Mormonism’s Search for Acceptance

Michael,
I thought this was very well written, and you make some very good points. I hope that Mr Madden responds with his thoughts on this post, because I would like to hear his side of it. In addition to Smith’s first vision that denigrated all Christian faiths as an abomination, there are seriously significant theological differences between Mormonism and historical Christianity. Thanks for the great post!

A good link on the subject of doctrinal differences is:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html#Statements_of_5_Christian_Denominations_on_Mormonism
Be sure to also read the response from Catholic Father Richard John Neuhaus (link on the right) who points out some of these same facts that Michael has pointed out in his post. Once again, very nice post Michael.

Sorry…Missed the full link. It is:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html#Statements_of_5_Christian_Denominations_on_Mormonism

This is exactly the approach that “mainstream” evangelical Christians should be taking in this debate. It is all too easy for Mormons to claim offense, when it is we who should be (and are) greatly offended by the claims of Joseph Smith and his followers. The assertion that our “creeds are an abomination” and that the professors of those creeds are “corrupt” draws the line in the sand. It is not mainstream evangelicals who drew that line. Mormons defined the paradox, not Christians.

We recently had the opportunity to visit with some very nice Mormon missionaries who came to our door, and we had an enlightening conversation about the LDS objectives for proselytization. They have a deliberate mission to convert anyone that is not part of “the church”, even if they claim Christ as their Savior. Now, why would they need to convert the very people with whom they declare ecclesiastical unity and demand spiritual community? Interestingly, the pamphlet the missionaries handed us cited this very passage (“abomination”/”corrupt”) and explained that Joseph Smith had to “restore” the church of Christ on earth. This implies that, in fact, there was NO living church (that is, filled with the Spirit) on earth for a long time until Smith came along and saved the day. Because we as believers know that the followers of Christ themselves ARE the church, we can be certain that no restoration of any organization, temple, or doctrinal manifesto was necessary for “the church” to exist.

Thanks for your perspective, Michael. You have gotten right to the root of the issue and addressed it respectfully and logically. Someone who recognizes you as CORRUPT and your Biblical convictions an ABOMINATION, while calling you an ignorant BIGOT is a paragon of double-speak.

I really enjoyed this post and found your explanation to be concise and to the point. Much of my family’s history is rooted in Mormonism and while we were raised Lutheran my mother, prior to marrying my father, was Mormon. Her experience leaving the church has always been of interest to me as much of my family remains Mormon. I do agree that it seems illogical for Mormons to consider themselves part of the Christian religion which they found to be an abomination. I wonder how they would reconcile that discrepancy.

I understand the confusion between those statements we make as an LDS church to being open to the truths of other churches and those statements rendered in Joseph Smith's original account and elsewhere as being a blanketed statement that they are all false churches. It can seem conflicting.

Here are some thoughts:

First of all, and at least theoretically, these were not comments made by Joseph Smith. They were supposedly comments made by the Savior to Joseph at the time he appeared to him. Joseph then summarizes what was said later. Exactly what the Savior said, and the tone in which he said it is still left to be understood. That said, the Savior apparently was very harsh and critical in his time against the pharisees and others, who had very much tainted a faith that Christ himself had directed Moses to establish. This is no different. The very Christian church that the Savior had established and instructed Peter, James and John to lead became corrupt in many ways. That's not to say there aren't some fantastic Christians today, as there were some faithful Jews in Christ's day. But many of the basic doctrines, truths, and ordinances were distorted by the time Christ came, and many have become distorted since Christ came.

Secondly, Joseph's rendition of what the Savior said was in the context of being greatly persecuted himself–even at a fairly young age. And yet he in his own actions was fairly open and respectful. Indeed, I know of no account in which Joseph openly persecuted other faiths. Still, he himself was killed for what he led and believed.

Third, in quiet, undermining ways I have perhaps been persecuted in some small degree by other "Christians" simply being a mormon. But for the most part, I have been treated quite kindly. Moreover, I have treated others with great respect, and invite all else to do so. As a lay leader of my faith, I emphasize and invite members of my congregation to do the same, and would hope they do so. I think that's what Christ would want me to do. And in trying to follow Him, does that not allow me the courtesy of being considered a Christian?

Great blog. Thanks for letting me post. JJK

I grew up in Salt Lake City as the pastor's kid of a Southern Baptist minister. Let me make clear the approach my family has always taken with regard to Mormons: In recent years, various "Christian" groups have gathered outside Temple Square to disrupt Temple marriage ceremonies (or at least their photo shoots on the front steps of the temple). They would yell things, like "You're going to hell!" while the newly-sealed couple were trying to take wedding pictures. My father, along with a large number of other Christian pastors and lay-leaders, went out to protest those other protesters who were so vile in their words and actions. While I am not someone who is on-board with Mormon theology, like you I accept any sort of respectful debate, and I appreciate your comments on this post.

Unfortunately, your comment above still doesn't change Mormonism's claim to exclusivity. Whether the Personage said it or Joseph Smith said it, it was said — and canonized into LDS doctrine. Unlike Mormonism, Biblical Christianity is not a religion that is open to much doctrinal change. We don't have a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator who can announce a change in doctrine (those who try are generally dismissed by Bible-believing Christians). Because of this rigid stance on doctrine, mainline Christian doctrine really hasn't changed since Smith's time. Therefore, the Christianity practiced then (and also condemned in Smith's first vision) are essentially the same as what we practice today.

You warned against seeing Smith's vision as a blanket statement that all other churches are false churches. I have always understood that claim to exclusivity to be central to the LDS faith. If it's not a blanket statement, then I would be very interested in learning which other faiths the LDS church holds as true churches along with them. Which denominations/churches/organizations are seen as co-equal with Mormon doctrine?

I know many Mormons, and I identify strongly with their values (sometimes more strongly than I do with other Christians). But, if no other church can claim a co-equal status, then the very acceptance of Mormonism as Christianity is a disqualification of our own claim to Christianity. Where is my logic breaking down?

I'd like to throw my opinions in the proverbial hat and see if maybe I can't answer some of your questions and do so with good sources. I really don't think your logic is breaking down (all that much anyway), but I think your perception that Mormon's want to be part of mainstream Christianity is not correct. I will break my points into individual parts and try to back it up with scripture. Of course I am a rambler, so I'll break this comment into multiple posts as well.

1) The Mormon definition of what makes a Christian:

"And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come." (Alma 46:15).
The book of Acts mentions Christian twice, once as the body of the church (first used in Antioch, Acts 11:26) and once by King Aggripa as he felt Paul's words almost persuaded him to be a Christian (Acts 26:28). Those persuading words were not ones of joining a community of believers to try and fit in with the mainstream, but of testimony of Christ, as Paul had experienced personally on the road to Damascus. A Mormon's concept of being a Christian is as Paul's. It is a deep personal testimony of the risen Savior. To try and classify Mormon's by a political or communal classification of the word Christian as not pertaining to a larger community of Christ believers because of theological differences is simply semantics that may not have even applied to Paul.
Mormons are most definitely Christians as defined by believing in Christ. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ. Every founding document is replete with Christ. The Book of Mormon mentions him on practically every page. Every Joseph Smith translation from Moses to Abraham to his own revelations found in the Doctrine & Covenants bring Christ to the forefront. Christ is the head of the church. Everything in Mormonism, and I mean everything, is a symbol of Him or done purely from His example and teaching. It's clear that Mormon's are vastly different theologically than the rest of "Christianity", so if our attempt at taking on Christ's name in both word and deed does not make me a Christian, then I'd still choose to follow Him regardless of the label you place on me.

2) Mormonism's claims to truth:

This one is where it gets tricky and where I think I can sympathize with your logic. Mormonism makes no bones about exclusivity. You will no doubt hear "only true church" many times. Often times this statement is qualified with words like "living" or "fullness". "Living", being that it is run by a prophet, whose claim is to be a figurehead for Christ on earth and thus the church may in essence move in different directions as Christ will direct through revelation. Thus the canon is essentially alive through this means. It is the only church of this kind, the only church run through direct "living" communication to Jesus Christ himself. This is no doubt a bold claim and the one that brings either the most hatred to the church or the most looks of "they must be crazy". As for "fullness" this usually implies that truth can still be found elsewhere, just not in a complete or full form. So when you hear a claim like "the only true church", does that mean the only living church or the only church that contains the fullness of the gospel. Both would be true. Although it may seem like they intersect and contradict, when in fact they do not.

2a) Mormonism's claim to exclusive "living" truth:

Much of this claim can be found in the above quoted recounting of Joseph Smith's vision. If his claims are true, then those words are those of the "personage" which was Jesus Christ. It seems clear that Jesus' claim to truth was pretty exclusive and quite polarizing – "house divided against itself shall not stand…He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matthew 12:25-30). With so many Christian churches divided against each other, how can they all be considered Christ's? Is Christ's prayer that we be as "one" as He is one with Father, not to be taken literal? (John 17: 17-26). His claim is that all believers (v 20) be sanctified through truth which is the word of God (v 17) and be one as Christ and the Father are one (v 21,22). Not only does he want believers to be one as They are one, but he goes as far as to say that believers be one with them (v 21). If we are to be one with them, then it would seem that somehow we must belong to truth and perfection as that is what they are (v 17,23). There are many other examples of this oneness and of this polarity (Eph 4:5 – One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism; Matthew 10:23 – Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword).
I don't think in our same climate with so many church's claiming to be of Christ that we should be any different than was Joseph Smith in seeking to know which to join. If truly Christ's church was no longer existent on the earth at Joseph's time and this "personage" was truly Jesus Christ, than for a perfect being to call them all abominations is not really that big of a claim. If Christ was not leading their churches then all that was left would be "doctrines of men". Since I'm sure these "doctrines" were extractions from scripture they would no doubt have a "form of godliness". The key was that they were missing the power. That power could no doubt mean the "living" doctrines directly from Christ and the authority associated with receiving them. To call them corrupt is still contextualized as it has already been established that their doctrines were of men and their creeds abominable. Saying that "their hearts are far from me" is a judgment only Christ could make of the hearts of those particular minister's that may or may not be a judgment made to others. I don't think any Mormon would honestly claim to be a judge of a minister's heart even if he believed that his creed was corrupted.

2b) Mormonism claim to the "fullness" of truth:

As stated earlier, a fullness would imply that truth can still be found elsewhere, just not in it's fullness. This is also, not meant to mean that Mormonism is completely omniscient. It is only meant to mean that only within Mormonism will you find the complete gospel of Jesus Christ (or in other words the answers most relevant to knowing and returning to our Heavenly Father). The 9th Article of Faith states "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." Certainly there is a lot that we don't know and only hope that through this "living" channel that we may some day know more.
As for truth existing outside the church, one of the pinnacles of the faith also found in the Articles of Faith says "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Certainly such things are found outside of Mormonism. Although the claim is that Mormonism is the only "living" church of Christ (as already explained), that does not mean that Christ does not still love and inspire all of his children on earth. Great leaders of all faiths have no doubt promoted virtuous causes worthy of praise and they did not do so without the grace of Christ. Truth where ever and how ever it can be found is certainly all around. It can be found in arts, sciences, books (particularly scripture), and even within ourselves, but mostly it can be a gift directly from Christ himself. If you doubt that, why don't you ask Him yourself and see if maybe you get an answer.

In summary then, you are correct in believing that Mormonism does not find a coequal because that would be like saying that another church is directly lead by Christ and so any theological differences would inevitably be placing Christ against himself (as earlier sited). Thus I find that most Christian churches are thus dividing Christ against himself. Claiming that only agreement on the important stuff is all that qualifies to be a church lead by Christ falls short of His perfect character. Thus the claim to a "living" church disappears and those that claim modern revelation are soundly rejected (as you stated already). Maybe my logic is wrong, but can you have Christ's church if Christ is not leading it? Any organization no matter how well the founder sets down the rules or leaves behind a great legacy for his organization will no doubt have much of his leadership lost by subsequent leaders that are only left to interpret what he said or did. Add thousands of years and multiple translations of his writings and I'm pretty sure that organization is not going to be the same. Thus you find Mormonism with it's claim to be lead by the same leader that was always leading before. The same yesterday, today and forever. It's no doubt bold and maybe a little crazy, but if it's true, then we should tell everyone about it, cause that's some good news.

Sorry this was so long and dropped off at the end, but it is now 3:22 AM and my brain kindof shut itself off from looking up really good sources for my last points. I'd love to hear any rebuttals or questions as I'm sure I may not have explained things perfectly.

Michael,
After rereading this entire thread, I think I understand where the gap in our understandings might be. Correct me if I am wrong, but you no doubt view Christianity as a brotherhood of protestant/evangelical churches under the banner of Christianity. When a Mormon identifies himself as Christian, the perception seems to be that we are trying to identify ourselves as one of that brotherhood, when in fact Mormons have always been the rejects (Why else do you think they ended up in Utah?). To a Mormon the use of the title Christian is nothing more than a believer in Christ, not some political or organization definition. So by that definition we are all Christians, but by a political division Mormons would certainly not be considered Christians. The RLDS church for example has made that political leap in becoming the Community of Christ and modifying their doctrines enough so as to fit in with this brotherhood.
The doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ stand singularly and in no way would allow for such to occur. Mormonism is not at all concerned with being accepted as this thread would imply. They just want to be understood. Part of that understanding is essential ideas of Christ that so often get mangled or thrown aside by those that maliciously exclude and deceive. You don't have to search very far on the Internet to find gross misrepresentations of church doctrines. Even more sadly is that most of these misrepresentations and lies are very directly perpetuated by the very Christian brotherhood that this thread claims Mormon's seek acceptance (further proof that Mormonism does not seek acceptance, just understanding).
I do not have a lot of experience, but I have attended a couple of baptist meetings, a handful of Catholic masses and a couple Jehovah's witness meetings, not to mention a few others. Most were quite respectful and very informative to me. My one negative experience was while I waited at a Baptist Hospital in Paraguay. They had a book store on site and right in the window was a coffee table size book with the Salt Lake Temple on the cover as well as a dark ominous cloud. The whole store seemed to be full of anti-mormon literature, but that could have just been my perception. Of course I sat and read this particular book almost completely and was just amazed at how anyone could believe what was printed (I have since read many more books of this kind and watched multiple DVDs such as all the Godmakers with similar dumbstruck awe). I really do not know much about baptist churches other than conversations with friends and co-workers and my own attendance in meetings, but if those are the things that are being taught about Mormonism then I can completely understand why people would think Mormons are nuts and for that matter non-Christian. This is what Mormonism is up against and why we care so much to be understood on our terms and not on the lies told about us. I do not profess to understand a baptist and in all fairness and openness I think if I did want to understand them I would not ask my fellow Mormons (as they would no doubt not understand them either). If you want to understand Mormon thought and Mormon doctrine, I would recommend an openness and maybe even an interest in investigating the church as a Mormon would, unless you are scared that you might become one of them.

I think the difficulty in this entire point is that you and I are talking about two completely different understandings of Christ. Not just slight differences (like those found among the various Protestant denominations), not even profound differences (like those that exist between Catholics and Protestants), we're talking about polar opposite views regarding the person of Christ and his origins.

With that in mind, it makes sense that Christians (as they have been called for centuries) object to another religion taking for themselves the exact same designation, especially when the foundation for their beliefs is not even in the same ballpark. In order for Mormons to separate their faith from the faiths of all traditionally-named Christians, its important that the LDS church starts by giving its followers a separate designation.

More to come…

The difference between us in this regard exists in the infallibility of Scripture. Christ, in our view, has come to earth and the fullness of truth is written in the Bible. This means that no man can come along and institute a "new direction" for the church unless it falls within the written boundaries set by the Bible.

The challenge Mormons must face is how the church's past and present are not always in agreement. If Mormonism's living prophets through the years have been in disagreement, it must be the stance of the church that Christ himself is prone to changing his mind about the most significant issues regarding the church. Christianity has always had only one authoritative voice on the major doctrines of the church — the Bible.

Interestingly enough, you may be surprised to find that most Christians believe that each person who has accepted Christ essentially has the same ability as the LDS prophet — to engage in direct, living communication with Christ.

In order for the church — which we both believe was instituted by Christ while he was on earth — to have perverted the laws and teaching of Christ, they had to have been practicing them properly at some time. At what point do Mormons think that Christianity strayed off the path? And what historical evidence is there that early Christianity practices the faith as the LDS practice it today? I think my biggest red flag is that many of the religious practices of Mormonism (temple rites, baptism for the dead, etc.) never existed in Christianity, and many are expressly forbidden in the Bible. As far as proof of these practices is concerned, historical evidence is non-existent — we must simply take Smith's word for it. That's difficult.

And the idea that other religions are simply doctrines of man is not really the whole truth. Temple rituals actually show dramatizations that depict ministers of other religions as being beholden to, even directed by, Satan himself. In that very ritual, the practitioners of Mormonism stand in judgement of the hearts of leaders outside their faith.

I don't entirely disagree with you here and ironically the church has always used a separate designation for itself – Mormon. If you go back to church commercials from the 70s and 80s they used to say the official church name and then follow it explicitly with "The Mormons". We will forever be known as Mormons and that is certainly a very narrow definition of our belief system.

In more recent years the church has made a strong push to emphasize its fundamental purpose – Christ. They enlarged "Jesus Christ" in the title of the church used on all plaques and missionary name tags. They added a subtitle to the Book for Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The purpose of such is nothing more than portraying correct understanding as there are an exuberant amount of lies spread about Mormon beliefs (As stated earlier, most of these lies come from those that this post would claim Mormonism seeks acceptance). The title of Christian falls into this same category of trying to be understood, not necessarily accepted.

Let me pose it this way. If I were asked if I were Christian, I would think both yes and no. My first instinct would be to answer yes because Christ is my Savior, but I would also contextualize the answer based on the intentions of the person asking the question. In other words, I would answer the question in a way that let them know that I was not Christian in a traditional sense, but that I was Mormon and that Mormons believe in Christ as do Christians. Now if you were to reverse the question and ask me if I were non-Christian I could only respond in one way – absolutely not. Answering yes to that question in just about any context implies a non-belief of Christ as the Savior.

It really doesn't matter who lays claim to what title. What matters is what is understood by that title. In centuries past the title Christian didn't mean exactly what it means today (I think it could be argued it meant more along the general idea of a mere belief in Christ than anything organizational). Who knows, maybe in 100 years the title Mormon won't mean the same thing it does now.

I don't think we are too far off on most of these comments, but let me try and fill in some gaps. The infallibility of Scripture is certainly not a Mormon concept. Our articles of faith clearly outline that we believe the Bible to the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (implying that certain translations may contain inaccuracies). Even our most precious book, the Book of Mormon, makes it's own claim of fallibility.

"And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things.." – Mormon 8:17

As you no doubt know as well, there have been various editions of the Book or Mormon as well to correct scribal errors and punctuation (remarkably the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon is hundreds of pages of one run-on sentence). Anytime man is involved, there is bound to be many errors (we seem to forget that sometimes in the spell-checked era).

In any case, the errors are typically minor and generally do not affect the content as a whole, but it does bring you back to the importance of a living prophet as well as the Holy Spirit as a guide when reading the scriptures. The word of God as communicated to a prophet is no question as infallible as is God, but the subsequent transmission to the rest of us is not always as pure. The Bible is the ultimate example with it's thousands of translations and controversy surrounding what fragments or scrolls or even known books should be used or included. I understand that this is a core principle of faith, but to me, accepting a translation down a line through Christendom to 17th century translators that did not even share many of modern Christian beliefs and then calling it Infallible is no more far fetched as accepting that a 14 year old boy spoke directly with Christ.

You will have to clarify your statement about Mormon prophets being in disagreement about the church's doctrines because I do not know of a case. Understanding church policies and practices and how they change rather frequently is a different matter entirely that we can spawn somewhere else.

I am really surprised though that you would actual make the claim that Christianity has "always" had only one authoritative voice on the major doctrines of the church. When you say the Bible you will need to clarify again, because if you are talking about the KJV then you can only go back to 1611, before then there really wasn't the Bible as you would understand it. In fact at multiple points of the Bible's history it included or excluded multiple books in a variety of forms. Also, you are leaving out all the Creeds that shape the major doctrines you refer to.

Even the Bible itself as a whole does not make claim to itself as being authoritative. References to authorities not found in the Bible are made and chronologies are not linear. The authority mentioned in the Bible is God or often the Word of God (which in its proper context does not refer to the Bible as a whole). That claim of authority is the same authority Mormonism claims – Revelation from God to Man.

Let me break it down methodologically. God speaks to man, man understands. Man writes down what God says and thousands of brilliant men come to thousands of different conclusions about what God originally said to man. God repeats what he said already to another man, man understands. Man writes down what God says and thousands of brilliant men come to thousands of different conclusions about what God originally said to man. The key is not what God said, but what he says. If God stops saying then man stops understanding.

I do recognize that for the typical Mormon the same fundamental problem that I just over-simplified exists. We rely on Scripture as being authoritative, as well as the addition of a figurehead that can introduce new or otherwise never before revealed doctrines by means of direct revelation to God. Thus, the real issue becomes one of faith and hope. Faith that the president of the church really does talk with God and hope that he will do so. Since Joseph Smith, not much new has been revealed, but the repetition of what's already been said is replete. You would think that we would understand it by now and move on, but most of us still don't.

I am not surprised by the belief that Christians can communicate with Christ, because I've been told otherwise multiple times. However, the context of those communications does not seem to be the same. This is one that I haven't figured out because the idea of revelation to the Mormons is so hotly contested on every level – from the prophet down to the individual Mormon's personal revelations – and yet every evangelical I've ever talked to shares experiences that to me sound no different than what I might relate. I can't tell you how many times I've had someone try to explain to me that the Bible says no to more revelation and yet share personal revelations of their own. You'll have to explain that one to me.

Wow, almost 3 AM already. Where does the time go.

Mike, thanks a lot for the wonderful missionary work you do for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I know you know the name of the church but still it doesn’t appear to you that we are Christians. And I understand that because the Saviour Himself has warned against those who will come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves. So to you it has appeared to you that we are one of those. I salute your opinion at least because you are above 18 years. But here in my country Ghana are “Christian Pastors” more aggresive and offensive than you sound. Let me put a little bit of clarity here( and I learned English in school, it’s not my mother tongue so I took it word for word). I am happy you quoted what the Prophet Joseph Smith said without manipulation like a lot of critics do. But if my eyes are not deceiving me then I think his report says which church NOT which religion. And the response being join none of them means non of the existing churches not don’t join Christianity. So like you said whether Joseph Smith said it or “he claims” the Saviour said it it was said. But what was the subject? Was it denomination(church) or the entire religion? From your thoughts I know you know it was denomination but you’ve not critically critisised based on the words Joseph Smith reported. Your critisism has been based on you taking offence from words that contains non. One of the early leaders of the church counselled a young man who later became a leader of the church also that “it’s only a fool who takes an offence that is not intended for him” I don’t want to believe “the Christian world” falls into that category.

Let me repeat the report clarity’s sake: “which church is right and which one should I join?” NOT which religion is right. Simple English. I understand that as a Ghanaian who speaks Twi more than English! Man don’t be fixed in what you don’t know. If you have any problem with anything about this church then you have problem with what you don’t know and if anyone hates it, they hate waht they can’t conquer! This church is iron horn and has been through what none other has.

It saddens me to know that you can be happier at least with the knowledge that your wonderful family can be together for ever but some pastor has ignorantly placed an end to your family after this life like God wants to rob you of happiness. I’ve thought a lot about Matt. 7 when the Saviour said many will go unto Him and say Lord Lord and He will say depart from me. Connect that with they are corrupt and you will find no new thing. If they know what they are doing is wrong, they will dare not aproach the Saviour. So ignorance! Lots of love,apprecaiton and thanks for your blog. Respect..

Michael,

As a Latter-day Saint not considered as not being a Christian can you help me with answers to this questions?

WHICH ONE OF THESE ARE CHRISTIANS?

1. Those who baptise by immersion and those who do it some other way.

2. Those who put entirely everything next to family and those who feel comfortable placing family next to some things.

3. Those who think the first commandment(marriage) can be pushed away but call themselves leaders of churches and those who know it’s extremely important.

4. Those who emphasise “one baptism” but ignore or interpret differently the second phrase (one faith) in that same verse which interestingly comes before one baptism and those who apply all.

5. People who work tirelessly without being paid with anything corruptible knowing they arew laying up for themselves treasures in heaven and those who may say two more “praise the Lord” because it is the 28th of the month.

Let me pause here. Respect……