What’s This Mormon Thing?

Hostile Anti-Mormon posts subject to editing or deletion

Is Mormonism A Cult?

Posted by JLFuller on September 12, 2008

Anti-Mormons and Evangelicals don’t like Mormons much and have even re-defined the word cult to fit their own bias. But the definitive arbitor of the mother tongue, The Oxford Englsih Dictionary, says a cult is “• noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object. 2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. 3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society. ” http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cult?view=uk

None of those defintions fit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but that hasn’t stopped the anti-Mormons from making up their own version and using it like a club with which to bash Mormons. Now before all the anti-Mormons swell up with indignation and claim that one of the defintions, strange, fits Mormons, I would like to ask acccording to who? Just how strange are Mormons? In what way? You may take exception to some of our doctrine or maybe our history but those are a long way from strange when you consider what a genuine cult is. Parsing a word or two and then claiming it is enough to brand the group in its entirety is taking the defintion out of context. You will be hard pressed to find anything genuinely strange about Mormons. In fact, there may be no other denomination that fits All-American better.

29 Responses to “Is Mormonism A Cult?”

  1. Jay said

    Actually, I think Mormonism fits the first two definitions very well, but so does almost every other Christian religion, or religion in general for that matter. “Cult” is a very subjective term. In my opinion critics of the LDS Church use it without applying the same standard to themselves because they are taught to believe that Mormonism (or whatever other religion they disagree with) is a cult and their form of worship is not. It just goes to show that extremists will always twist things to fit their own ideology, the “Mormonism = cult phenomenon” is just one manifestation of that.

  2. Darrell said

    I went to dictionary.com and got this definition…

    6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

    That is the definition that us Christians use when we call Mormonism a cult. I often refer to it in my discussions as a Psuedo-Christian Cult. It is unorthodox and false for sure.


  3. JLFuller said

    Typical anti-Mormon hate agenda tripe. Using the 6th (not primary) defintiton it doesn’t fit and even then you had to take it out of context. I recommend you try again and next time do your homework. There is enough legitimate subject matter worthy of discussion without this type of low rent nonsense.

  4. Darrell said

    You are policing your blog pretty well. I noticed that my comments got removed as well as Brad’s. JL, are you so scared to discuss things openly that you feel the need to “whitewash” your board the way the LDS Church whitewashes their history?


  5. jackg said


    I have to say that in today’s culture, the word “cult” smacks of a negative connotation. I can’t remember where I read this (in fact, it might just be the small amount of Italian I know from listening to and singing opera :-)) but cult refers to religious practices. In this context, we all belong to a cult, because a cult is generally a set standard of beliefs and practices of a group. I think I understand your argument. But, for Christians, today, the use of the word “cult” connotes something that is non-Christian. I’m not here to debate whether or not that is wrong in and of itself. I’m just trying to give some context to this issue.

  6. JLFuller said

    Cult is the term applied to the LDS Church by many Evangelicals. It is used in attacks as an epithet. To suggest it is something benign is naive or even disingenuous. It is deliberate and intended to convey a highly negative connotation by associating Mormons with the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh and Satan worshipers. The origins of the word make that clear. That is why I went to the OED for the original intent of the word. But Evangelicals and other anti-Mormons have, within the last few decades, created the new definition which redefines the meaning in order to misrepresent what the LDS Church is. That is Satanic. It is a tool the Deceiver uses against God.

  7. jackg said


    I can’t agree with you when you say that Christians are being satanic in order to misrepresent the Church. That is a pretty harsh indictment as well, the kind of thing you seem to discourage. You have to understand that Christians don’t believe JS was a prophet, nor do they believe the BOM to be true. Naturally, Christians will fight against what they see as heresy, even if you and other Mormons don’t see it that way. Christians do see JS as a Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc. I’m not going to deny that. So, what is the LDS Church? The LDS Church aligns itself with teachings that contradict established church councils. I already know your opinion about those, but I don’t agree with your opinion. The idea that there was a need for a restoration is, in my opinion, an attempt to establish new religion that does not look like historical Christianity, and then call it Christianity. One might argue that JS was a tool Satan used to preach a false religion. I think this is the same as your charge against evangelical Christians. One of us is being led by a false spirit, but which one? I would think that you might believe it’s me, and I would naturally believe it’s you. But, because I believe the Bible to be true with regard to the salvation message, I have something to which I can measure your claims. But, since you as a Mormon can only accept the Bible “to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly,” it seems that the measuring stick I would use is not the measuring stick you would use. So, as a Christian, I accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God despite any arguments you or anyone else might suggest to the contrary. I’m okay with that. You see, this stuff is really on the periphery. I am learning through this blog and others that the one truth I want to focus on is God’s grace. Mormons have a different take on God’s grace in that Mormonism teaches that we are saved by God’s grace “after all we can do.” The appendage of grace to our works is not biblical from my perspective. I believe grace is shed on us our entire lives, and that we must respond to it. In the Mormon version suggested by the BOM, God responds to our works with grace. To me, that is backwards. We respond to God’s grace in our lives. Instead of our works earning us anything, which I don’t believe they can, our works are evidence of our faith, and I do believe we are justified by grace alone. So, is Mormonism a cult? I would have to say that it is because the members of the LDS Church are more concerned with what their leaders say than what is in the Bible. I know you believe that your leaders are true prophets and, therefore, they are speaking for God. Well, I don’t believe that. I’m sorry if you and other Mormons are offended by this conclusion, but I believe the conclusion is reached because Mormons constantly fight for the validity of their leaders at the expense of denigrating the Bible to a manuscript that is almost worthless without “authoritative” Mormon-leader interpretation. And, I say interpretation because there has not been a Mormon leader to offer a biblical exegesis of the text, or interpretation based on the study of available manuscripts (if such has happened, I am not aware). Mormonism is looked on as a cult because it teaches a god that was created. Christianity teaches a God without beginning, who created everything out of nothing because He’s God. Nothing has predated God, and yet Mormon leaders have taught this. So, I hope I have satisfied you in not being benign or naive. I am neither.

    You said, “But Evangelicals and other anti-Mormons have, within the last few decades, created the new definition which redefines the meaning in order to misrepresent what the LDS Church is. That is Satanic. It is a tool the Deceiver uses against God.” I don’t think Satan is fighting to prove the inerrancy of the Bible, a god who was created, or a theology of works-righteousness and the relegation of grace to a mere appendage. Hope this is something for you to think about.

    With the Utmost Respect for Your Views,

  8. JLFuller said

    Sometimes the truth is hard to take but in this case I am right on. Deliberately misrepresenting someone else knowing full that what they are saying is dishonest or even a lie is Satanic. It has nothing to do with Joseph Smith – making things up about him does. Deliberately disseminating distortions is a lie. Evangelicals and other anti-Mormons like those at MRM deliberately misinform even after they have advised what our teaching and theology is. You can’t get around that Jack. Distortions like the one on 700 Club I referred you to are Satanic and a lie. You can’t get around that. Referring to Mormons as a cult is a deliberate lie. You can’t get around that. I can go on and on. These are evil behaviors. If they were done innocently they would not be but they are deliberate. That makes them Satanic. They attack God.

    You suggest I am attacking Christians as if their claim to be Christian absolves them of all bad behavior. It doesn’t. In this case I used the term Evangelical to separate them from honest Christians. I don’t use Christian to identify these people. They have besmirched the name of Christ. It is their behavior that makes them Satanic not their misunderstanding of Christianity.

  9. JLFuller said

    In our many exchanges you have taken the position that professing to be Christian exempts one’s behavior from being condemed when it is most certainly is inappropriate and even evil. I use MRM and many Evangelical’s as examples of evil behavior but I have never used Christian in describing them. I do this to seperate those with legitimate theological differences from those who exhibit egregious personal behavior. Jackg, it is always about behavior and never about theology. Lumping the bad actors at MRM and other Evangelicals in with Chrisitans who have a difference of religious understanding but actaully practice Chrisitan behavior gives cover to those who do not deserve it and diminishes those who do. So, if you find MRM, 700 Club, Ed Decker, and others of that ilk to be worthy of inclusion under the Christian umberella then I suggest you re-examine your position. “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”

  10. JLFuller said

    You have said you intend to work in Christ’s service. If that is so then may I suggest you concentrate on improving men and not destroying others. There is a difference. If you improve men then they will have the benefit of the presense of the Holy Ghost to guide them. If your intent is to destroy others then you loose the companionship of the Holy Ghost and invite the presence of evil instead. Any man who says he is serving God by attacking others is not of God but is of the Deciever. It is not your job to know who is and who is not godly. It is your job to provide Christian guidance as you understand it. You confuse the issue if you assume you know who God works within and who He does not. It is pure arrogance and pride. The bottom line is none of us know all those things. Do not let an imperfect understanding of God’s will interfere with you doing what you can to improve others and bring them to Christ.

    After discussing these things with you over these last months I can tell you that you did not have an adequate expereince with the LDS Church. Attacking Mormons does not add to any man’s understanding of Christ. Your bad experience has nothing to do with anything unless your intent is just to attack us. If you do so you fall into Satan’s trap. Your value to Christ is to bring men to Him not to drive others away from somebody else based on an imperfect understanding of God’s intent.

  11. jackg said


    I have to disagree with you concerning my experience with the Mormon Church. I had a good experience. If you are making this judgment because I no longer believe the Church to be true, it seems that you expect me to work from the premise that it is true. In doing this, you conclude that my experience was not sufficient to make me an expert on the Church because I am no longer a member. This is faulty syllogistic reasoning as far as I can see. Also, is not arrogant of you to suggest what it means to be a Christian called to serve God by preaching the Word of God, and that it must line up with how you think? If everything is to rest on behavior and not include theology, what does this show about your theology? I think it reveals that you think man will be perfect and never make mistakes, and it seems that you give man no room to make mistakes. This comes from the theology that Mormonism teaches as set forth by Spencer Kimball’s “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” It seems that by taking this position of focusing on the behavior of a broken humanity and attempting to exclude theology is your attempt to attack Christianity to avoid looking at theology. You see, what really matters is whether or not you are saved by grace or not; whether or not you realize that you will not become a god, and that to live eternity worshiping God is good enough. If you want to talk about fruits, we cannot exclue JS, and in this disccusion I am not referring to anything about his behavior, but about his heretical teachings. I call them heretical because nowhere in the Bible will you find the teaching that God once lived as we live. The “As man is God once was” line is a lie. You want to talk about lies, well, that’s a huge lie. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach anything that resembles D&C 132, where a man must have multiple wives to enter God’s presence. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that God’s grace is a mere appendage to our works, as is taught in the BOM: “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23b). These fruits must be examined. I believe these teachings to be heretical; you don’t.

    I believe that I have articulated myself with the utmost respect for you and your views. I cannot agree with you, but that’s okay. However, I do not believe you have afforded me the same courtesy of respect. You responses to me sound judgmental and pedantic. I know it’s my perception, but in this case it is my perception that counts. You seem to discount anything I say because it does not agree with you, and then you redirect the focus to the behavior of a broken humanity. Some of the people you list I don’t even listen to. Yes, there are those who claim to be Christians and maybe aren’t. This is nothing new. One needs only to read the Book of Jude to see that. It seems that you focus on the “bad behavior” of Christians to avoid discussing theology, which is important. And, then, if I were to say JS behavior of marrying young girls and the wives of men who were married and away on missions was disgustingly despicable, you would say that I am spreading lies and then judge me as evil.

    The only thing I seek to destroy is heresy. Perhaps, in your opinion, I might not be qualified to judge heresy. I know, I’m handicapped because I merely have a worthless piece of manuscript called the Bible to guide me. But, I am infilled with the Holy Spirit, and know that improving men is merely philanthropy. We’re talking about spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it sometimes requires speaking against heresies. This is what the NT is all about, Jack. The apostles were forever correcting false teachings and cautioning the believers to beware of false teachers. There is nothing wrong or dishonorable in this. Being in Christ’s service means more than being a nice guy, it also means being a warrior in the battle against evil. I find it presumptious of you to instruct me on what it means to be in Christ’s service. It’s almost as if you would like it if my voice were silenced to “niceness.” I know, you will see this as an arrogant statement. Actually, I merely speaking in hyperbole to make a point. I pray that you will not let an imperfect understanding of God keep you from experiencing His grace. Judge me however you like, Jack, but please take notice that you do judge. We all do to some degree, but you seem to want to be able to judge without being judged. I’m just contending for the faith of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Bible.

    With the Utmost Respect for Your Views,

  12. JLFuller said

    I stand by what I said Jack. You do not know enough to be able to tell others. You cannot understand without having first experienced what I am talking about. If you had you could not deny it.

  13. jackg said

    And I stand by what I say, Jack. I still think it’s presumptious of you to dismiss the totality of my life and my experiences, the way God has worked in my life, the testimony He has given me about His grace, love, and mercy. I am able to admit that I am a mere human, but I know in Whom I trust, and it’s not JS and His teachings, I trust in the Living God, and He has promised the Holy Spirit as my Helper to be a witness for Him. You see, it’s not whether or not you think I know enough, it’s whether or not the Holy Spirit lives in me, and I submit to God to be a vessel of His message of grace. Therefore, since we are at a stand-still, it is best we part company with our dignity intact and our respect for each other unmarred. You have taught me a lot about respecting others. I realize that sometimes I still struggle in this area. But, you have made me aware of it. Thank you for that, Jack. You will continue to be in my prayers, as I do pray for you, Jack. I pray that you will receive the grace God has to offer you, and that you can truly understand what it means to be justified by faith. God is calling me to preach the gospel of grace, Jack, and with that I leave you with the scripture passage that details my life’s mission: “…I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the LORD Jesus has given me–the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24).

    In Christ,

  14. JLFuller said

    Get a copy of the B of M and read it one hour every day until you get past this thing. 🙂

  15. jackg said




  16. Bob Loblaw said

    Jack G:

    I lament in your mischaracterization of Mormon theology. The LDS Church’s official doctrine on grace vs. works is that grace is the saving power that grants men salvation. You key into one small phrase in the BOM and assume it represents LDS theology. King Benjamin in Mosiah 2:21 said:

    I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

    And in Mosiah 3:9:

    And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name.

    Works will never save man. That does not mean living a Christ-like life is not important. You criticize the LDS teaching of striving for perfection, an impossibility without the grace of Christ, but it is a Biblical teaching: Matthew 5:48.

    You also infer that the LDS church puts more attention on current teachings of its leaders, or casts the Bible aside as irrelevant. This is an absolute lie. Each portion of LDS theology has a Biblical foundation. The LDS Church holds the Bible as sacred scripture. Each ward studies the Bible every Sunday in Sunday School as well as the BOM and other sacred scriptures. The Church has a rotation for each book of sacred scripture to be the focus of sunday school lessons. We study the OT for 1 year, then the NT for 1 year, then the BOM for 1 year then D&C. Since we hold each to be equally canonical that only makes sense. We listen to current leader’s teachings 2 twice a year. Hardly putting more emphasis on current leader’s teachings.

    Lastly, Doctrine & Covenants 132 does not state that anyone must be practicing plural marriage to enter God’s presence. That is an absolute lie. You can disagree with my beliefs but please don’t lie about them to offend others. Such a teaching is not doctrine accepted by the LDS Church. I am sure you may find old church leaders giving their opinion regarding plural marriage. But the fact is, the LDS Church has not condoned the practice of plural marriage for over 110 years. Please take note that plural marriage is a Biblical practice: Genesis 16:3-4; 25:1-2; 30:3-4; 2 Samuel 2:2; 12:9-12; Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:28; 16:23-26.

    I can understand why the author of this blog is offended by your lies couched in kindness. The fact is you are lying and misrepresenting actual LDS theology.

    I am sorry you had a bad experience with the LDS Church. Please understand that no one is perfect, and not every member understands the doctrine – just like every member of any other church does not have a perfect knowledge. We are here to learn, to grow, and to accept Christ’s saving grace into our lives.

  17. Ben Paul said

    Fellow christians, I have looked into the LDS church and found that almost all of the arguements christians currently use to pull people away from Mormonism are blatantly false arguements much like democrat media uses to turn people away from conservatives with their political spin machines. This is backfireing on christian efforts because christians then go out and do honest investigations of mormonism and discover they have been lied to. No wonder millions of Mormon converts now come from christian churches. When these same christians join the LDS church and go to the Mormon temples, they find once again that their fellow christians had out right lied to them concerning this cult stuff. They then tell others christians about the lie and they wind up joing the mormons also. If you are going to argue against Mormonism you had better argue documented things that you can prove with the Bible. Otherwise LDS missionaries point out from the Bible that the Bible supports Mormons and not your spin on almost every issue being spun to create fear. Ben

    • JLFuller said

      Good catch. However the real issue between historic Christian churches and the LDS Church I think is not theological – it is turf. I think it always has been. Keep in mind that most pastors get paid according to what thier churches generate in revenue. If he looses membership he looses income as does his larger ecclesiastical body. The other is they don’t like to hear that their theology is wrong at its foundation and that they are at odds with first century Chrisitan theology ie what the Apostles and Jesus Christ actually taught. This whole unified God theory they call Trinitarianism is so easilly disproved and debunked that they have to be aggressive in countering it by defaming those that debunk it. They do this by attackling Jospeh Smith. Some very aggressively. They also use the testimonies of former Mormons who have been excommunicated for cause – more often than not for sex abuse, dishonesty or adultry.

  18. jackg said


    On what premises do you base your reasoning with regard to the discussion being more about turf than theology? Are you building on the premise that pastors receive their income from the members’ contributions, and that to lose members is to lose possible income? If so, then are you saying that “Christian” pastors are solely income driven in their motives?

    Peace and Blessings!

    • JLFuller said

      Yes. I think that is atr the heart of way too many anti-mormon pastors who preach hatred and intollerance from the pulpit.

  19. JLFuller said

    I should also say that is what is meant by the term priestcraft. That is someone who uses his position in the clergy for personal gain. I am not suggesting however that everyone who chooses the clergy for a vocation is a money grubbing thief and lair. I am not. But I do think many pastors look at declining membrship in thier church and increasing membrship in others and adjusts his focus to doing whatever it takes to keep his income incoming.

    I have no doubt about the high rate of conversion to the LDS in the south as a turf thing for Baptists and suppose by extension other denominations too. SBC’s Richard Land acknowleded that. The anti-Mormon sentiments expressed by many tradtional churches has its basis in intolerance. Some tradtional Christian pastors have handled their differing doctrinal views correctly but the turf issue I think has grabbed a bunch of pastors by the pocket book. The difference I think is whether their is anamous in their hearts or just theologicval differences in understanding. It is though the angry anti-Mormons take the differences as a challenge to aggressively set things right accoding to their understanding. MRM is one such organization which has gone way overboard.

  20. JLFuller said

    According to some pastors and by extension thier denominations, a difference in understanding would be cause to resurect the 16th century Inquisitions. The same mindset is at work in the hearts of both sets of men.

  21. JLFuller said

    Darrell said
    “You are policing your blog pretty well. I noticed that my comments got removed as well as Brad’s. JL, are you so scared to discuss things openly that you feel the need to “whitewash” your board the way the LDS Church whitewashes their history?”

    His post was dated in Sept. I don’t recall what he said but I would not have deleted it if it was instructive or had any redeeming value even if I disagreed with his conclusions. What I will not post is gobbeldygook or mockery or unfounded nonsense. If Darrell was abusive then that would get deleted too. But as readers can see, I post all points of view even if I find them wrong headed or ill informed. But just because a poster says something I disagree with does not mean I automatically delete it.

  22. jackg said

    Thanks for clarifying your position. Have a blessed day!


  23. jackg said


    Sorry that I have not responded until now, but I did not notice that you had addressed me.

    I find your response to me a bit curious. Your views do not represent Mormon doctrine. Perhaps, a reading of Spencer Kimball’s “Miracle of Forgiveness” will clarify the Church’s position on works and grace.

    Regarding what I said about former prophets and their teachings, would you say that the Church teaches that Adam is the only God with whom we have anything to do? If not, why not? Especially after what BY said about himself regarding his calling as a prophet.

    Regarding D&C 132, please read it again and you will see that I am not lying.

    I have to say that I am surprised that JLF has allowed such “ad hominem” into his blog without a reproach.


    I wonder if you’re not a Mormon saying that you’re a Christian. I might be wrong, but it just seems odd that you address Christians for some offense tnat you really don’t clarify. I also found it odd that JLF jumped on the “slap-you-on-the-back” band wagon when you didn’t provide anything specific on the fallacious Christian arguments used to “pull” Mormons away from Mormonism. Again, JLF, I find it hard to believe that you allowed such a faulty philosophical tactic to get by without reproach.

    My witness is that Mormons believe in a false god that JS made up. I have come to this conclusion based on empirical evidence, and the congruence of that evidence as measured against the Bible. I use the Bible as the measuring stick because I believe it to be the authoritative word of God. The Holy Spirit has borne witness to me that JS was not a true prophet of God; therefore, I accept nothing that is the result of his “mission” as a true message from God.

    I would like to address one more issue that JLF brings up when he refers to the “testimonies of former Mormons who have been excommunicated for cause – more often than not for sex abuse, dishonesty or adultry.” It seems that by bringing this argument into the debate that JLF hopes to set up a straw man to attack. This argument categorizes sins, which is not congruent with NT teaching. When one breaks a law, any law, he is a law breaker. We are all law breakers and in need of Christ’s Work of Redemption. So, this argument put forth by JLF is a mere attempt to discredit the witness of those who have tasted God’s grace. But, we shall continue to witness of God’s grace and how Jesus Christ saved us while we were yet sinners, while we were still enemies to God! But, now, we are no longer enemies to God, but are justified by our faith, and the Holy Spirit works in us to make us holy as God is holy. God is the author of this work of sanctification, and He is faithful to finish it.

    Any arguments put forth to discredit the witness of saved sinners will pale in comparison to the witness of God’s grace that we share with the world, for we are all sinners. Perhaps, the behavior of Mormons is unquestionably good and honorable. That would matter if our behavior is what God was after; however, He is after a true relationship with us. This relationship must be rooted in rightly thinking about God. When addressing the God-fearing crowd in Jerusalem in Acts 2, and after his Christo-centric sermon as he brought the truth to them about the Work and Person of Jesus Christ, Peter responded to their question that they needed to repent. This sermon was focused on what they believed about Jesus Christ; the repentance required had to do with their erroneous thinking about Jesus Christ. All I hope to do is to bring the truth of God’s grace to those who are in darkness. In my opinion, based on my spiritual experiences and God leading me out of what I perceive to be the bondage of Mormonism, it is only natural that I witness to the Mormons. You may not agree with me, but I am not a liar. I come not to sow discord, but to bring light in accordance with biblical truth. I pray that you will know that I am motivated by love for the Mormon people. My heart’s desire for Mormons is the same as Paul’s for the Israelites: “Brothers, my heart’s desire for the Israelites (Mormons) is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end to the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10: 1-4, NIV).

    Grace and Peace!


    • JLFuller said

      You mention the type of sin as though it made no difference. I don’t know how God looks at such things but in American life sex offenders are bottom feeders and bereft of any claim to anything. Putting one in charge of something like a church is hideous. But the damage is not finished just because they claim to be fixed by some new religious dogma they may have adopted. You tell can those that are not fixed by how they continue to regard their behavior as part of the past and that they no longer are a danger to others. That just isn’t the case. These people cannot be treated as though they were merely adulterers.

      Every sex offender continues to be a danger to others until he is dead. They do not change their spots and religion has no impact on them – zero. If it did, courts would be directing offenders into religious communities but the history of such success does not exist. In fact it is quite the contrary. It is fantasy and foolishness for others to think so. It does not happen regardless of all the pronouncements about how Christ changed their heart. Not in this life. The penitentiaries are full of those who bamboozled others into believing they were now a new creature in Christ. That just doesn’t happen. In fact, you find the sex offenders at the Chapel and involved up their eyballs in religious activities. Most ordinanry inmates refuse to attend chapel and religious activities so they won’t be confused with sex offenders who have taken the place over.

      Religious conversion is a dodge. It is just another way for offenders to get into the comfort zone of others where they can again target the unknowing and vulnerable. I absolutely believe Christ can change a man’s heart but sex offenders are the best liars in the world. Just asking Christ to change is not enough. You have to put some effort into it and sex offenders do not. Learning to be safe is a life-long process that has the highest failure rate of any treatment regime for any of the psychological defects. It is way over 95% – and I think 95% is being generous. In reality, the only ones who permanantly change are those that die.

      What makes some versions of religious thinking dangerous is how freely adherents think that a tear stained cheek and a cry for help does the trick. It does not and the man who says it changed his predilections for children is a liar. At best all one can do is teach a pedophile/opportunistic offender to live in society with a lessened impact on others by staying away from children, pornography and whatever his triggers are.

      Jack you know I know what I am talking about. Dealing with these people was my profession. I have heard it all and witnessed the heart break of people in congregations who thought what I said above didn’t apply to the offender they knew. But in the end it did. It always does and always will. You cannot trust them. Not any of them ever. The risk is too great. Their thinking is too distorted and perverse. Look for them man has says he has changed – that he is no longer the man who was convicted or was in treatment or was accused. Look for the one who says Christ fixed him.

      He uses treatment to learn the techniques of detection and what to say so he doesn’t get caught again but still reads porn, hangs around kids and makes in-roads with single women with young children and still engages in deviant sex practices. He wants to make others believe that the accuser was wrong about him or that the accuser was the real problem. He wants to shift blame and makes excuses. His thinking is so distorted that he actually believes the trash he is talking and he makes others believe him too, especially if it is what the new victim wants to hear. He is the one who wants to be the kids’ new best friend. He is one you can count on to provide the lone kid with a ride or trip to the zoo or be there for the kid because his dad isn’t. These are exceedingly dangerous people and you cannot trust them at all.

  24. jackg said


    I have prayed for you, and will continue to pray for you. I don’t know why you don’t allow my posts. I have been courteous, respectful, and expressed my views as appropriately as I know how. Perhaps, you don’t post them because they’re true and the truth sometimes hurts. Or, perhaps you don’t have a satisfactory response, and the words God has given me is punching holes in your already porous reasoning tactics. Whatever the reason, the integrity of your blog site has been greatly compromised.

    Still praying for you,

    • JLFuller said

      Your contributions have gone in a decidely anti-LDS direction. It seems to me you are only intersted in voicing your personal feud with the LDS Church. You were kicked out for cause and now apparantly want to prove the Church was wrong and you were right. This venue is not the place for that. You have just been re-hashing the same old stuff. It has come to a point where your posts no longer add to the conversation. The Joseph Smith bashing by contributers seems never ending. You and others seem hell-bent on proving the Church is a cult or otherwise demeaning its leadership. I want to discuss ideas and raise the level of discourse. You are stuck on your feud. So, in the interest of maintaining an interesting blog, I have decided to stop hosting unappologetic anti-Mormon contributions.

      You may look at it as a lack of integrity but I look at my decision as stopping the uninteresting stuff. You can turn to any hater-infested blog such as MRM if that is to your taste. I just choose to not support it any longer. It adds nothing to anyone’s understanding but just allows some people to post a continuing parade of the same old regurgitated nonsense that has been around for over a century. I encourage you to read my post yesterday about the Body of Christ. I think it points out quite clearly where the historic church has gone and why the restoration was necessary.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: