Making Distinctions Regarding The Mormon Massacre & The Left

3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13

 

By now most people know that there was an awful attack on a Mormon worship facility in Michigan where four were murdered. There has been a great deal of confusion on how Christians should respond to this.

Jesus Christ’s response to a similar tragedy to call on people to repent. That is the same word that Christians should speak to Mormons during this time. Yes, we must be compassionate but being the very nard of compassion is telling them they must repent of their anti-Christ religion. We cannot allow them what they have been angling for, over the course of many years now. We cannot allow them to be seen as Christian because of this wickedness. That this attempt to meld Mormonism is part of the agenda following this event in Grand Blanc, Michigan. For example US Sen. Mike Lee, Republican from Utah posted;

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ.”

US Sen. Mike Lee

Utah Republican

 

Mike Lee is a Mormon. Mormons follow some chap named Jesus Christ who has the same name and title of the God-Man in the Bible. However, all because the Mormon Jesus shares the same name with the Jesus Christ doesn’t mean he is worshiping the same person. In point of fact the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of Biblical Christianity have only one thing in common and that is the name “Jesus.” Believing the Jesus of Mormonism will leave one eternally damned.

As Christians we cannot allow Mormons to use this firebombing of one of their pagan worship centers to try and pass themselves off as Christians. Ask yourself, what if instead of a Mormon worship place being burned to the ground it had been a Satanist worship place being toasted? Would Christians like Meghan Basham (author of “Shepherds For Sale”) be posting things like this;

Guys, I take doctrine very seriously. But if you think the right time to pick a fight on doctrine is when someone’s house of worship has just been set on fire, and several of their people killed and wounded, well, that’s just called being awful.

Meghan doesn’t realize that Mormonism is just another version of Satanism. One wonders if Meghan thought Jesus was just being awful when he said after the fall of the tower of Siloam that “unless his listeners repent they will likewise perish?”

Mormonism posits the following anti-Christian doctrines;

1.) Jesus and Satan were brothers
2.) Jesus Christ was not eternally God of very God but only became God
3.) The Mormon God at one time was not God but likewise became God
4.) Mormons add to God’s Word with the “Book of Mormon” & “The Pearl of Great Price”
5.) The Mormon concept of Atonement includes the idea of “blood atonement” where man can pay for his own sin by the shedding of his own blood.
6.) For the Mormons  like the Son, the Holy Ghost was a “spirit child” born to the Father. This is anti-trinitarian.

So, what has been so far is one side of how Biblical Christians should be responding to this massacre in Grand Blanc at a Mormon Church. Christians should, out of compassion, be telling living Mormons that they should repent lest they likewise perish.

The other side of this massacre is to realize that in the eyes of the unhinged left who we live cheek by jowl with this is an attack on Christianity and if the unhinged left’s response to the death of Charlie Kirk is any indicator the left is reveling over this attack on the Mormon place where they worship their pagan God. Leftists, idiots that they are, are measuring this as yet another victory against Christianity. Because the left conflates Mormonism with Christianity, seeing them as one and the same, we must denounce this act of barbarity. We denounce this massacre not because we are defending Mormonism. Our word to Mormons is “repent, lest ye likewise perish.” We denounce the massacre because the left thinks that once again they have gained a victory over Christianity. Our word to the left is;

“Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword,” (Mt. 26:52) as well as “repent, lest ye likewise perish.”

Dissecting The Cultural Marxist CREC Proposal On Race Relations

This is the statement on Nations that the Knox Presbytery of the CREC (Pope Wilson’s presbytery) will propose for consideration at their general conference next year. If it’s accepted, it will become official doctrine.

“We condemn any doctrine that God has established any barriers to marriage for individuals based on ethnicity or skin color, prohibits or holds marriages between different ethnicities in contempt, or seeks to promote ethnic-based divisions in society. We view them as inherently divisive and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. We affirm that mankind is created in the Image of God; hence, no ethnicity is inherently more sacred or sinful than another, and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.”

We have said repeatedly on Iron Ink that it is not possible to get to multi-culturalism apart from multi-racialism with multi-faithism being the eventual result. Here the CREC offers a doctrinal statement that will continue the recent decades push in the West to miscegenate. This miscegenation will result in a multi-racialism which in turn will support the multiculturalism that is now so increasingly typical in the West.

All of this, in its origin, was and is the project of Cultural Marxism. The goal of Cultural Marxism was to destroy the West from the inside out. The way the Cultural Marxists intended to do that was to destroy the Christian Institutions of the West. Marriage is an Institution that the Cultural Marxist have sought to destroy and whether the CREC likes it or not the Institution of Marriage in the West in our history is the joining of one White Christian woman with one White Christian man. Now, of course, exceptions have always existed and those exceptions should be treated as marriages by a Christian people. However, on the whole exceptions should remain exceptions and this attempt by the CREC to join the Cultural Marxist chorus should be rejected.

The British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote, “When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated.” The CREC here is seeking to contramand ancient opinions and rules of life as they were set forth by our Christian forebears. That this is true is seen by the reasons elucidated by one of the Fathers of the PCA for separating into a new denomination;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS) by 
Dr. Rev. John Edwards Richards

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Elsewhere Richards could write prophetically of the CREC (as well as most other Reformed “conservative”denominations) in 2025;

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” 

Dr. John E. Richards

I continue to find it stunning that in 50 short years the theology of the clergy and church has reversed itself so thoroughly from thousands of years of Church history. We have gone on from our Father’s frowning on interracial marriage in 1973 to marking out the grandchildren of those Fathers as those who are beyond the pale in terms of Church fellowship. In 1973 they left because of the issues above. In 2025 they are insisting that the grandchildren leave because they still agree with the reasons of the Father’s leaving as given above. The views of the CREC articulated above were seen as divisive in 1973. In 2025 those who disagree with the CREC are the divisive ones. Who ever thought that white people wanting their children to look like them would be divisive?

Who knew that God was pleased with and even requires multiculturalism?

If one can’t seek to promote ethnic-based divisions in society, as is stated in this proposal, one has, by default, removed any obstacles to multiculturalism’s insistence that it must be allowed as by Divine warrant.

Notice the use of the phrase “skin color” in the proposal above. This phrase has been chosen because of the insistence that “race” can be reduced to be  only about skin color. This is a subtle insistence that there is no such thing as race, as if different races wouldn’t still be different races if they all had the same skin color. This is right out of the Franz Boas playbook in denying the objective reality of race. Boas contributed to the Cultural Marxist cause.

Next, I know very few people who would argue that any ethnicity is more sacred or sinful than another. This is a red herring and it is seeking to make the opponents to the Cultural Marxism of the CREC look evil. All those within the Reformed Church (or who were in the Reformed church before being cast out for believing what their Fathers believed) have been arguing that racial distinctions should be recognized and honored believe that all peoples are created as image bearers of God. The idea that Christian Kinists or race-realists believe some races/ethnicities are inherently more sacred (set apart as holy) or sinful than others is just horse manure.

Next one wonders how it is that doctrines that promote ethnic-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, any more or less than promoting gender-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the declaration by the heralds of the King that now is the appointed day of salvation because of the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the command that all men – regardless of race – everywhere repent. Neither Rev. Michael Spangler, Rev. Michael Hunter, Rev. Ryan Louis Underwood, Rev. John Weaver or (the worst of them all) Rev. Bret L. McAtee would deny the Gospel to men of every race, tongue, tribe, or nation. This claim that promoting ethnic based distinctions in society are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ is more horse manure. In order to believe this one would have to argue that the greatest ministers, and evangelists in church history have been those who were contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moving on we note that nobody denies that and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. What we deny is the wisdom of all ethnicities being in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. We agree with Reformed theologian John Frame who said;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Finally, no one doubts “that interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.” The question is not whether they can exist. The question is whether or not they should exist. Our forefathers did not think so, as has been made abundantly clear in two different large anthologies;

Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology In Natural Relations
A Survey Of Racialism In Christian Sacred Tradition – Alexander Storen

Let it be said again. Our Reformed and Christian Fathers were against what the Church in the West (this time the CREC) is pursuing and embracing in terms of miscegenation and multiculturalism, multi-racialism and multi-faithism.

McAtee & Fuentes Exposing the Republican Grift

Long ago in my reading I came across a description of a Billy Sunday Revival meeting. Billy was having some of his revivals during the draft era of WW I. In my reading the author was describing how Billy would get the young men “saved” and then the counselors were told to take the young men from the altar where they got “saved” to back behind the podium-stage where these young men could then sign up for military service in the US military in order to fight in W.W. I. Billy’s revivals, in these cases where not really about Jesus but were about using Jesus to fill up the ranks of the US military. Jesus was a gimmick. Jesus, in those Billy Sunday revivals were like the adds you used to see on TV where they were selling product X for 39.99 whereupon the announcer would say … “But if you buy now, you’ll also get products “Y” and “Z” for the same low price. Billy might have said … “Not only do you get Jesus but you get to fight for your country also.”

Well, something similar to that happened on the 21 September at the Charlie Kirk llamapalooza/extravaganza. Jesus was used as the bait in order to hook people into supporting the Republican party. Whereas Billy gave you military service with your Jesus, the Republican party this past Sunday night gave the viewers the Republican party with the views Jesus. “Not only do you get Jesus, but if you buy now you also get being a supporter of the Republican party at the same low low price.”

This was all pure marketing, and manipulation.

Now, I don’t doubt that there are people who were genuinely redeemed last Sunday night. I have no doubt that God will use the death of Charlie Kirk and the Kirk llamapalooza in order to draw people to Himself. I fully acknowledge that Christ was proclaimed by some of the speakers Sunday night. For all this we can be thankful. However,  none of that changes that what happened last Sunday was a con put on by first rate Republican grifters, using Jesus as their rallying point. These chap couldn’t give a horse’s ass about the resurrected, ascended and reigning Lord Jesus Christ except as a means of bringing people into the Republican party. If these politicians thought hooking the name of Charlie Kirk with Satanism would balloon the size of the Republican base they would have a lollapalooza standing with Satan on the side of Charlie Kirk.

Nick Fuentes caught some of what I am getting at above in his analysis of the Kirk llamapalooza

“If you want Christ to be at the center of your politics, he can’t be a fucking gimmick. He’s not a slogan. When we say ‘it’s all about Jesus,’ we are not doing it with our right hand in the air like ‘alight everybody, let’s go and vote Republican.’ No, this is literally life and death. Life and death, for you and and me, for the GOP, for America. It’s something we take more seriously than anything. And so when they’re getting up there and saying ‘Alright, stand up and say you believe in Jesus and scan the QR code and then collect your voter registration,’ it comes across flippant. It comes across as borderline sacrilegious and maybe while well intentioned -maybe it comes from a good place but I don’t like where it is going and where it is going is weaponizing an earnest seeking of people. You have a lot of young people and a lot of even older people — decent people in America – who saw evil take the life of a good man and they were moved to action because we don’t want to see evil takeover our society, and they’re being funneled into this voter registration now. People are coming to this event seeking God weeping and affected and they’re getting fundraising non-profit bullshit which if you’re in the political world you know what that is. You’re getting a girl coming up with an I-pad saying; ‘get I can your email? Ok, we’re going to send you an email. Scan the QR code. We are going to get you set up. Here’s your bag.’ And it’s like ‘can we give them something real?’ To me that came across as cynical, calculated, opportunistic, and exploitative and that’s what politics is but don’t do that in the name of Jesus Christ and don’t do that with the death — don’t do that with the funeral.”

And while we are on this subject, I see a good deal of this kind of grift going on in the “Christian” social media world as well. People, in my opinion, are striking stances on various issues, insisting that somehow these stances are all about Jesus when in point of fact Jesus is incidental to the (sometimes even correct) stances they are taking. There is a huge amount of grift out there in the “ministry” world right now and as always the counsel is to the consumer, “Let the buyer beware.”

Can Propositional Nations Work?

“American nationalism, no less than German, was born out of a core ethnic and religious identity. Over the next 225 years, that identity has been called into question, modified, and expanded but never entirely lost. It has framed the current struggle over what it means to be an American.

The creation of the American identity began even before the revolution. There was a sense of common ancestry and belief that underlay the difficult transition from colonial Britain to revolutionary America and to the ‘we the people’ of the Constitution. In his plea for a United States, John Jay described this basis for the new nation;

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”

John Jay
Federalist no. 2

In 1790, when the first census occurred, about 90% of white American settlers were British in origin – 82% were English. An even higher percentage of them were Protestants. Not all settlers had sided with the revolutionaries against the British, but the revolutionary victory in 1783 had consolidated the understanding of settlers as ‘Americans’ as distinct from ‘Britons’ or ‘English.’ While the framers of the Constitution would resist the term ‘nation’ – they preferred ‘union’ – what came into being after the Revolution was, however fractured into states, a new American nation where most of the inhabitants felt a sense of kinship.”

John B. Judis
The Nationalist Revival – p. 48-49

Pat Buchanan notes something similar as Judis notes above when he wrote;

Should America lose her ethnic-cultural core and become a nation of nations, America will not survive. For nowhere on this earth can one find a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual nation that is not at risk. Democracy is not enough. Equality is not enough. Free markets are not enough–to hold a people together. Without patriotism, a love of country and countrymen not for what they believe or profess but for who they are, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”

Pat Buchanan
State of Emergency

Right now, all across the West, the attempt has been made and is being made to deny the need for a common ancestry as definitional of what a nation is. Our “leaders” have and continue to insist that a nation can be constructed along the lines of the citizenry having only in common a commitment to a shared set of propositions. This program fails because propositions are only as good as the people who are interpreting those propositions. For example, one needed proposition to be an American, it is reported, is the affirmation that “all men are created equal.” I can affirm that but when I affirm that I do not affirm that the same way somebody else might. Someone else might affirm that equality means the need to make sure, by way of legislation, that all people have the same starting point. Yet another person might affirm that equality means that all people have an equality of outcomes and that such a program should be pursued by way of legislation (equity). I, however, take the phrase that “all men are created equal” to mean only that all men are equal before the law and that all men are equally held to be sinners before God. I hold that “all men are created equal” was a statement that in its original context merely meant that all Englishmen were created equal with one another in terms of political rights. This is but one example how various men can all affirm the same proposition while that phrase has radically different meanings. Propositional nations will never do because they cannot work because men — especially from different races, cultures, and faiths, — will always fill those propositions with different meaning.

And so, a nation can only succeed when it is comprised of a citizenry with a shared blood and a shared faith. Out of those two realities will then arise a shared culture, heritage, and history. Not even differing languages will by itself divide a nation that has a shared blood and a shared faith though it will make matters more complex.

If the West does not realize this simple truth the West is going to go into the abyss because as Buchanan notes above;

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”

Pin The Tail On The Theonomist

Was John Wycliffe a theonomist?

“The law of Christ, when perfectly executed, teaches most rightfully how every injustice must be extirpated from the commonwealth, and how those offending against the law should be chastised.”

John Wycliffe

Was John Calvin a Theonomist?

“That to discern that there is nothing but vanity in all worldly devices, we must know the Laws and ordinances of God. But if we rest upon men’s laws, surely it is not possible for us to judge rightly.”

John Calvin

Was Heinrich Bullinger a Theonomist?”

“Kings are not as lords and rulers over the word and laws of God; but are, as subjects, to be judged by God by the word, as they ought to rule and govern all things according to the rule of His word and commandment.”

Heinrich Bullinger

Was John Knox a Theonomist?

“Kings then have not absolute power to do in their regiment what pleaseth them; but their power is limited by God’s Word. So that if they strike where God commandeth not, they are but murderers; and if they spare were God commandeth to strike they and their throne are criminal, and guilty of wickedness that aboundeth upon the face of the earth for their lack of punishment.”

John Knox

Was Zwingli a Theonomists?

“For He [God] wills that His Word alone be obeyed, and that the life be regulated by it alone.”

Ulrich Zwingli