 2005)

As I tried to make plain, taken as a whole event, I think R.Z.'s involvement was a mixed bag. I'm glad he set conditions for his presence. I still think he could have been (and perhaps was) "used" more than _he_ used the opportunity. And the impact of what he said was definitely softened by Mouw's concilliatory presentation. Thankfully, I expect that in God's love, he may well have drawn a number of persons to himself through that series. It would be like Paul getting up in a mars-hill like setting and wowing them, only to have Peter get up afterward and teach Judaizing...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 18, 2005)

I am going to start a new group called theomomy aglow. We will burn all the heretics. I am appointing Gabe as The Enforcer.







[Edited on 7-18-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 18, 2005)

It'll be easier with the new grill lighter things that way we won't burn our fingers! :bigsmile:


----------



## Scott (Jul 18, 2005)

> I think its important to figure out just exactly who Ravi Zacharias and others attending were representing. The term 'Evangelical' is such a broad term and I'm sure there are many who consider themselves to be Evangelicals who are shocked by this and would join us in condemning this. Although I/we disagree with much of what goes on in some of the Evangelical churches, I think when we read articles like this, we need to be careful not to paint all Evangelicals with a large paint brush and lump them all in - it does them a great disservice and is unfair.



I found D.G. Hart's Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham useful in this regard. Warning - it is a bit depressing. 

Below is a book review I found of this work.



> "[E]vangelicalism as a religious identity is at best vague and at worst hollow" (p. 188). This is the conclusion of D. G. Hart's analysis of the branch of conservative Protestantism which goes by the name "evangelical." He advocates abandoning the term altogether. Coined in the 1940s, "evangelicalism" was used to describe a mediating position between separatistic Fundamentalism and mainline Protestantism. A group of conservative Protestants hoped to offer "an improvement on both liberalism and fundamentalism... [by] combin[ing] the best of both, the social involvement and activism of the former with the theology and evangelistic zeal of the latter" (p. 25).
> As the heirs of German pietism and American revivalism, evangelicals "looked more to the experience and actions of the individual believer for evidence of authentic faith than to the forms and order of the institutional church and her clergy. In fact, one of pietism's legacies... was to regard ecclesial expressions of Protestantism as synonymous with nominal Christianity" (p. 117). Unlike historic Protestants, evangelicals have always been suspicious of identifying themselves primarily through their church association, resulting in a stunted (and sometimes, nonexistent) ecclesiology. Individual experience, not church life and dogma, are at the heart of evangelicalism. Therefore, evangelicalism has difficulty in forming communities of theological depth and substance who have a great sense of connectedness with a historic past. Instead, evangelicalism usually unites people by reducing unity to the lowest common denominator through the complete rejection of historic tradition.
> In short, evangelicalism attempts to be the conservative Protestant movement, standing up for historic orthodoxy, while at the same time diminishing the importance of historic orthodoxy, trading it for doctrinal fads and evangelical celebrities. Evangelicalism's greatest strength is its organizational might. It creates broad coalitions. Yet, the very attempt to unite people outside the context of shared church polity, practices, and historic creeds has done the very opposite of what was intended by undermining doctrinal faithfulness and ecclesiastical identity. In the end, evangelical attempts to preserve "historic orthodoxy" fail to resemble what earlier generations understood orthodoxy to be.
> Though evangelicalism finds its origin in revivalism and pietism (both of which were hostile to tradition), evangelicalism has now become its own tradition that has one common thread that holds it together -- the utter denial of the authority of traditions (pp. 82, 120). Because tradition is devalued, Christian celebrities (usually entrepreneurial innovators) are celebrated, becoming the glue that holds the movement together. Indeed, one could argue that evangelicalism centers more on the likes of Billy Graham (or even James Dobson or Tim LaHaye) than it does on any doctrinal core that resembles the richness of historic orthodox tradition. Evangelicalism as lowest-common-denominator, "old-time religion" has "severed most ties to the ways and beliefs of Christians living in previous eras" (p. 19). ]
> The intellectual shallowness of evangelicalism is demonstrated in its faddishness. In order "for an evangelical mind to exist it needs to drink from Roman Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, or Eastern Orthodox streams" (p. 186). As a movement mobilizing masses of people, evangelicalism has been a success. "But as a shaper of a tradition, evangelicalism has been an utter failure. Its breadth has come with the price of shallowness, while its mass appeal has generated slogans more than careful reflection" (p. 187). One does not have to concur with Hart's conclusion to abandon the label "evangelical" in order to benefit from his provocative and insightful analysis of evangelicalism. Indeed, it is evangelicals who need to listen most carefully to his criticisms in order to broaden and deepen the tradition!


----------



## Scott (Jul 18, 2005)

"Even so, I think cases like this give all the more reason to separate our own theology from the label 'evangelical.'"

This would be difficult to do. The PCA's terms of communion, for example, allow communion by anyone from "any evangelical church." So being affiliated with a"any evangelical church" is part of the BCO's understanding of who is a Christian.

Scott

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 23, 2005)

Ravi recently accepted the pulpit at Calvary Chapel, Ft. Lauderdale. The question to ask is (like Paul at Mars Hill) did he leave the impression that all is well or that he accepted their positions, or did he clearly dilineate it? Did he do that with the Mormons; was it a convicting message? Messages that lack truth and conviction are like watered down, warm soup. Putrid with little nutritional value.

That would be the injustice, calling them brothers and inclining 'peace and safety' when there is no peace and safety at all.

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

As far as the term _evangelical_ goes, much like the term reformed, in the next generation, CC will be reformed for their 3 point claim. I for one, will have nothing to do with the title; I emphatically reject it and those whom elbow up to deceits like described above. 

My two cents.


[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> The mormon church is the fastest growing church. It only makes sense that it would be the next 'passerby'.



The mormon church (if you could call it that, I wouldn't) is not the fastest growing church in the world, nor america. It is actually DECREASING in number. They will claim to be increasing, but the GREAT thing about it is that many are leaving the church, but the LDS church certainly wouldn't say that or even tell the truth.


----------

