Study by the Spirit

Wanted to share with you...

               This doesn't happen to me very often and I felt like it was appropriate to share.

               Yesterday morning when I was saying my prayers before getting out of bed, I said my prayers, nothing overly special that I remember, and I don't remember asking for anything in particular or in special need (maybe just for my wife or something, help with my new born, etc.), and as soon as I was done, clear as a bell, I heard in my mind "Doctrine and Covenants 84, verses 22 and 23".

               I swear there has been very few times in my life where I have had instances where I "heard" the voice of the Spirit.....there is only roughly 2 that I can name.  it was pretty amazing....I got directly out of bed and went and looked them up (I didn't know them off the top of my head, though I knew it was the chapter on Priesthood).

               And after reading, it was pretty awe inspiring, but didn't much know what to do with them.......

               But I will bear testimony to you (I feel like I needed to share with someone, also shared with my wife), and you already know, revelation is real!


--C


That's how I used to study.  I need to get back to that.  But I would pray to ask to know what to study and read, then go with the first thing that came to mind.  It was AMAZING!  Sometimes I would just get book and chapter.  Sometimes, like you, would get specific verses and sometimes I would think, why did I read that?  I must have understood wrong.  But the next day I would be given another scripture that related to, expounded or put in to context the scripture from the previous day.

       Thank you for sharing that experience.  It's reminded me of what I need to get back to doing.


You know what I got from those scriptures?

It's as if the Lord is telling you to teach his people plainly and seek diligently to sanctify his people.


--J


Apparently my wife agrees (she said she told me so last night, but I don't remember the conversation)...

Thanks for being in tune with the Spirit....along with my wife....apparently I need to get on the ball.


--C

Christ's Healings

First, why do you think Christ, on several occasions made more of a show of healing?  i.e. the deaf and dumb Mark 7: 32-37 and blind man Mark 8:22-25

Second, if you read the account of Christ's healing of the blind man, Mark 8:22-25, Christ seems to have to heal him twice.  The first healing, the man could see but his vision was distorted and the second time his vision restored.  What do you make of that?

--J

My thought would be that it a) of course didn’t have anything to do with Jesus and b) didn’t have anything to do with the blind man.  I find it interesting that it mentions that he was taken out of town – didn’t need to go to any water or river or anything – just had to be taken away.

I think the reason would be that the THE DISCIPLES/APOSTLES needed to be taught a lesson.  In the previous verses it talks about how the disciples were lacking in faith and didn’t know what they were going to do because they didn’t have any bread.  Poor Jesus, he was so patient.    Verses 18 and 21 stick out especially….”having eyes, see ye not”  “how is it that ye do not understand?”

So, my thought would be, here is a problem with someone’s “eyes” that he is going to heal, to help them understand – it’s beyond the physical…verse 25 says:

25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw ^aevery man clearly.

“he was restored, and saw every man clearly.”

This might be pushing it, but “he was restored”, kind of like the leper who came back to Christ (and I believed was healed on the inside as well as the outside), this brother was “restored” – not only physically, but spiritually, which is even more important.

So my take would be the first healing was symbolic of physical and the second was spiritual – and at the same time he was trying to reiterate to the disciples, “please see with your spiritual eyes and UNDERSTAND”.

Thanks so much for sending this – very uplifting!!!!!

--C

I thought the same thing about doing it for the benefit of the witnesses.  Reading these verses just dumbfounds me on how dense the disciples were.  Regarding their comments, Christ was like, "Guys.  Are you kidding me?  How are you still not getting this?"

About the double healing, I'm glad you put it that way.  Because I kept feeling it was more of a foreshadowing or analogy, sending some message, but I was feeling it more in terms of the church itself -- the early church and the restored church, but nothing was really hitting the mark in my mind.

--J

Our sin or Adam's?

The phrase "Jesus died for our sins" is always thrown around in a very cliche way without any real thought.
He suffered for our sins in the garden, he died to conquer death brought about by the sin of Adam, so...
Is it fair, then, to say "Jesus suffered for our sins, and died for Adam's?"


--J


About 2 months ago I was thinking A LOT about the atonement, specifically about the cross, and Jesus giving up his life and what part that played.  Something my brother said, really got me thinking, because, as far as I know, we are the only church who put any emphasis on the garden, the suffering in the garden (because it's only mentioned in the d&c and bom, it's nowhere really in the bible).

I had always viewed it separately.....my train of thought WAS....

"to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

Immortality was taken care of because of what he did on the cross and the 3rd day - he gave up his life, willingly and was resurrected, hence we can.

The eternal life/exhaltation, was taken care of in the garden, the suffering for our sins.

So to me, they were totally separate, the garden being more important than the cross...

BUT, then I got to studying and realized from all the scriptures and quotes I read that BOTH the garden AND the cross was needed.

He IS the eternal sacrificial lamb....the great offering.  Just as with the law of moses, the lamb had to have the sins placed upon him, so did Christ, but then the lamb HAD to be sacrificed, had to be slaughtered.

I don't know how I ever missed it before, but....it was a great epiphany for me a few months back and really helped my testimony grow even that much more about the cross and it's importance (or I should say his death and it's importance, not necessarily that it had to be a cross).

My current thought process is that the atonement is 2 fold:

       1)      In order so that he might be our advocate with the Father, and allow us to repent, Jesus, as the eternal sacrifice, brought about the atonement by taking upon him our sins, suffering all the pain and anguish we would ever know in the garden and by offering himself willingly on the altar (which happened to be a cross)

       2)      In order so that he might bring about the resurrection of each of us, he rose on the 3rd day (lots of science and faith and priesthood involved that you can type in here)J

In regards to your specific question(s):

       1)      He suffered for our sins - YES

       2)      He died to conquer death - PARTLY (he had to die, but in order so he could be resurrected, the resurrection is what actually conquered death)

       3)      "Sin of Adam" - in particular, what sin are you speaking of.....

       4)      If you are saying, "Jesus died for Adam's sins"....I would need more explanation before a verdict


--C


What you said makes sense.  


I know that what he did in the Garden is pointless without the physical sacrifice and the resurrection.  What point is there in having all sins forgiven if you're not resurrected?  A perfect spirit without a perfect body is not perfect; is not complete; is not whole because the soul is body and spirit combined, therefore, man would still be unable to dwell in H.F.'s presence because he would not be perfect.  


As you alluded to the sacrificial lamb, Christ had to complete the sacrifice in whole, so we could be saved in whole.  Unlike the law of Moses, Christ's sacrifice could not just be a physical one, it had to be spiritual as well.  The Law of Moses was a law of works, the outward to effect the inward, which was incomplete.  The Law of God is a higher law that changes the focus to the "inward man," the inward to effect the outward, which, in my mind, adds the spiritual to the physical, thus completing or fulfilling the Law of Moses.

Just read Matt. 5 this morning which reconfirmed to me the fact that Christ taught the Jews, "okay, guys, it's more than the superficial stuff; it goes deeper than the motions of the law itself; it's in the thoughts of the heart and mind" (i.e. the spiritual) and if the Spirit is aligned right, then obedience to the physical commandments fall into place.

The Law of Sacrifice pointed to the fulfillment of the Law of Moses by Christ.  After His sacrifice, the Law of Sacrifice was not done away with, it simply transformed into a spiritual law as opposed to a physical law.  An unfortunate carry over from the law of moses is the law of tithing because we, as a whole, are not ready to live the spiritual law of consecration in it's fullness.

So back to the Atonement, the Cross and the Garden are incomplete without the other, just as faith without works is dead as is the body without the spirit.  Christ willingly experienced physical death AND, in my opinion, spiritual death, overcoming both to fulfill the old law and to establish the new -- making it possible for our "souls" to be complete; a perfect body with a perfect spirit.

My Adam reference was just a superficial thought as I was thinking about that "died for our SINS" phrase.  The disobedience of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden brought death into the world which is why I said, in relation to the statement of "dying for sins," Christ died for Adam's sin and suffered for ours.

What I mean is there would have been no death to overcome if Adam had obeyed (although we would not have existed either) so there would be no need for a "triumph over death."  Adam's sin brought physical death into the world, so Christ had to overcome that death on the cross.  And because it was Adam's "bad choice", and not ours, the gift of resurrection, immortality, physical salvation is free to ALL regardless of personal worthiness because that is just.  


Men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.  Adam ate the apple, not me.  Christ suffered for each of our own personal bad choices in the Garden, making it possible to achieve eternal life if we repent.  Which is why I say, specifically Christ's relation to our SINS, He suffered for ours and died for Adam's.

Because I still believe he didn't die for MY sins.  He died to save me from the consequences of Adam's transgression, to bring to pass immortality and break the bands of mortality brought about by Adam's sin, not mine.  And that is glorious because we have been freed from that and no matter who I am or what I do, I will be immortal, as were our first parents.  


So, I don't want to sound like I have been downgrading the importance of the death and resurrection.  I'm just being nit picky about whose sin he actually died for... because that phrase just bugs me when tossed around without any thought.

Btw, what did your brother say that got you thinking?

There's a movie on Netflix about the life of Jesus.  It's a British claymation movie and it really underplays the Garden scene.  Bugged me to no end!


--J


This whole conversation has been great - your points that you added are awesome, in particular:

- Christ had to experience physical death (on the cross) and spiritual death (in the garden) in order for the atonement to be complete - that's genius, I don't think I've ever thought about it like that before - but it's so true.

- and I've always felt I had a pretty good knowledge of the law of moses and how it plays into everything, how Christ was the fulfillment of it, got all that, but the way you described it there, how it was transformed from a physical law into a spiritual law - never really heard it like that before either, also profound - and makes sense.

The whole point of what christ does is try to get us to change our natural man, to get us to change, our spirits to change to become like him, to become like the father.  to become spiritual beings.

Awesome.

So about the Adam thing, two questions:

- so you hate it when others say "christ died for my sins" - because basically they don't understand the necessity of the suffering in the garden in relation to the atonenment, is that it?  him sitting on the cross in and of itself doesn't do anything for anyone without the garden - correct?

- do you believe that Adam "sinned"?


--C

I don't "hate" it when people say it, it just bothers me, but I know that they are sincere and I know what they are really saying -- even if they don't.  Because, it's my feeling that Christ didn't pay for our sins on the cross, He paid for them in the Garden.   So, yes, you are correct -- the cross is meaningless without the Garden and vice versa.

Now, before I answer your last question, I need to know how you define sin.  What is your definition of sin.  I don't want to know yet whether or not you believe Adam sinned and why.  I just want to know your definition.

(And when I answer your Adam sinned question, I have another question that's going to hurt your theological brain.  A question that just came to me when thinking about it and I don't know if there even IS an answer!)

--J

Don’t leave me hanging, what’s the question that’s going to hurt my theological brain – I love those questions!!!!!!?????

My definition of sin…hmmm….good question….I’m going to try not to over-think it and just give my first knee-jerk here and then you can pull out the red pen…

Sin – to make a choice to act against a commandment, law, covenant knowing that you are doing so (i.e. you knew what you were doing when you did it)

That would be my Sunday school answer.

So, do I think Adam sinned…no.  Do I think Adam ‘trangressed’…no – but that’s another discussion.

--C

Heavenly Father had to set it up for Adam to make a choice to sin so that mortality could enter the world, thereby putting the Plan into full effect.

According to your definition of sin, yes, I believe Adam sinned.  He knew he was commanded NOT TO PARTAKE, yet he PARTOOK.

Now that leads to my stumper of a question.  Ready?

Is it a sin to break one commandment in order to obey another one?

Adam had to transgress the direct order of the Father and eat the fruit (disobedience) in order to keep the other commandment of multiplying and replenishing.

Catch 22.

Adam was in a position where if he obeyed one commandment, he would have not been able to fulfill the other commandment.  According to the Sunday School answer, Adam knew what he was doing when he did it...BUT he did it to keep another commandment.  So does that absolve him from his choice to act against a commandment?

Can't use the Nephi / Laban example because the Spirit specifically told Nephi to commit murder, whereas in Adam's case, it was Adam's own choice and reasoning given the circumstance. 

Point, counter-point.

Go.

--J

We are geniuses – this is something I have struggled with for YEARS – this makes the most sense!!!!!!

 --C

We should have talked about this years ago then.  What were we thinking?!

So do you still think Adam didn't sin?

--J

If Adam-God is true, Adam didn’t sin, there was no need to….it was a deliberate choice, knowing what had to be done and instead of some of the Adam and Eve story being symbolic, a good portion of it is to help us learn and grow.

If it’s not, then he did, and I’ve known that and never had a problem with it, as we discussed today.

--C

Doesn't Adam-God theory raise more questions than it answers?

--J

Depends on how long you’ve thought about it

--C

Haven't thought about it much, so not so many questions over here.  Wasn't it Brigham Young that first put forth that theory?

--J

At least that’s out there in publication form….if you read his stuff he is basically saying he teaches what Joseph taught, but Joseph never taught anything (publicly) like Brigham taught. 

--C

Hmm, that's interesting 'cause it seems like many of Joseph's teachings, sermons and discourses were recorded on a regular basis.  Unless these teachings occurred privately to the 12.  Joseph did say on several occasions how dense the Saints were and how much he wished he could teach them but to do it would break the church apart.  He also said that he had the whole plan laid out before him.  That everything he had received since the beginning, he eventually was given it all, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is something Joseph taught privately.

--J

Dismantling the Jeffress Argument

As I watched CNN's Anderson Cooper interview Pastor Robert Jeffress, the look on Cooper's face reflected exactly how I felt.  "This guy's not making any sense."

The holes in Jeffress' arguments against Mormons were so blatantly obvious that I thought, "How can anyone take this man seriously?"

Then I realized: many do take this man seriously.

It was easy for me, and most likely for Cooper as well, to see through his weak argument which was not substantive, but only a regurgitation of religious prejudice passed on from generation to generation within contemporary Christianity.

Many are blinded by this tradition of anti-mormonism passed down to them by the fathers of modern Christianity, including Jeffress himself.  Its a case of the blind leading the blind and you can tell by the anti-mormon rhetoric Jeffress has been spewing all over any media outlet that will bring him on.

So, allow me shed some light on Jeffress' statements so that the blind may see and this prejudice be put to an end.

Here is the interview in full:

And you can click here for a copy of the transcript so you will know I'm not taking Jeffress out of context.

First, let's take Jeffress' first statement to Cooper.

JEFFRESS: Well, again, when I talk about a cult, Anderson, I'm talking about a theological cult as opposed to a sociological cult. You know theologically, a cult is a religion with a human founder versus a divine founder. Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism. First is Jesus Christ to whom we look as the head of our Church. 

Who does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints look to as the head of their church?

Well, from the church's own website, on the Church Administration page, you'll find that the very sentence of the very first paragraph reads:

Jesus Christ stands at the head of the Church. The mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to help all people come unto Him (see Moroni 10:32). To fulfill this mission, the Church is organized according to the pattern revealed by the Lord “for the perfecting of the saints, . . . till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:12–13; see also Ephesians 4:11).

In Jeffress' own statement, it's obvious he's comparing two different things: the Head of the church, and the founder of the the church.  And it seems he knows the difference and is subtly spinning facts to support his own version of the truth.

If a cult is a religion with a human founder, then Baptists are a cult.  Why?  Because the founder of the Baptist sect of Christianity was John Smyth.  So, Jeffress' argument on this point doesn't hold up.

Founder of the LDS church:  Joseph Smith
Founder of the Baptist church:  John Smyth
The person both claim as the head of their church:  Jesus Christ

Therefore, this cannot be used as proof that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a cult.

Next...

JEFFRESS: And secondly, cults tend to look at other religious text outside the bible for their guidance. Mormonism, for example, certainly accepts the bible, but it accepts the newer, fresher revelation the book of Mormon that came from the angel Moroni supposedly to Joseph Smith. 

There is not enough room in this post to really go through this point so I will refer the reader to two, of many, resources.

The two references to answer this one:

First, is a great discourse by one of the 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ titled "The Miracle of the Holy Bible."  You can read that by clicking here.

Here are a few important excerpts:

It is a miracle that we have the Bible’s powerful doctrine, principles, poetry, and stories. But most of all, it is a wonderful miracle that we have the account of the life, ministry, and words of Jesus, which was protected through the Dark Ages and through the conflicts of countless generations so that we may have it today.

It is a miracle that the Bible literally contains within its pages the converting, healing Spirit of Christ, which has turned men’s hearts for centuries, leading them to pray, to choose right paths, and to search to find their Savior.

The Holy Bible is well named. It is holy because it teaches truth, holy because it warms us with its spirit, holy because it teaches us to know God and understand His dealings with men, and holy because it testifies throughout its pages of the Lord Jesus Christ....

...Honest, diligent study of the Bible does make us better and better, and we must ever remember the countless martyrs who knew of its power and who gave their lives that we may be able to find within its words the path to the eternal happiness and the peace of our Heavenly Father’s kingdom....

...You young people especially, do not discount or devalue the Holy Bible. It is the sacred, holy record of the Lord’s life. The Bible contains hundreds of pages more than all of our other scripture combined. It is the bedrock of all Christianity. We do not criticize or belittle anyone’s beliefs. Our great responsibility as Christians is to share all that God has revealed with all of His sons and daughters. 

Does this sound like a church that takes the Bible lightly?  Who don't believe it to be the Word of God?

After praising the brave Christian reformers, he said:

Although these early Christian reformers agreed on many things, they ultimately disagreed on many points of doctrine. This resulted in the organization of numerous Christian denominations. Roger Williams, an early champion of religious liberty, concluded that there was “no regularly-constituted Church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance; nor could there be, until new apostles were sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming he was seeking”....

...Brothers and sisters, (speaking to members of the LDS church) I am sure many of you have had the experience of hearing people say that “Mormons are not Christians because they have their own Bible, the Book of Mormon.” To anyone harboring this misconception, we say that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and the author of our salvation and that we believe, revere, and love the Holy Bible. We do have additional sacred scripture, including the Book of Mormon, but it supports the Bible, never substituting for it.

Please read this amazing, insightful and inspiring talk in its fullness here.

The second reference, is an outstanding analysis by yours truly (I know that's boasting... I'll repent later) that you'll find on the blog Waxing Theological titled "The Cult List:..." and you can read that by clicking here.

Let me take one excerpt from "The Cult List:..."

If I draw a dot...
How many lines can I draw through it?
Infinite. Right?

Why do you think there are so many churches? Even among CBN's approved list? If everyone has the Bible, why is there so much confusion and differing of doctrines, interpretations and rituals? Some using one Bible, others using another version of the Bible?

The answer is simple.

If the dot represents the Bible, then each line represents a separate interpretation of the Bible. Or like one nail trying to hold up and secure a 2 X 4 -- with the nail representing the Bible and the board representing the pure gospel of Christ.  One Bible allows anyone to twist and turn the gospel according to their own interpretation.

And how are you going to find a group to fellowship and worship with if you don't even know if the Bible they're using is a correct translation?

There is a growing belief in modern Christianity that the Bible is infallible and without error and the complete word of God. If that is the case, explain the different versions. Show the world where the Bible makes the claim that it is infallible and inerrant and that it's complete.

After a more in depth analysis, the article concludes with this:

John was exiled and wasn't writing the end of the Bible when he recorded the book of Revelation. When the Bible we have today was organized, they actually put the book of Revelation at the back thinking no one would read it. But if the books were organized in chronological order, many Biblical scholars believe the Book of John would be last. And if that were the case, then this would be the last scripture in the Bible:

 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ is just that: another witness to establish the truth of the first, the Bible, not to replace it.  Just as the Bible is a history book of God's dealings with a group of His people in the Old World, The Book of Mormon is a history book of God's dealings with a group of His people in the New World.

And just like the Bible, you must sincerely read, pray and find out for yourself if it is true; that you may be confident in knowing that God has not left you alone and confused.

So why would God preserve another record to come forth in our time?  How many lines can you draw through two dots?
And what would happen if you hammered another nail on the other end of that 2X4? Could you still twist and turn it? (2 Cor. 13:1)

Not a chance.

To say the Bible is only word of God brings into play many complications.  (To see what those complications are, read "The Cult List:...").  To say that the Bible is the only Word of God, that the Heavens are now shut, God no longer speaks to prophets today to reveal truth and correct doctrines corrupted by man -- is to say God has ceased to be God, leaving us to our own understanding which most often leaves us blind and confused.

Show me where the Bible makes the claim that it is the only source of God's truth, that revelation has ceased and He will no longer operate among His children as he has done since the beginning of man and then you may have a point I can reasonably consider.

But to make the claim that the Bible is the ONLY word of God is, in itself, un-Biblical.

Please get a more in depth treatment here.
 Next...

I love it when Cooper responds with a statement from the LDS church's own website, how...

"...Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can return to live with our heavenly father."

 Jeffress responds with...

"Yes, well, and we could get into an in-depth theological discussion and put everyone to sleep out there. But I would you -" 

Then Cooper, with the greatest statement I have ever heard ANY reporter make, says...

" I'm fine to putting people to sleep as long as we're educating people. "

And Jeffress just rambled on, dodging the question.  My guess, is because he didn't have an answer founded in reason, only tradition, and he's never thought it out logically and objectively.

When Jeffress was asked if he considered Catholics a cult, he said:

"No, I would not consider them a cult, I would consider that Catholicism, the basis of Catholicism teaches that a person is made right with God by faith in Christ and good works, a number of good works, but historic Christianity has been that we are saved by faith and Christ alone. I wouldn't label it a cult but would say its basic tenants are contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. "

Ok, two problems here.  One is the blatant hypocrisy.  He claims that the Catholics' basic tenants are contrary to the New Testament, but would still be considered Christian, yet he also believes the Mormon's basic tenants are contrary to the New Testament and does NOT consider them to be Christian.

Second is the that to believe that one is saved by faith alone, as Jeffress believes, actually IS contrary to the teaching of the New Testament.  You'd have to throw out the book of James in order to make that claim.  (See James 2:14,17)

 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

So, one could easily argue that it is Jeffress' religion that is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament NOT Catholics and Mormons.

Can I Get A Witness

Exchange July 25, 2011

D&C 6 is a great section!  There were two things that stuck out to me the most:

6:22 -- Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might ^aknow concerning the truth of these things.

What came to my mind when I read this, is one of my inactive home teaching families, and any new converts who may be slipping away because of doctrine, etc.  Instead of giving Oliver another witness, the Lord told him to remember the first one and then went on to say (verses 23 - 24) he'd already received a witness and "what greater witness can you have than from God?"  So, basically, if you're doubting the truthfulness of the gospel, remember "the peace" He "spoke to your mind" when you first asked Him if it was true and do you need any more witness "than from God."

That's a message to anyone wavering in the gospel.  I've always explained that to people, but never thought of this scripture as supporting evidence before.

Lastly, I always struggled for a simple way to describe what it means to "pray always."  Verse 36 holds the answer:  It's perfect

^aLook unto me in every ^bthought....

It's perfect.  That's exactly what it means to "pray always."

--J

Wow that’s awesome – I needed that verse yesterday when talking to a sister who’s husband is struggling.  I’ve been telling them that part of the problem is that they already received a witness and now they are asking again.

Thanks man!!!!!!!

--C

The Cult List: CBN Proves Mormons Are NOT A Cult Part 1

There has been a lot of hubbub lately about Mormonism being a cult because of an inflammatory statement made by Robert Jeffress, a Southern Baptist leader, at the Values Voter Summit in 2011.

So, as a public service, and to kick of our new blog Waxing Theological, I thought I would share the following experience:

actual pamphlet

I was in the lobby of CBN (the Christian Broadcasting Network) in Virginia Beach, VA, and while waiting to meet up with a producer, a pamphlet caught my eye.

There, among the other informational brochures, in big, black capital letters hovering over a picture of a silhouetted gentleman in the late stages of male pattern baldness, wearing sweats, on a beach at sunrise, jumping in the air, throwing his arms and hands up to the heavens, read the word "CULTS."

Well, naturally that caught my eye.  I pulled it out and quickly skipped to who was on CBN's "Cult List" and to see if I least made it to their top 10.  Sure enough, guess who was number one?

You betchya!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Was I really surprised? No. It actually made me laugh.

What made me laugh even more was further down the list they listed "occult groups" who "mix Christianity into their teachings" with the intent to deceive. Among those listed included, and I am quoting exactly (emphasis added):

"...eastern mysticism (including yoga and those where deities are named)..."

Apparently, according to CBN, you can't do yoga and be a Christian.

Whaaaahahahahat? (That's me laughing and saying "what" at the same time.)

So I just had to read on to learn more about their cult criteria and if my cult status was warranted.  And what I found, was that by CBN's own definition... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is NOT a cult!

Want to know how?