Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in America

This post is related to my post Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in Utah (HERE), but now I'm expanding it to the whole American continent. If you've read the Utah post linked above, we can use that same principle to see what is fundamentally wrong with the Mormon mindset when it comes to Salvation History. That's what we will cover in this post.

One cornerstone of the Mormon religion is that a small group of Israelites back at the time of the Books of Kings were told by God to leave Jerusalem before the Babylonian exile and have this small group of Israelites sail on a ship to arrive somewhere near Mexico. Here's what the LDS "Guide to the Scriptures" (HERE) says about the prophet Lehi:

In the Book of Mormon, a Hebrew prophet [Lehi] who led his family and followers from Jerusalem to a promised land in the western hemisphere about 600 B.C. Lehi was the first prophet among his people in the Book of Mormon. Lehi fled Jerusalem with his family at the command of the Lord (1 Ne. 2:1–4). He was a descendant of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Ne. 5:14). The Lord gave him a vision of the tree of life (1 Ne. 8:2–35). Lehi and his sons built a boat and sailed to the western hemisphere (1 Ne. 17–18). He and his descendants became established in a new land (1 Ne. 18:23–25).

Recall that the ancient Israelite mindset was such that there is only one Promise Land, which was promised to Abraham originally, and which Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to attain it, where the Twelve Tribes would finally settle down, where David's throne was established and the Temple was built. The land of Israel was the only Promise Land they ever envisioned. Now notice from the above quote how this is framed, Lehi "fled" Jerusalem due to the incoming Babylonian exile and was sent to establish himself and his descendants in "a" new Promise Land. This is the Mormon view and it fits perfectly with the American pioneer-fronteer mindset, but it is flatly against the Biblical theme of having one home and being temporarily removed from it due to punishment. So the accepted Mormon notion of just leaving Jerusalem to come to America for good, with no intention to return, runs completely contrary to the Biblical narrative. 

Moreover, the Israelites were in a covenant with God to keep the Mosaic Law, which means Lehi and his descendants would be required to keep the Mosaic Law. But how do you keep the Mosaic Law when you're nowhere near Jerusalem, without the Levitical Priesthood, no Temple, etc? How do you celebrate the Jewish holy days? You can't, which again runs completely against the grain of Scripture but which Mormon/Protestant views of Scripture completely miss.

Equally problematic is the Biblical theme wherein the "Ten Lost Tribes" were originally chastised for separating from Judah's authority, yet somehow Lehi separating from Judah's authority (even establishing a kingdom in America) is suddenly a good thing? And from an Old Testament prophetic perspective, you are being sent into exile for sin on a national level, even if you're relatively innocent as an individual like Daniel, and yet Lehi is instead told to "flee" instead of getting chastised with the rest of the Israelites? Or what about the great theme of "Returning Home" after the Babylonian Exile, how does that fit with a narrative where you just leave with no intention or yearning for home? Again, this Mormon-Protestant mindset is completely inconsistent with the Biblical narrative.

I understand that what I'm saying above will fall on deaf ears for many Mormons, because they either don't get it or have cognitive dissonance, but to those of us who have eyes to see, the Mormon narrative is plainly an American pioneer/pilgrim mindset, which is completely at odds with the Biblical narrative of the Israelite history. Realizing this debunks Mormonism on a "meta-narrative" level, which is essential to better direct your apologetics energy with Mormons, rather than the typical approach which implicitly concedes their foundational (erroneous) presuppositions.

Is Christian worship a "non-essential"? (Romans 14:5)

Many modern day "Evangelical" Protestants consider Romans 14:5 as the chief proof text for the notion there can be "non-essential" doctrines within Christianity. While there are practices throughout Christian history that can be considered "non-essentials," it is more problematic to apply this to the category of "doctrine," since doctrine implies essential teaching. The logic that certain Protestants use typically reduces down to making almost nothing an "essential" and thus stripping Christianity of anything solid that gives it shape. But when read carefully, we see here that Paul was speaking in a relatively narrow range of 'liberty' in Christian disciplines, especially as these were tied to one's former life and thus they had a certain sensitivity to them, not merely a personal preference. In fact, Paul refers to these people who need special care as those who are "weak in faith," but didn't mean it as an insult, just that they were not mature enough to thrive, which all Christians are called to aspire to.

Let's look at the passage of Chapter 14 of Romans:

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions [Greek: "scruples" / "doubts"]. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. ... 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

The verse "one person esteems one day better than another" is commonly taken to mean that when it comes to the day of worship, that is a "non-essential" doctrine, and that it is really the freedom of each individual Christian to decide whether they want to worship alone or with a community, or on Sunday or on Saturday, etc. With this mindset, these Protestants "conclude" that a true Christian could just sleep in on Sunday and not have to worship in any formal sense at all. These Protestants claim that 14:5 proves that the Church, clergy, etc, cannot even set rules/standards such as how to worship, nor set rules on fasting, etc. But was Paul really giving each Christian such "liberty"? Only a surface level and non-contextual reading could lead to such an "interpretation," while careful look at Paul's language will see he's speaking very carefully and pastorally.

Appreciating the "traditions of men" that Jesus condemned

In the infamous passages of Matthew 15:1-11 and Mark 7:1-22, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for teaching "traditions of men," which Protestants claim rules out "Catholic oral tradition". The Catholic response to this Protestant accusation is understandable, but also unfortunately surface level. When texts are misunderstood in the first place but never corrected, then what typically happens is that these texts turn into 'surface level apologetic' passages that never get studied at all. In this specific situation, Protestants would allege that the Pharisees randomly began taking on all sorts of random teachings and inventing a new religion, instead of simply following the Bible alone for their theology. Such a shallow reading of the text would warrant us to take a step back and see what was really being said here.  

Before looking at the verses itself, the first surface level rookie mistake Protestants make is to think that Jesus was teaching that any doctrine not written on paper is automatically not from God and cannot carry any authority. That Protestant claim is obviously wrong by the simple fact Jesus never wrote anything down and that Jesus taught 'orally' throughout His ministry. Many periods of Salvation History involved teaching being passed down orally, such as the command to circumcise given to Abraham and not written down for hundreds of years later until Moses. With that out of the way, we can now approach the passage with a different mindset.

Here is St Mark's account of the situation, which I trim down for brevity:

Can "gifts" be merited? (Eph 2:8)

I am sorry I have not had a new post of for several months. It has been a mix of life being very busy and also not really having anything new to post about. I try not to post unless I have something I feel worth sharing and that has not been talked about (much) anywhere else.

In this post I want to talk more about the Protestant favorite proof text, Ephesians 2:8-9. I have talked about this text before (HERE) on how to most effectively interpret it, on its face, without having to complicate the discussion. As a recap, simply put, when Paul says "not of works so that no one may boast," we can do a simple substitution to see what "works" means here: Paul cannot mean "sinful works" here, because sinful works do not save and don't allow anyone to legitimately boast. Paul cannot mean "good works" here because if someone can do good works they they should be saved and they should be able to boast, so there is no reason for Paul to attack good works. Paul cannot mean "works inspired by the Holy Spirit," because Paul would not denigrate the work of the Holy Spirit nor would Paul say in the same breath "you are saved by faith inspired by the Holy Spirit but are not saved by works inspired by the Holy Spirit," and thus we must also rule out that meaning. This leaves us with logically only one possible reading, that the "works" here are neutral, or only perceived to be good, or were only good under certain circumstances, and these would be "works of the law," such as circumcision, kosher, and Sabbath keeping. These "ceremonial works" were being used by the Jews to "boast" that they were better than the Gentiles, as proof that God loved them more by making them be born as Jewish. The Jews didn't say they earned it, but rather than they were privliged to be born Jewish. This fits precisely with the context, of Eph 2:11-22, which Protestants intentionally ignore. The whole "chapter" of Ephesians 2 is actually only about eight sentences long, so basically two short paragraphs, so it is disingenuous for Protestant Biblical Scholars to take only one sentence out of two paragraphs and ignore the context. This paragraph you just read you made sure to read it all so you would see my message, without taking me out of context.

This takes me to the new information I would like to share. I have talked with Protestants who say that in Ephesians 2:8-9 when Paul says salvation/faith is a "gift" from God, that this means it was not given because of anything you did. Protestants say gifts cannot be merited nor earned. Protestants say gifts cannot be given through the sacraments. As with most of Protestant "theology," it sounds good when presented but is not actually based on Scripture. Let's consider how the Bible uses the term "gift" to see that this Protestant claim is at the very least unsubstantiated.

Does religion get passed down from the mother or the father?

I came across the official teaching of Orthodox Judaism (the most strict/traditional form) that Judaism teaches that a person's "Jewishness" depends strictly on whether his mother was Jewish. This is called "matrilineal descent", which is opposed to "patrilineal descent" where the child's religion is determined by the father's religion. The only exception to this is if someone formally converts to Judaism, then it doesn't matter if his mother was Jewish. Most of us have grown up thinking that the Bible and ancient cultures passed down their lineage, religion, inheritance, etc, through the father. Thus, I was shocked and wanted to look into this more, especially to see if there was some theological error or problems with this claim.

The first thing that came to my mind was all the lineages listed in the Bible. In every case, it is one long list of fathers and sons. This strongly suggests that the son's tribal/ethnic and religion were passed down from the father. The next thing that came to my mind was the "Patriarch" language used throughout the Bible, especially Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The language of "Abraham's seed" being the blessed seed/dna/semen would strongly suggest that the father is the ultimate (or at least preferred) determination of one's religion/ancestry/linage. This I just took as an accepted truth that everyone else was fine with, so I was shocked to see this so strongly opposed by the Orthodox Jews. This led me to delve into what "Biblical proof texts" they had going in their favor.

The wikipedia page on this issue (here) cites the main Biblical claims that I've seen on other sources, so I think it's easiest to just address the examples they cite.