CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON

The reply to the previous On Doctrine reply was made by inserting comments and questions within the structure of the On Doctrine reply. Placing the entire On Doctrine reply with the comments in this section, would be to repeat the previous On Doctrine reply, which would make the document very lengthy and redundant. Instead, a synopsis of each point in which a comment or question was directed will be noted in black type, and the Mormon reply or question will be indicated in bold burgundy type. The On Doctrine reply to the points will be found below each reply or question, in bold black type. — Ed

On Doctrine Reply

Thank you for your reply to the encyclopedia that I sent. I know it was a chore to decipher it from the e-mail and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read it. I was not sure that you would wish to reply, since I sent you more information that you had any right to expect and it was not complimentary to Mormon beliefs in any way. However, from your question, I believed that you were interested in why I would post the points on my web site and would appreciate an explanation, even if you did not agree.

I do not intend, by any force of my arguments, to presume to be able to convince you to change your mind regarding your beliefs. I do not have that ability. Only God changes hearts and we are both responsible to respond to the truth that He reveals to us through His Word. I am not a theologian or a preacher, but simply a person sitting in front of a computer, writing to you about what I have learned or read and what is real in my life about the doctrines of my faith.

But, as you can see, I have presented some very serious issues that simply cannot be ignored. Many of those issues involve core doctrinal beliefs and concern the eternal state of the soul. These are issues which one cannot take lightly and dismiss as being unimportant or simply the product of an anti-Mormon mind set. The issues are very real, because they are not only set in the history of the Mormon church, but they are also written and can be examined.

I ran across three interesting statements, from Mormon leadership, that I found startling, because they are completely opposite to what I have been taught, both in my educational training and in church. Because of that, the statements bothered me deeply. I will quote them here.

"Brethren, keep your eye on the President of this church. If he tells you to do anything and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don't need to worry: the Lord will never let His mouthpiece lead this people astray."
Prophet Heber J. Grant as quoted by President Harold B. Lee, "Ensign". October 1972, p.7

"You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray..."
President Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses", Vol. 9, p. 289

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan - it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy."
"Improvement Era", June 1945, p. 354

I wish that I could convey to you just how great is the error taught in those statements. Not only does President Grant claim to speak for God without a revelation, but he gives people the false assumption that just because they believe a president, prophet and seer who teaches an error, that they are not responsible to God for the sin of that belief. That was exactly the claim by Eve, that she had been deceived by the serpent, and therefore she did not believe that she was truly guilty for her actions. God did not accept her claim, and she was judged guilty of sin. Also, within President Grant's claim is a teaching that it really does not matter what a person believes, just so long as it is taught by a president of the church, because God will honor belief in heresy on an equal basis with truth. In addition President Grant claims that "His mouthpiece", meaning the presidents of the church, will never teach a false doctrine. If there is one thing that I have attempted to do in this correspondence, it is to reveal that what President Grant said is false, because the presidents and prophets of the church have led people into error by teaching false doctrine in relation to Mormon beliefs. These errors began with Joseph Smith himself, by claiming to translate the book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri, when in fact he lied about the claim. In addition all the subsequent presidents and prophets taught that the book of Abraham was scripture, declaring it to be a revelation from God and by canonizing it as scripture in the "Pearl of Great Price", when in fact it was a fabrication and lie. Their claim that God would not allow them to lead the church astray was a claim not based in fact or reality, because the church was led astray by the false doctrine obtained from the book of Abraham regarding Black persons being unable to hold the priesthood. Additionally, instead of admitting to the reality of the lie that was taught, the church resorted to a revelation, placing the guilt for the teaching on God instead of on Joseph Smith and the general authorities, where it rightfully belonged.

President Brigham Young's statement is one of the most self-serving and hypocritical statements that I have found. The Adam-God doctrine taught by President Brigham Young is another false doctrine that entered the Mormon church through Brigham Young himself, created and taught by a president, prophet and seer and claimed to have been received by revelation. Several generations of Mormons were deceived, by Brigham Young, into believing the doctrine and the church was led astray, deep divisions being created between those who continued to believe and those who were finally convinced that it was false, and he dares to claim that the believers were as safe "as a babe in its mother's arms".

Even though both teachings and the resulting doctrinal conclusions were false, leading many astray, and that of Joseph Smith was a premeditated and calculated lie, the Mormon church has still not dealt with the reality that Brigham Young was a false prophet, and Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet is seriously in doubt because of his deception.

The article in "Improvement Era" is equally as dangerous, because it not only closes the minds of the believers, but it turns them into robots, who are commanded to follow regardless of the consequences, just because leadership makes a claim to infallibility. Leadership is not infallible and those who have lead the Mormon church are no exception. The history of the Mormon church reveals that in strong and graphic terms. Blind acceptance of human leadership is not a good circumstance. It removes the sense of responsibility from the adherent and allows false doctrine to be taught without question. I know that it is taught that to question the leadership is a sin in the Mormon church, and I think that is a great sadness, because it reveals an attitude of distrust in God, by the leadership, and His ability to keep believers on the right course. If it is claimed that God will keep His church from apostasy, then why can't He do the same with the members? It is not my intent to claim that a person should create divisions by inappropriate questions or actions that are outside the boundaries of proper conduct. But, that questions must always be asked and answered within the individual prior to any outward display, if there is any actual questioning of a person involved.

I am reminded of an incident in the Bible, found in Acts:

"The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."
Act 17:10-11

Luke, the writer of Acts, did not criticize them for their actions, but commends the Bereans as being noble, because they did not accept what was told to them until they did the research, by searching the Scriptures to see if what was being taught was true. They were even so bold as to question the apostle Paul who brought the teaching to them, and there is no indication that he was offended in any way or that he claimed to be immune from questions or criticism.

I know that all Mormons are encouraged, if not given strong motivation, to have a testimony. Many times there is a testimony time during meetings and classes. It is also a practice in traditional churches as well, but I notice that you do not fully trust that testimony, because maybe it is a "cop out" in some way. There is a danger to use a testimony as a circular belief. It is very much like saying, my testimony says that I believe, therefore I believe my testimony. In that case a person believes their testimony rather than the reality of their doctrine based on a foundation of truth. I know, if you are honest with yourself, that this communication will affect your testimony in one of two ways, and I hope you have prepared for that.

1. It will make your testimony stronger because you will find concrete reasons, revealed by God to you, through the study of His Word, that rejects the claims that I have made.
2. It will cause you to question your testimony because you cannot find concrete reasons through the study of God's Word to reject the claims that I have made.

If neither one of these options occurs, then you have not responded properly to what I have claimed to be true and have not done the work that the Bereans did in Acts. If you dismiss my claims without inquiry, then you believe without foundation because you have not confirmed the truth. If you reject your faith just because of what I might say, then you do the same, because I might have lied, making false charges or quoting non-existent of Mormon sources. Without confirmation, you would make an error. But I think you do have a questioning mind and are searching for answers. I do not know your background or how you came to be a Mormon. That is not terribly important and I do not address the issues in this communication as a personal condemnation or attack on your character or integrity or the process by which you have entered into your belief.

In response to your comment, I am not offended that you do not believe as I do or that you ask me hard questions, many of which I probably cannot answer adequately or that you might even become irritated at my claims or beliefs. In the same way, I hope you are not offended that I also ask hard questions, because in the answers to those questions, that you must also provide through study and prayer, is the confirmation or denial of your faith.

As you read the responses to your questions and comments, I hope you realize that I do not even pretend to be an expert in those answers, nor do I claim that they are correct or inerrant in every aspect of their content. I would also note, that in response to your reference to James, regarding works, that I spend a great deal of time on the subject, but I also understand that there is great division over the book in traditional churches as well. But I treat it as well as I can, and I am fully convinced of the conclusion, as I am of the other answers that I give because they are grounded in the Biblical revelation of God.

By including my answers within the text of the original document, things are slightly in disarray. Perhaps if you have further comments or questions, you might send them separately and I will answer them in that manner.

Some of these answers are somewhat lengthy, as I included more information than I had intended. But that's ok.

I am sending the documents that I note in my responses by file attachments in separate e-mails, so don't be surprised when they come. They will reference [URL name] so that you will know the attachments come from me. I don't think any viruses will be a problem since I haven't sneezed or coughed this week.

I have run my spell check, but I am sure there will still be errors, especially with words spelled correctly but missing letters that make them mean something else. I tried to proof read also, but I sometimes read what I thought I said instead of what I actually typed.

Rest assured that differences in spelling such as "realize" and "realise" are truly related to the colonists changing the king's or queen's English and we do consider the words to be spelled correctly, although I concede that you have the legitimate prior claim.

I appreciate your comments regarding truth, and it would be great if we could agree. But as you noted, it is not likely that one or the other of us will convert. As you will see when reading my answers, the distance between what we believe is much greater than you would have anticipated. I would not pretend that I have any ability to convert any one, that is a task that is reserved only to God. My responsibility is only to express a defense of the Gospel, as taught in the Bible, in relation to the claims of other beliefs.

You are correct, friendship is a rare commodity in this day, whether it be next door or around the world. It was a criticism of Jesus Christ that he was a friend of tax collector and sinners, so between the two of us, I guess we are both sinners. I am not a tax collector, but if you are - oh, well. I would pray that it could be said of each of us that, like Abraham, he was a friend of God.

I remain your friend,

Gary Hand

The reply to thepreviouss On Doctrine reply was made by inserting comments and questions within the structure of the On Doctrine reply. Placing the entire On Doctrine reply with the comments in this section, would be to repeat the previous On Doctrine reply, which would make the document verylengthyy and redundant. Instead, a synopsis of each point in which a comment or question was directed will be noted in black type, and the Mormon reply or question will be indicated in bold burgundy type. The On Doctrine reply to the points will be found below each reply or question, in bold black type. — Ed

The Mormon Challenge

My early background is Baptist and my later association is independent with an emphasis on Reformed theology. I don't know if I would be considered a 5 point Calvinist, but maybe a 4 and 1/2.
(Could you explain this for me?)

The 5 point Calvinist and the 4 and 1/2?
It is actually a humorous reference, but perhaps only to me. I will explain.
There are 5 basic points in the Reformation theology of John Calvin and are known by the acrostic, T.U.L.I.P.

The letters refer to the following:
T - Total Depravity.
Meaning the total ruin of man, body, mind and soul as a result of sin. Because of this corruption, man can do nothing on his own in order to please God. This is not to say that all men are as bad as they could be, because a murderer is not the same as a thief, and one hoping to go to heaven is not the same as one who is an atheist. The claim is not made that man cannot follow moral conduct or do generous and kind things in regard to family, friends and society. But that good cannot be expressed toward God, because any attempt at pleasing God is rooted in the selfishness of the sinful nature of man and not because of a right view of God. The appeal is to Isaiah 64:6.

U - Unconditional Election
Meaning that God by His own will ordained that some will go to heaven and some will go to hell. It is the justice of God that ordains that all should go to hell, but it is in His mercy that some should be saved.

L - Limited Atonement
Meaning that Jesus Christ did not die for every individual who ever lived, or ever will live on earth, but only for those who are His - His sheep.

I - Irresistible Grace
Meaning that when the Holy Spirit is sent to work in a man's heart, the Spirit cannot be resisted because the heart has been changed in a manner so that it can respond to the God which it once resisted. The Spirit turns the heart toward God and opens the persons spiritual eyes to the God which he previously could not see.

P - Perseverance of the Saints
Meaning that those who remain in the faith are those who are the chosen of Jesus Christ and who are His sheep. The one who claims Christ but does not continue in the faith is not one with Christ. It is not the perseverance that secures salvation, but is the evidence of it.

There are some variations on these points, with some placing greater emphasis on others. The reason I claim to be a 4 and 1/2 point Calvinist is in relation to Unconditional Election. I do not have a problem with election, per se, but I also realize that the Bible also teaches that man also has a choice in the matter of salvation. It might be that the choice is to reject salvation only, but it is still a choice. I actually believe that man can choose or reject salvation. This is why I only go half way with Calvin.

There are actually two things being taught in the Bible:
1. The sovereignty of God in salvation
2. The responsibility of man in salvation.

The sovereignty of God is represented in the teaching of John Calvin. I think that Calvin also made room for a choice by man, so I made a joke about the 4 and 1/2, but there are those who are hyper-Calvinists who leave no room for choice. This view borders on heresy because it is so extreme as to make man into a robot.

The responsibility of man in salvation is represented by the Arminian view which essentially states that God provides a special common grace to all men that allows a choice to be made for God. This view is also taken to extreme in the Pelagian view where the choice of salvation is all up to man. This view borders on heresy because it is so extreme as to remove God from any action in Salvation.

The Bible presents both views as correct, the sovereignty of God in salvation and the responsibility of man to accept. This is a paradox that has no resolution except through the mind of God who searches all hearts.

The Bible is God's Word, written as a revelation to humanity. It is verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit in every word and inerrant in the original documents. The Bible is infallible, sufficient, and the absolute authority in all matters of faith and conduct among men and that directed toward God.
(The Song of Solomon)?
(What about the missing books?)

I don't have a great problem with the Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs). It is considered a sacred writing by the Jews and it is read at Passover and is referred to as "the Holy of Holies." In my comment regarding Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible, I made the comment that he did not remove any books from the Bible. In my haste, I was not clear. He did not remove any books from the New Testament, but he did not consider Song of Solomon to be inspired so he removed it from the Old Testament in his version. I have not spent any time on his reasons for making the choice. I would presume that because the book has no obvious doctrinal teaching and does not mention God one time, that he rejected it on that basis. However, he retained the book of Esther which also does not mention God and has no obvious doctrinal teaching or salvation message.

Joseph Smith claimed that there were missing books, but since he did not restore any of them in his Inspired Version of the Bible, there is no list to back the claim. If you refer to the Apocrypha, then they were part of the Catholic Bible and were not lost. They could not be those which are claimed to be lost, because it is stated that "corrupt Catholic priests" changed the Bible.

"Those books that are now compiled in the 'Bible' - and a great many more that are not there - were scattered abroad, and hundreds of years after that, they were hunted up and examined; those that we now have were selected from a great mass of manuscripts and compiled; others were thrown away as non-canonical."
Elder Charles W. Penrose, "Journal of Discourses", Vol. 24, p. 209, 1883.

The statement is made, but no books are noted. Somehow God, through revelation, indicated that books were lost and added, but neglected to specify just which ones were lost or added. Apparently God was unable to preserve his revelation, just as he was unable to preserve the original church. The real question is why could He not preserve the original church and the complete, original revelation in the Bible?

The following is a list of books and materials from which the authors of the Bible quote or mention. None of the books cited in the Old Testament were ever part of the Jewish canon of Scripture and are not authoritative. Jewish history precludes any claim that these books were ever part of Jewish Scripture and were subsequently removed by "corrupt Catholic priests" and then lost.

OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES
Book of the Wars of the Lord -- Numbers 21:14
Book of Yashar [or Jashar] (the Upright) -- Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18
David's letter to Joab -- 2 Samuel 11:14
Solomon's lost proverbs and songs -- 1 Kings 4:32
Jezebel's letters to the officials of Naboth's city -- 1 Kings 21:8-11
Aram's letter to the king of Israel -- 2 Kings 5:5-6
Jehu's letters to Samaria -- 2 Kings 10:1-2; 6-7
Book of the annals of Solomon -- 1 Kings 11:41
Books of the annals of the kings of Israel and Judah -- 1 Kings 14:19; 14:29
Sennacherib's letter to Hezekiah -- 2 Kings 19:9-13; 2 Chronicles 32:17; Isaiah 37:9-13
Merodach-baladan's letters to Hezekiah -- 2 Kings 20:12; Isaiah 39:1
The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel -- 1 Chronicles 9:1; 2 Chronicles 20:34
The Records of the Chronicles of King David -- 1 Chronicles 27:24
The Words of Samuel the Seer -- 1 Chronicles 29:29
The Word of Nathan the Prophet -- 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles9:29
The Words of Gad the Seer -- 1 Chronicles 29:29
Hiram's letter to Solomon -- 2 Chronicles 2:11-16
The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite -- 2 Chronicles 9:29
The visions of Iddo the Seer -- 2 Chronicles 9:29
The Visions of Shemaiah the Prophet -- 2 Chronicles 12:15
The Words of Jehu the son of Hanani -- 2 Chronicles 20:34
Elijah's letter to Jehoram -- 2 Chronicles 21:12
The Commentary on the Book of Kings -- 2 Chronicles 24:27
The Deeds of Uzziah by Isaiah the Prophet -- 2 Chronicles 26:22; 32:32
The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah -- 2 Chronicles 27:7; 35:27; 36:8
Hezekiah's Passover invitations to Manasseh and Ephraim -- 2 Chronicles. 30:1,6
The Word of the Kings of Israel -- 2 Chronicles 33:18
The Chronicles of Hozai (Seers) -- 2 Chronicles 33:19
The Decree of David the King of Israel and the Decree of Solomon his son -- 2 Chronicles 35:4
Proclamation of Cyrus -- 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4
Letter of Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel to Artaxerxes -- Ezra 4:7-16
Letter of Artaxerxes -- Ezra 4:17-22
Letter of Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai to King Darius -- Ezra 5:6-17
Decree of Cyrus -- Ezra 6:1-12
Ezra's letter of authorization from Artaxerxes -- Ezra 7:11-26
Nehemiah's letters of authorization from Artaxerxes -- Nehemiah 2:7-9
Sanballat's letter to Nehemiah -- Nehemiah 6:5-7
Letters between Tobiah and the nobles of Judah -- Nehemiah 6:17
Priests' and Levites' contract -- Nehemiah 9:38-10:27
The book of the annals (genealogies?) -- Nehemiah 12:23
The book of the annals (of Xerxes) -- Esther 2:23
First edict of Xerxes -- Esther 3:12
Chronicle of Xerxes -- Esther 6:1
Second edict of Xerxes -- Esther 8:9-11
Mordecai's Purim announcement -- Esther 9:20
Esther's confirmation of Purim -- Esther 9:29-30
The book of the annals of the kings of Media and Persia -- Esther 10:2
Jeremiah's letter to the exiles -- Jeremiah 29:1
Shemaiah's letter to the priests -- Jeremiah 29:25
Decree of Darius -- Daniel 6:7-9

NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES
High priest's letter to Damascus -- Acts 9:1; 22:5
* Apostles' letter to Antioch -- Acts 15:23-29 (This letter is quoted in whole in these verses)
Aratus' Phainomena -- Acts 17:28
Epimenides' de Oraculis -- Acts 17:28
Aristotle's Politics -- Galatians 5:23
Epimenides' de Oraculis (may also be Callimachus' hymn to Zeus) -- Titus 1:12
Claudius' letter to Felix -- Acts 23:26-30 (This was a Roman government internal correspondence and is quoted in whole in the these verses as a historical reference.)
*Forged letter to the Thessalonians -- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 (A forgery condemned by Paul so, of course it is not Scripture)
*Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (before 1 Corinthians) -- 1 Corinthians 5:9 (The only missing letter confirmed - was it scripture or authoritative? Not everything written by the apostles was such, so we don't know.)
Menander's Thais -- 1 Corinthians 15:33
* Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans -- Colossians 4:16 (Possibly missing, but also possibly the same as Ephesians - the confusion may, in fact, be due to Ephesians having been a circular letter.)

Joseph Smith initiated the claim of lost, changed and added books to the Bible. He provided no documentation for his claim and did not restore any books from the Bible in his Inspired Version. The burden to prove the claim by Joseph Smith falls on Joseph Smith himself, and as a prophet he failed to substantiate his words. The primary and major premise regarding the establishment of the Mormon church is the claim that the original church became apostate and the proof was to be that the Bible had been altered by the "corrupt Catholic" priests. If that were truly the case, then the original books should have been restored, as it is claimed that they were the inspired word of God, and those books that were added should have been removed, since they are heresy. If the original books had been restored, then their doctrine could have been compared to each other then the testimony of two witness could have been applied, since both the original Bible and the Book of Mormon should agree perfectly. But, once again a prophet of the church missed the opportunity to provide proof of his claim and apparently made no request of God to restore the Bible to its original state.

(If the Bible, as revelation, was given over time as I hope we both believe, why did it stop at the Book of Revelation and could it not start again, such as with the Book of Mormon)

This possibility should not be allowed by the reality of what is taught by the Mormon church. Even though it claims the Bible as Scripture, it claims that the Bible is corrupt and cannot be trusted. At the same time it uses this same corrupt and untrustworthy document in an attempt to support its doctrine. If the Mormon church wished to be consistent in what it believes, then the Bible should have, and should be, rejected in total, and the Book of Mormon established exclusively in its place, not as an additional revelation or continuing revelation, but as the only legitimate revelation. This was never done from the very beginning of the church, because the church was depending on people who had a familiarity with the Bible to be the major portion of its converts. This is the reason that the Book of Mormon adopted a strange rendering of King James English when 1830 was 219 years after the King James version was introduced and the language of that time was greatly changed. The Book of Mormon even incorporated errors by the translators of the King James version, which are unique only to that version, such as the use of the term "Holy Ghost" which should have been rendered "Holy Spirit".
[LATER ADDITION: There is also the problem of the chapter and verse divisions in the Book of Mormon. The divisions are apparently original to the translation, but in the King James Bible, they are not original to the manuscripts, having been determined and put in place by Cardinal Carom 1236 A.D., and Robert Stephens, 1551 A.D.]
There is an old saying, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." That was the process used in regards to the Book of Mormon. If it sounded like the King James version of the Bible, looked like a Bible with chapters and verses, and was claimed to be a revelation from God like the Bible, then people would believe that the Book of Mormon and the Bible were the same or somehow connected. If that was not the case, then why was the Book of Mormon not translated into the language of 19th century American English, which Joseph Smith spoke, or is it to be assumed that God is locked into a dialectical time warp back to 1611?

God can do anything He pleases and if He wished to present another revelation to man He could do just that. But the Biblical criteria for judging any claim of a revelation is found in Revelation 22:18-19. If the revelations do not agree, then the new claim must be rejected.

There is also the admonition in Hebrews 1:1-2:

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world."

The main reason the Book of Mormon cannot be attached to the Bible is the fact that they are mutually exclusive, in that they do not say the same thing. Revelations must be consistent or they are not revelations. If one claim to revelation says one thing and another claim to revelation says the opposite, one of the two is false. The differences between the Book of the Mormon and the Bible are fundamental, core doctrines that are incompatible. There is no question, even among Mormon leadership, that the Bible and Mormon doctrine do not agree.

Sola Scriptura.
?

"Sola Scripture" is a Latin term meaning only Scripture. It was one of the key points in the reasons for the Reformation, It is a doctrine that is held dearly by all reformers and those who would embrace Reformation doctrine today. Just as the Reformation was a reaction against the Catholic church which also taught salvation by works, through indulgences and by the act of the sacraments and through the receiving of the last rights at death - it was also a reaction against the claims by the Catholic church that there was continuing revelation through the Papacy and that traditions (beliefs without historical or Biblical foundation) were also part of the gospel. It was through the appeal to tradition and infallible Papal revelation that the Catholic doctrines were confirmed. The reformers rejected all claims of tradition and Papal revelation as being Scripture and asserted that the Bible only was the source of all doctrine regarding the means of obtaining salvation and eternal life (by the Christian definition).

He created the universe out of nothing and maintains it by His power.
Where does it say this?)

Genesis 1:1 is the main reference.
"In the beginning God created (BARA) the heavens and the earth"
The word BARA is also used in the following verses in Genesis:
Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:21, 27
Genesis 2:3
Genesis 5:1-2

In all instances, the word is used in relation to the person who executes the results of the action and that person is God. In all instances, the act of BARA is always the result. In other words, as a verb, the direct object is that which is created. The materials used in the creation are not part of the equation. The statements are not made that God created from, with, by or out of something previously existing, in order to organize or form something of a different structure or shape.

In relation to the origin of man, this concept of making something out of existing material is expressed in Genesis 2:7, where it is noted that God did create or make something out of something else:
"Then the Lord God formed (YATSAR) of the dust from the ground..." Genesis 2:7
This instance of making the body of man is a formation act and the word (YATSAR) is used to differentiate from (BARA). The word YATSAR means to draw, become narrow such as a straightening, to mold or form such as by a potter. This could only be done with substance that was previously existing.

There are different creative acts presented in the book of Genesis. There are creation acts (out of nothing or "ex nihilo") and there are formation acts. The acts of creation are the creation of the universe and everything that is, including the nature of the soul and eternal being of man. The formation acts are those in which God uses that which he created in order to form that which he makes, such as the physical body of man. It is the breath of God, the unique impartation of life, that brings the soul and body of man together into what constitutes his being.

Mormon teaching states that Genesis 1:27, "God created man in His own image..." means that man was created in the physical image of a physical God. This is done in order to maintain the belief that God is a physical being, the same size as an average human being. But that is not the case, because the physical body of man was formed in Genesis 2:7.

This Biblical teaching is impossible to reconcile with Mormon doctrine. That is the point of difference. Mormon doctrine teaches that the souls or spirits of humans beings are fathered in a sexual manner by the Heavenly Father and his wife, who are physical beings. The universe and matter are not created out of nothing, but are formed or shaped from existing material (the tiny intelligences that adhere together to form all that is - who they are and who created them is a great mystery). Adam and Eve were spiritual beings who were sent to the physical earth that was formed and organized by the Heavenly Father. However, this forming or organizing did not apply to any physical bodies of Adam and Eve, because they came to this earth as spiritual beings. As a result of the infusing of the temporal nature of the earth, they achieved the ability to have children. This action was not accomplished by an act of the Heavenly Father, but by the nature of that which constitutes the temporal matter. The Heavenly Father and his wife, as physical beings, produce spiritual children. But in the reverse, Adam and Eve as spiritual beings, produced physical children.

The attempt to incorporate the Genesis creation account into the Mormon doctrine regarding the origin of man is done with great difficulty and the attempt to interpret Genesis 1:27, even according to Mormon standards, presents the Mormon church with a problem. The Genesis account does not agree with Mormon doctrine regarding the origin of Adam and Eve and the attempt to use that account in relation to their "creation" changes Mormon doctrine. According to Mormon doctrine, Adam and Eve were not created on this earth, but were fathered on another planet by their Heavenly Father and sent to this earth as spirit children, without temporal bodies. They could not have been "created" in the Heavenly Father's image, by the process described in Genesis, because they were procreated by Him, on another world, and represented what he already was.

"He [Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world.... You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth."
Prophet Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 319, 1856.

Brigham Young presumes to outrank Moses by his teaching, which is a very arrogant position to take, because Brigham Young's teaching contradicts the Genesis account. In Genesis, Adam's body was made from the dust of this earth, and Eve from his rib. There is confusion by the prophets of the Mormon church as to the origin of man.

God the Father is a person of spirit (the first person of the Trinity); infinite
(infinite)?
and personal in nature, perfect in holiness, wisdom, and love. and maintains it by His power.

INFINITE as opposed to FINITE. Mormon doctrine presents a finite being as God, having a body of flesh and bones while the Bible teaches that God is a spirit. This is a difference which is very clear in both the statements of Mormon theology and those of the Biblical references which I mentioned later. The Biblical statement is that God is a Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth, John 4:24. The Book of Mormon also makes the claim that God is a spirit, Alma 18:28, Alma 22:9-11. The Bible also makes a statement as to the extent of God's presence, filling both heaven and earth at the same time, Jeremiah 23:23-24, 1 Kings 8:27.

Mormon doctrine defines God by placing limits on his being; by compressing him into the limitations of the physical universe, not allowing him to exist outside the boundaries of what is physical and what is understandable by the human mind:

God does not know everything - he is continually learning.
God cannot be everywhere at one time.
God is not all powerful. He is limited to organization of material, not to creating it.
God is not the prime mover or the originator of everything that is, but only the organizer of pre-existent material.
God is limited by time, space and the physical because all that is, is composed of the tiny intelligences only - nothing lives or exists out side of their organized being.
The God of the Bible is quite different, because He is not limited by time, space and the physical. Those elements are creations by Him and He is not limited by that which is created and formed by His own hand. God lives outside the confines of time, space and the physical, therefore he is not subject to those limitations in any way. The god of the Mormon church is a god that has been defined in the image of man, just the opposite to Biblical teaching where man is defined in the image of God. There is a great difference.

This is a difference in belief about the nature of God, not only between Mormon doctrine and Biblical teaching, but also a difference within Mormon doctrine itself, because current Mormon teaching contradicts the teaching in the Book of Mormon. I do not believe that any teaching by a prophet could change the fundamental nature of God presented in Mormon doctrine, as expressed in the Book of Mormon, since God could not change his fundamental nature of being after giving the revelation of who and what he is in the Book of Mormon. If current Mormon doctrine claims that God has a body of flesh and bones, and the Book of Mormon states that God is a Great Spirit, then something has changed in Mormon doctrine.

He was raised bodily from the dead, ascended to heaven and intercedes to God, as the only
(only)?
great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, for those who confess their sins and trust in Him.

I presume your question is in relation to the "only high priest", since the Mormon church claims two priesthoods, the Aaronic Priesthood (which includes the Levitical), and applies to virtually every male member, beginning at age 12, and the Melchizedek Priesthood which is conferred at about age eighteen.

The Mormon church claims that the Melchizedek priesthood was conferred on the disciples Peter, James and John and the support for the claim is again pointed toward the corrupted Bible in John 15:16. According to Mormon teaching, the priesthood is conferred by the laying on of hands, but the support claimed in John 15:16 makes no mention of the laying on of hands, and no foundational teaching is ever presented in the Bible that the term "ordination" (KJV) used in the passage means to lay on hands. In addition, the passage makes no mention of the Melchizedek Priesthood or any priesthood. The entire premise taught by the Mormon church, that Christ laid his hands on the apostles and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on them, is a complete fabrication and an addition to the Bible that has no basis in fact.

The Mormon church claims that the Melchizedek Priesthood was held by the sons of Moses, a claim that has no basis in the Old Testament Scripture, and any claim that those Scriptures teach the concept would be denied by any competent Jewish scholar. The Bible mentions only two persons that held the office of the Melchizedek Priesthood, Melchizedek himself and Jesus Christ. The claim that the Melchizedek Priesthood was held by many individuals and conferred to numerous individuals at the same time is not taught in the Bible, but support for that teaching comes only from the Book of Mormon, Alma chapter 13.

Alma has some strange teachings in relation to the Jews and the Melchizedek priesthood. He notes that, "And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption." The problem is, at that time, the Son had not come and the priesthood was still after the order of Melchizedek. It could not be "after the order of his Son" until it was conferred by God on Jesus Christ after the death of Jesus Christ, about 150 years or so after Alma wrote his words.

Now, the problem is that the Jews looked forward to a Messiah, who would save them from their sins, but they had no conception that the Messiah would be the Son of God. That was the reason that Jesus was killed, because he claimed to be the Son of God. The demons knew He was the son of God, Matthew 8:29, but it was a revelation to Peter when he stated that Jesus was the Son of God in Matthew 16:16-17. It was a mystery to the Jewish leaders that He would be the Messiah, because Jesus asked the Pharisees a question, about Himself, that they could not answer:

"What do you think about the Christ [the Messiah], whose son is He? They said to Him, 'The son of David.' He said to them, 'Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet'?" If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son? No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question."
Matthew 22:42-46

Now, the Messiah would be a descendant in the line of David, and the Jews were correct in that understanding, but they did not understand that He would also be the Son of God.

The leaders had Jesus crucified because of his claim that God was His Father:

"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God."
John 5:18, cf. John 19:7

That was the accusation by the high priest against him, and what he demanded that Jesus admit, in order to prove the blasphemy with which they charged Jesus:
Matthew 26:63; Luke 22:66-71.

Alma also states that the Melchizedek Priesthood was after the order of the Son of God, meaning Jesus Christ. However, the first mention of that priesthood was in relation to Melchizedek, and Jesus Christ was conferred the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, not after the "Priesthood of the Son of God", noted in Doctrine and Covenants 107:4.

Christ could not have conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on anyone else, because the priesthood is conferred only on the death of the priest. In the case of Jesus Christ, He lives forever and maintains his priesthood forever. Any one who claims that he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek is a false priest, because Jesus Christ is the only priest after that order, having His priesthood conferred upon Him by God alone, and by the fact that He maintains His priesthood perpetually, because He lives forever:
Hebrews 5:5-6, 10
Hebrews 6:20
Psalm 110:4

The Melchizedek Priesthood was not a hereditary priesthood like the Aaronic or Levitical. The Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred solely by the sovereign choice of God and was not passed on to another by the one who held it. That is the point of the reference in Hebrews 7:3, because Melchizedek did not inherit the priesthood from another person, nor did he pass it on to another. He was a priest of the "Most High God" as opposed to the Aaronic and Levitical priests who served "Jehovah". That is the reason the genealogy of Melchizedek is unimportant - he did not receive his priesthood as a hereditary inheritance, but from God alone, and he did not pass it on to another through any act of ordination. This is also the reason why the genealogy of Jesus Christ does not include a line from the priesthood of Aaron or Levi, because the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek was given to him by God alone and not by inheritance.

The difference between the priesthood of Melchizedek and that of Aaron and Levi is that "Jehovah" acted in the capacity of a personal God to the nation of Israel, but the "Most High God" acts in the capacity of a God over all the people of the earth, both Jew and Gentile. The Aaronic and Levitical priests served the nation of Israel only, and their offerings and sacrifices made in relation to the people, applied to the nation of Israel only. The priesthood of Melchizedek, represents not only Jews, but all peoples of the world. Melchizedek served in the town of Salem, an ancient name for Jerusalem, but it was not a Jewish town when he was there and he was not serving Jewish people. He was God's representative to the world, and was a picture of Jesus Christ to come who was to provide atonement for sins, not only for the Jewish people but for the entire world, because, " ... He who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement [>or commandment<] , but according to the power of an indestructible life [>He lives forever<]. For it is attested of Him, 'You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek'".
Hebrews 7:16-17.

Alma also speaks incorrectly as to the nature of the kingdom from which Melchizedek came:

"... and he did reign under his father."
Alma 13:18

Now, Alma was writing about 100 B.C. and directly contradicts Moses who was writing almost 1900 years closer to the events surrounding the priesthood and reign of Melchizedek. He states the following:

"And Melchizedek, king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High."
Genesis 14:18

It is claimed that the books of the Old Testament were brought to the new world, so why did Alma make this error? If he presumed to correct Moses, why did he not say so?

The Aaronic or Levitical priesthood was separate from the priesthood of Melchizedek. The Aaronic priesthood was of a legal obligation, necessary because of the commands of God and was hereditary in nature, the offices being passed on from father to son. Only the Levites could be priests, and they were from and served the nation of Israel only, the sacrifices that they offered not being applied to those outside the covenant with Israel.

Did the sacrifices by the priests bring forgiveness of sins to the people? No they did not as is noted in Hebrews. If the sacrifices by the priests were perfect, bringing about forgiveness of sin, what need was there for another greater priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek?

The relationship of the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood to Jesus Christ is the core of the Christian gospel taught in the Bible. It is radically and unequivocally irreconcilable to Mormon doctrine and is explained in Hebrews.

"Now if perfection [>for that is the standard of the Law and the 10 Commandments<] was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? [>If the Aaronic priesthood could provide a sufficient sacrifice in order to obtain forgiveness of sins for the people and a right relationship with God, then why was the priesthood of Melchizedek necessary?>] For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. [>So if there is a change in the type and nature of the priesthood, then the laws that applied to the original priesthood must change also, or else there was no necessity to change the priesthood. This change was from a legal obligation to keep the precepts of the Law to the law of Jesus Christ as expressed in Romans 3:21-28, a law of faith. 'By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith." v. 27. 'For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law?' v. 28. This is precisely why the Reformation took place and why Martin Luther separated from the Catholic church, because he found that the Bible taught justification before God as a result of faith and not as a result of the works that he had dedicated himself to do.<] For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. [>Speaking about Jesus Christ who was from the tribe of Judah which was not a priestly tribe and from which no priest could come<] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of Him, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.' [>The Aaronic priesthood was a physical priesthood, not only in its functions and appearance but also as to the priests themselves, as they could be disqualified for any number physical disfigurements. It was also physical in relation to the fact that it was a necessary organization because of the Law of God. It is the same situation in governments of law which necessitate a judiciary or police force.<] For, on the one had, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), [>The Law and the Aaronic priesthood necessitated by that Law, could not bring about forgiveness of sins and a right relationship to God<], and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, 'The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, 'You are a priest forever'"); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. The former priests, on the other hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it is fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when he offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever."
Hebrews 7:11-28

This great passage in Hebrews reveals the total inability of man to find forgiveness of sins and "draw near" to God through the Aaronic priesthood. It was not possible for man to approach God, or "draw near", because God's presence was in the tabernacle, behind the second veil; behind which only the high priest could go once a year. But the elimination of the Aaronic priesthood and the replacement by the priesthood of Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek, removed the veils and Jesus Christ provides direct access to God through Himself (Romans 5:2, Ephesians 2:18). It was not just an incidental point, that at the moment Jesus Christ died on the cross, the second veil of the temple in Jerusalem was torn in half (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45). The tearing of the veil signified the death and removal of the Aaronic priesthood. In its place was established the ability of man to actually "draw near" to God, through Jesus Christ, acting as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus Christ does not need to offer sacrifices every day for the sins of men, but He offered His life as a sacrifice for sins on the cross, one time for all who trust Him, Hebrews 7:27).

The death of Jesus Christ on the cross removed and voided the Aaronic priesthood. It ceased to exist as an institution and those who continued to function in the capacity, functioned in a dead and meaningless system. The Aaronic priesthood was replaced, disannulled in the KJV ('athetesis' in the Greek, meaning to cancel or put away) by the priesthood of Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek.

The old, Aaronic priesthood was a priesthood of binding law, which, by its very nature could not provide for access to God, because neither the priests not the people could keep the Law perfectly. The standard was perfection, it could not be attained by priest or man, so there was a better way, "... (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God."
Hebrews 7:19.

Those who continue in the Aaronic priesthood, continue in a dead system, one which was replaced at the death of Jesus Christ. It is a system that could not atone for the sins of the Jews, had no relationship to the Gentile world, could not give access to God, and the Law which necessitated its existence condemns man of his sin and inability to attain to the perfection of character and spirituality which is the standard of God.

"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year, for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
Hebrews 10:1-4

The Aaronic priesthood requires the application of the Levitical system of animal sacrifices. That was the purpose of its existence. It was a shadow or a illusion to the perfect sacrifice that would come in the future, in the person of Jesus Christ and His one sacrifice for all the sins of men on the cross. When the reality, prefigured in the Aaronic priesthood came, (Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek), the old priesthood had no meaning. To claim the Aaronic priesthood today is to deny the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and to deny the superiority of His priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. If the Aaronic priesthood could not atone for sins, and bring men "near to God" before the death of Jesus Christ, it is even more incapable of doing the same today after the establishment of the priesthood of Jesus Christ after the order of Melchizedek To claim the Aaronic priesthood is to place a person back under the Levitical system of laws, which condemns man for his inability to keep them perfectly. It places a person in the position of having to offer sacrifices every day, which do not atone for sin and do not bring a person "near to God", but only reveal the gulf that extends between the perfection of God and the failure of the person to be perfect.

The Mormon church teaches a great error in the claim to have been conferred the Aaronic priesthood. It is not a possibility and is precluded from being established by the message of Hebrews. Members of the early Christian church were not ordained to the Aaronic priesthood and it is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

"... the Aaronic Priesthood is no where pretended to in the Book of Mormon."
Apostle Parley Pratt, "Writings of Parley Parker Pratt", p. 209

It is claimed by the Mormon church, that the church was founded under the authority of the priesthood. But is that really a truthful claim?

It is claimed that John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829 and laid his hands on them and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on them just before they were baptized. This is noted in the "Pearl of Great Price" in the history of Joseph Smith. Since it is taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, then Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were unsaved sinners when they received the priesthood. Since it is taught that a person must be baptized prior to receiving the priesthood, then they also received it in a sinful state, and received it in an unworthy manner. This is hard to understand. Apparently John the Baptist forgot why he was given his name and preceded with the confirmation without baptizing the two men. Why did he make such a fundamental error?

In the Joseph Smith history of the conferring of the priesthood by John the Baptist, John the Baptist tells Joseph Smith to baptize Oliver Cowdery. But Joseph Smith had not been baptized himself, therefore Oliver Cowdery's baptism is invalid. Then John the Baptist told Oliver Cowdery to baptize Joseph Smith. But since Oliver Cowdery's baptism was invalid, then his baptism of Joseph Smith was invalid because his own baptism was invalid. Next, Joseph Smith conferred the Aaronic priesthood on Oliver Cowdery and then Oliver Cowdery conferred the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith. Since the baptisms of both men were invalid, then they had no authority to confer the priesthood on each other. But, the exercise is more strange, because John the Baptist had already conferred the Aaronic priesthood on both of them. So why did Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery confer the priesthood on each other when they were both already in possession of it?

Since both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were not baptized prior to their claim of receiving the priesthood from John the Baptist, then the authority that they claim was conferred to them in the priesthood is invalid. Therefore, the baptism of every Mormon believer is invalid today, because the baptisms of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are invalid.

History does make a difference. And what a person believes does make a difference. If the requirements of the Mormon church must be met in order for one to be acceptable, then why did the original founders ignore their own teachings about the proper procedures to be followed? If they could not get it right, then where does that leave the rest of the church? With invalid baptisms.

However, returning to the question of whether the Mormon church was founded under the authority of the priesthood. Apparently Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had invalid baptisms and invalid claims to the priesthood, but were those claims asserted by them to be true prior to the formation of the church. The church could not be formed unless those that formed it had the authority of the priesthood.

The Mormon church states that the revelation in the "Doctrine and Covenants", 27:12, August, 1830, is the confirmation that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the restored priesthood of Melchizedek from Peter, James and John in 1829 ("Ensign", June 1973, p.5). However, the revelation was printed in the original "Book of Commandments" in 1833 (the predecessor of the "Doctrine and Covenants"), and by the time it appeared in the "Doctrine and Covenants" in 1835, 13 verses had been added to the revelation that were not in the original "Book of Commandments". This strains the credibility of the claim.

David Whitmer, one of the original witnesses to the Book of Mormon claims in the book, "Address to All Believers in Christ", p. 64, that the priesthood and high priests did not exist in the church until 2 years after it was formed. The claim is made that the priesthood was an invention of Sidney Rigdon, two years after the formation of the church. Since the Mormon church uses David Whitmer's testimony to confirm the Book of Mormon they can either reject both of his statements of accept both of them. They cannot choose one or the other. The church has a very large problem in this instance.

Joseph Smith also reveals that the priesthood was received after the formation of the church, on June 3, 1831, "... the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the elders."
"History of the Church", Vol 1, p. 72.

Apostle George A. Smith said that Ezra Booth, a Methodist minister, was present when the elders first received the high priesthood in June 1831.
"Journal of Discourses", Vol 11, p. 4.

Since the Mormon church was organized on April 6, 1830 in Fayette, New York, it was functioning for 1 year and almost two months without the authority of the priesthood. Also the claim that Peter, James, John and John the Baptist appeared to he and Oliver Cowdery in 1829 and conferred the priesthood on them is false.

The Mormon church claims that Oliver Cowdery verifies the claim of receiving the priesthood in 1829, and quote a message given by him in 1848:

"I was also present with Joseph when the higher of Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel on High."
"A New Witness for Christ In America", Kirkham, Vol. 1, p. 72, cf. "Deseret News", April 13, 1859.

The claim by the "Deseret News" was that the source of Oliver Cowdery's was the Journal of Reuben Miller, which quoted Oliver Cowdery as saying:

"I was also present with Joseph when the high or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by holy angels from on high."
"BYU Study Series". Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 278, cf. "Doctrines of Salvation", Vol. 3, p. 99.

What is he talking about? The priesthood was supposed to have been conferred by John the Baptist, not a holy angel or holy angels. Since Oliver Cowdery became apostate, it is difficult to understand why he would reject the Mormon church if he actually believed what he had claimed.

Joseph Smith claimed that "John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris are too mean to mention." "History of the Church", Vol. 3, p. 232.

Oliver Cowdery was involved in the counterfeiting of U.S. currency and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Joseph Smith visited Oliver Cowdery and, "According to the Prophet, he and Sidney Rigdon went to visit Oliver concerning the matter and told him that if he were guilty, he had better leave town; but if he was innocent, he should stand trial and thus be acquired. 'The night or next,' the Prophet said, Oliver 'left the country'."
"Far West Record," p. 117, an unpublished "record book containing minutes of meeting in Kirtland and Far West, Missouri."
cf. "History of the Church", vol. 3, p. 16, 17.

Apparently Joseph Smith's interpretation of justice was to run from the law and from the consequences of illegal activity. There is a moral failure in this incident and it is not just that of Oliver Cowdery.

Oliver Cowdery apparently denied his testimony regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as is expressed in the following excerpt from a poem printed in "Times and Season", Vol. 2, p. 482, 1841:

"...Or does it prove there is no time, Because some watches will not go?
....
Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
Because that Peter cursed and swore?
Or Book of Mormon not His word
Because denied, by Oliver?..."

Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church as 6 of the nine charges against him were sustained. He then joined the Methodist church, in which he stayed until his death.

The Mormon church uses Oliver Cowdery's statement to confirm the conferring of the priesthood, even though he stated that it was conferred by an angel(s) and not by John the Baptist, and the veracity of the Book of Mormon, but excommunicated him, declaring him a liar. As in the case of David Whitmer, the Mormon church cannot have it both ways. Either all of his testimony is valid or none of it is. In either case, the claim by the Mormon church that all of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were men of spotless reputations, is totally untrue. The washed and cleaned versions of the apostles, presidents and prophets are not the reality of who they actually were.

But the greatest claim against the assertion by Joseph Smith that he and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic priesthood from John the Baptist, is in the passage already quoted:

"The former priests [>Those of the Aaronic priesthood<], on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing ..."
Hebrews 7:23

Now, John the Baptist was a righteous man, filled with the Holy Spirit prior to his birth of whom Jesus said he was the greatest man that ever lived. However, he was beheaded and he died, so at his death he could not have retained the priesthood, because it was only held while the priest lived, that being the point of Hebrews 7:23. The Aaronic priesthood was an earthly priesthood, subject to the frailties of an earthly existence. That is why the Melchizedek priesthood is greater and why it is only held by Jesus Christ, because He lives forever. John the Baptist could not have conferred the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, because he lost the priesthood and any authority granted by it at the point of his death.

The Holy Spirit is a person of spirit (the third person of the Trinity) who is sent to this earth by the Father and Son to convict
(convict)?
the world of sin and to comfort, regenerate, sanctify and empower all who believe in Jesus Christ.

The meaning of convict? As in, to bring a person to a realization of one's guilt. In this instance, guilt before God because of sin, the inability to be righteous and unbelief in a future judgment:
"And He [>The Holy Spirit, cf. v. 13,<] when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me, and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged."
John 16:8-11

Salvation is wholly of God, given by grace alone on the basis of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, the merit of His shed blood, and not on the basis of human virtue, works or duties.
(Faith without works is dead, James 2:14, 2:17, 2:22, 2:24).

I wouldn't disagree with that. The questions are, which comes first works or faith, and can salvation be obtained by works (by the Biblical definition - not as to resurrection)?

In answer to the last question (Can salvation be obtained by works?), the answer is no, and the support is clearly found in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible.

The Biblical references:

"Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
Romans 3:27-28

Paul explain his reason in the next verses:

"Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised [>The Jews<] and the uncircumcised [>The Gentiles<] through faith is one. Do we nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the law."
Romans 3:29-31

How does Paul come to the conclusion that justification is apart from works? The framework for his claim is found in verses 9 - 28 and is predicated especially on verses 10 and 12: "There is none righteous...." "There is none who does good, no, not one." The reason for this corruption is found in verse 19: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." The law reveals how far man is from the ability to keep the law of God, and does not provide salvation, but condemnation.

But, one may ask, the Law was given to the Jews, how can Gentiles be guilty also? Paul answers in verse 9 and refers back to Romans 2:13-16 where Gentiles are also guilty: "...for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; when Gentiles, who did not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

None are justified by the law, because the law reveals that none have kept it, except One, who is Jesus Christ, having kept it perfectly so that He had no sins of His own which needed an atonement, so that he could atone for the sins of man.

How does faith "establish the law"?.

Faith is in the provision of God in regards to the penalty of the law. In relation to those of the Old Testament believers, it was belief that God would do what He said and that He would provide a Redeemer who would satisfy the requirements of the Law in order to provide forgiveness of sins. In regards to New Testament believers, it is belief that God provided the promised Redeemer in the person of Jesus Christ and that His perfect life and sacrifice of His life on the cross satisfies the requirements of the Law and provided redemption and salvation to those who have faith in Jesus Christ.

Paul continues in Romans 4:2-5 "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness..."

He continues in verses 23-25: "Now it was not written for his [>Abraham's<] sake alone that it [>faith<] was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification."

Why was Christ delivered up? It was to pay the penalty for our sins, our offenses against God. Why was Christ raised? So that He mind stand in our place, accepted by God, so that He might see the sins of those who have faith in Jesus Christ, as being paid for by Jesus Christ, and the faith of the believer in Jesus Christ as justifying (being made free from the penalty sin) as the result. That is true salvation.

Your references regarding James are interesting, because the Mormon church looks to James as the confirmation of the belief that it is good works that lead to faith and salvation. This is not a claim that is unique to the Mormon church, but a claim that has been asserted by legalistic believers in the protestant world, probably for centuries. The references do speak of faith and works, but in what manner, and how do they relate to the above teaching by Paul?

The writer, James, has been believed by most theologians to have been the half-brother of Jesus Christ. While Jesus was on the earth, he was not believed by His family, including James. After the resurrection, James and his brother Jude, who wrote the book of Jude became believers. James was very prominent and influential in the Christian church at Jerusalem, Acts 12:17, Acts 15:13-21, Acts 21:18. He worked closely with Peter and John. His association with Paul was not as close, since Paul spent most of his time on missionary journeys away from Jerusalem. After his conversion. Paul went to Arabia for three years prior to going back to Jerusalem where he stayed with Peter for 15 days and apparently met with James at that time. Paul then began his ministry and did not return again to Jerusalem for 14 years, taking Barnabas and Titus (who was a Gentile) as a test to see how the Jerusalem church would respond to a Gentile convert. They were accepted by Peter, James and John, brought into the fellowship and Paul's ministry was confirmed. The apostles confirmed Paul's ministry, but he also had run into the sect of the Judaizers who had come into the church, posing as Christians, but attempting to spread their doctrine that Christians must be circumcised in order to obtain salvation, a doctrine denied by the apostles and Paul.

Sometime later, Peter went to Antioch and spent some time there. When he first went, he ate with the Gentile converts and treated them well, But as time went on, Judaizers came into the fellowship claiming that they were sent from James. Peter gradually began to separate himself from the Gentile converts, spending time with the Judaizers, eventually taking his meals exclusively with them. When Paul came to Antioch and saw that Peter conducted himself in such an inappropriate and sinful manner, he confronted Peter in front of the whole congregation, rebuking him for his conduct and the fact that Peter's association with the Judaizers offended the Gentile converts, opposed the gospel of Jesus Christ and gave credibility to the false doctrine of the Judaizers. His rebuke of Peter is recorded in Galatians:

"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel. I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ and not by the works of the law; for by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of god; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
Galatians 2:14-21

Paul had no fear and rebuked even Peter without hesitation for his association with those who wished to bring law into the Christian church. Paul had spoken to James, probably the previous year, and if he had been teaching a doctrine of law (works) then Paul would have opposed him also.

But James did not believe such a doctrine, and in point of fact denied the teaching that a person must be circumcised and keep the law in order to obtain salvation. The Jerusalem Council met some time after Paul's rebuke of Peter and the question of the Judaizers was discussed once again. James and Peter spoke in support of Paul and the doctrine of the Judaizers was rejected. Peter spoke as follows:

Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our father nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
Acts 15:10-11

Now, the "yoke" that Peter spoke about was circumcision and the law.

A letter was given to Paul by the leadership, Peter and James being the heads, and he took it back to Antioch with him along with Barnabas, Barsabbas and Silas. The contents of the letter is recorded in Acts 15:23-29.

The Epistle of James is concerned with Christian conduct in the face of persecution, trials and tests. He, addresses his letter to those that claim to be Christians and claim to have already expressed their faith in Jesus Christ, by using the term "brethren". His letter does not concern itself with the manner in which salvation is obtained and does not define salvation. Salvation is the catalyst and the results of that action are those with which he concerns himself. If one looks at James with the realization that he is talking about conduct, in relation to those who claim to be Christians, then James takes on a very different meaning, opposite to justification by works.

Chapter 1, verses 2-12 Faith exhibits perseverance in times of suffering and during trials of temptation. Test of perseverance in suffering and temptation. James has some doubts as to the authenticity of what some claim, which he expresses in chapter 1, verses 6-7: "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."

The term "no doubting" does not refer to some momentary indecision, but to an inner moral conflict in which the person presumes to distrust God. That person is double-minded, because they divide their occasional belief in God with trust in the world, cf. 4:4

Chapter 1, verses 13-18
Test of blame in temptation - God does not tempt
Faith exhibits a godly attitude toward temptation.
Chapter 1, verses 19-27 - the response to the teaching of the word "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves," vs. 22.
"But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does."
"And if anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless," vs. 27. James' uses of the word "religious" is "THRESKOS" in the Greek, meaning a ceremonial or outside show of religion. This is opposed to an internal godliness, because the outside show of religions was not followed in sincerity because the person did not control their tongue. Their actions did not speak for what they claimed to believe.

Chapter 2, verses 1-13
Faith exhibits proper conduct toward others.
The test of impartial love and respect of persons.
By showing partiality in relation to "the faith", not the exercise of personal faith, but the entire context of the Christian, one shows contempt for those of poorer status or less noble character.
"The faith" is for all, equally and is not to be withheld or diminished in relation to anyone.

Chapter 2, verses 14-26
The test of righteous works
Faith exhibits works toward God.
(2:14 -17)"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit. Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works is dead."

Notice that James is not speaking about someone who he says has real faith, but someone who claims to have faith. In such a case, James applies a test to find out if their faith is real. If they claim to have faith, do they do the works of Christ? Those works are noted in Matthew 25:31-40.

The test is not faith, because that is intangible. The test is not the claim of faith, because anyone can make a claim. The test is as to the results of the reality of their faith and that test is in the works that are produced through the action of their faith. The conclusion is, that faith without resulting works is no faith at all, being dead. The person made a claim of having faith, but the proof did not exist.

2:18 "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' [>Does that sound familiar?<]Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."

James makes the statement that his works reveal the reality of the faith that he claims to already have. His true faith is put on display, the demonstration of which can only be shown by what he does in the name of his faith. Real, saving faith is first and good works can only follow true faith. Peter expresses the same idea in 2 Peter 1:3-9, vs. 5, "But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love."

In verse 21-23 James makes the application of his premise and refers to Abraham. For Abraham acted in faith, and by his action in offering Isaac on the alter, God considered him righteous. The faith that Abraham expressed toward God was made complete and confirmed, because of his action. Abraham expressed faith that caused him to offer Isaac. If he had not had faith, that God would provide a substitute or raise Isaac from the dead, he would not have offered him on the altar. The same statement is made in Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice." Faith is first, action is second - always.

In verse 24, James makes his conclusion based on what he has said previously, that works must be present in order prove justification by faith. He continues in verses 25 and 26 with two more examples. Rahab's faith was verified by her works and faith is dead without the evidence of works.

[>If then, James is teaching works, by keeping the law, is the standard - can anyone keep the law perfectly? One violation condemns a person in all points of the law, and no person has ever, or will ever keep the law perfectly - so how do works bring about faith or how are works necessary for faith if they are imperfect in relation to the standard?<]

Chapter 3:1-12
'The test of the tongue
Faith exhibits self-control. James speaks no more of faith or works in the rest of the chapter. However in chapter 3, he does return to the subject of the tongue that was introduced before, and gives another example in relation to the misuse of it. His comparison is very unusual, because he compares one source with two outcomes, both as to the tongue of humanity, the physical world and the animal world. His reference is unmistakable as to the source regarding the tongue, and it is the person who claims to have faith but his speech reveals that he does not (1:26). Those who claim to have faith are double minded (1:8) and that is the analogy in 3:9-12. The tongue, the fountain, and the fig tree represent the claim of faith. But if the claim is made that a person has faith, how does blessing and cursing come out of the same source. If a person has faith, how does the source of the fountain send out both fresh and bitter water? If a person has faith, how does the root of the tree produce figs and olives and the vine produce grapes and figs, nor can the source of the ocean produce salt water and fresh water. The measure and reality of the faith of a person is what is produced, in what a person says in a consistent manner and what a person does in relation to what is claimed as a belief.

Chapter 3:13-18
The test of humility and wisdom
Faith exhibits humility and wisdom. The same pattern is repeated, in the relationship to conduct to works as is seen in works to faith. Verse 13 says to show, by good conduct, that the works be done in meekness of wisdom. Conduct is a verification of the works, and works is a verification of faith.

Chapter 4:1-12
The test or Worldly indulgence
Faith exhibits one-mindedness. His main point is expressed in verse 6 which refers again back to 1:7-8 and false faith revealing a double-minded character, "Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded."

Chapter 4:13-17
The test of dependence
Faith exhibits dependence on God. In these verses, James deals with the person who claims to have faith, but leaves God out of his everyday life. The person makes plans for the future, not acknowledging God or being aware of His existence. The person boast of their own accomplishments and possessions. Therefore, James says, that the claim that they have faith in God reveals their sin, because inherent in that claim is a knowledge of God and His precepts.

Chapter 5:1-11
The test of Patient Endurance
Faith exhibits patience. God will deal with the evil person of the world, so the believer should exhibit quiet patience.

Chapter 5:12
The test of truthfulness
Faith exhibits truth. An oath does convey truthfulness, but a man's character speaks for him. When he says yes, he should perform what he says. If he says no, he should stay with his decisions. To lie, falsify or change the word that one says is to call the judgment of God.

Chapter 5:13-18
The test of prayerfulness
Faith exhibits and attitude of prayer.
If prayer is the "work" then it is a result of faith, because verse states "...the prayer of faith..." noting that the prayer is a result of faith rather than the other way around.

Chapter 5:19-20
The test of true faith
Faith exhibits concern for the one who has strayed from the truth.

This has been a long session on James, much longer than I had ever anticipated. But James is an unusual book just as he was an unusual man, along with his brother Jude, being the half-brothers of Jesus.

If one wishes to use the book of James as a proof that faith and salvation is by works, instead of works being the result of faith, then several problems must be overcome:

1. One must deny the teaching of Paul.
2. One must deny the teaching of Peter.
3. One must deny the teaching of James himself because he assented and approved of the teaching of Paul by confirming his teaching by commending him back to the church at Antioch in Acts 15:22-30.
4. One must deny the teaching of the prophet Habakkuk in Habakkuk 2:4.
5. One must deny the teaching of Moses in Genesis 15:6.
6. One must deny the action of Jesus Christ on the cross, when He told the thief (who had no good works to claim) that he would be with Jesus in paradise that same day. In addition, one must deny the action of Jesus.
7. One must deny the teaching of Jesus Christ regarding doing the works of God.

"Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent."
John 2:28-29

The Mormon must deny the teachings of his own scriptures:
1. He must deny the original Articles of Faith, 1851

In relation to SALVATION, nothing is stated about works being necessary, Salvation is obtained by:
A. Faith
B. Repentance
C. Baptism
D. Laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost.

I have sent e-mail attached files of the Articles of Faith as follows:
(1) "An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions", Orson Pratt, 1841
REMARK1.GIF
REMARK2.GIF
REMARK3.GIF
REMARK4.GIF
REMARK5.GIF
The "Articles of Faith" start at the bottom of file REMARK3.GIF and continue on file REMARK4.GIF.
(2) "Times and Seasons", 1842
1842T&S1.GIF
1842T&S2.GIF

(3) "Pearl of Great Price", 1851
1851POGP.GIF

(4) "Pearl of Great Price", 1902
1902POGP.GIF

I have sent these so you might have the documentation for my claim that the Mormon church has changed its position on the elements of salvation and have changed the wording of the Articles of Faith in order to allow those new positions to be accepted. (1) In the document of 1841 ==> Remark1.gif, Remark2.gif, Remark3.gif, Remark4.gif, Remark5.gif,(Pratt), there are "conditions" listed that must be met in order to obtain salvation, they are (a) Faith (b) Baptism (c) Repentance (d) Laying on of hands for the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of works being one of the conditions.

(2) In the document of 1842 ==> 1842t&s1.gif, 1842t&s1.gif,("Times and Seasons"), there are "ordinances", a minor change in terminology. There are still the same four conditions or ordinances as in 1841. There is no mention of works being one of the conditions.

(3) In the document of 1851 --> 1851pogp.gif, ("Pearl of Great Price"), are "laws and ordinances", again only a minor change. There are still the same four conditions laws or ordinances as in 1841. There is no mention of works being one of the conditions.

(4) In the document of 1902 ==> 1902pogp.gif, ("Pearl of Great Price"), there are "first principles and ordinances", a major change in definition of terms. There are still the same four conditions or ordinances as in 1841, but they are defined as only the "first principles" of which there are others. So, instead of receiving a revelation from God, that redefined the manner in which salvation is obtained, the leadership of the church simply changed the Articles of Faith without authority to do so, and in a most deceptive way, in order to accommodate any teaching that they wished to apply to salvation. Are there more than four conditions that must be met in order to obtain salvation exaltation) in Mormon doctrine today? There are several:

Membership in the Mormon church - if a person is not a member they only qualify for the general resurrection, just like the other sinners of the world - not part of the original 4.
Works? I guess so - keep the 10 Commandments (perfectly?) - keep the "Word of Wisdom" - tithing (tithing is a necessary work, so the Mormon criticism of the Catholic church for selling indulgences as a means of going to heaven is somewhat blunted) - gaining knowledge (the more knowledge, the higher the exaltation - pity the poor person in a poverty stricken third world country who cannot read or write who will be forever denied the knowledge of others more fortunate) - being fruitful and multiplying converts and children) - being virtuous - doing good things, not part of the original 4.
"Blood Atonement" - not for everyone, but not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".
Marriage in the Temple, not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".
"... proper ordinances performed in the proper manner by proper authority ..." Elder Theodore M. Burton, "The Ensign", Sept. 1985, pp. 68-69, not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".
Polygamy? Still the official doctrine of the church, condemned in the Book of Mormon, not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".
Proxy baptism for the dead, not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".
Priesthood, not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".
Temple ordinances, not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".
Endowments, not part of the original 4 in the "Articles of Faith".

2. The Mormon must deny the teaching in the Book of Mormon.

"And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; whether are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you."
Mosiah 4:8

What are the conditions that king Benjamin states? They are found in verses 9 and 10:
Believe in God;
believe that he is;
believe that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth;
believe that man does not understand all the things that God understands;
repentance;
forsake sins;
become humble before God;
ask forgiveness;
NOW that you believe, do what you claim to believe.

Are there any other actions taught, are there any of conditions to be met? There are no works here, only belief.

3. The Mormon must deny the words of Joseph Smith in his own Inspired Version of the Bible, where he quotes the apostle Paul. If Joseph Smith translated the Bible, then it must be correct, because he was an inspired prophet and seer:

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law."
Prophet Joseph Smith, "Inspired Version of the Bible", Romans 3:28

"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast."
Prophet Joseph Smith, "Inspired Version of the Bible". Ephesians 2:8-9

There are no works here, only faith that brings justification and salvation.

The Lord Jesus Christ has delegated two ordinances to the local church, (1) baptism and (2) the Lord's Supper. The Christian should be baptized by immersion in water by into in the name of the Triune God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
?

My error in typing - it should read (or something close to this): The Christian should be baptized by immersion in water, into the fellowship, by using the name of the Triune God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

At the judgment seat of Christ, all persons who have not believed the message that He taught, confessed their sins and followed Christ as their Savior, will be condemned because of the justice of God, sent to the Lake of Fire, along with the Devil and his angels, where they will remain in endless torment for eternity under the power of God.
(This seems to me to be a very sweeping and unfair statement ignoring the teaching of Paul regarding bodies celestial, terrestrial and telestial.)

In relation to Paul, I presume the reference is to 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 in which he mentions being caught up to the third heaven. The highest heavens and heaven of heavens are also mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:14, Psalm 148:4, Nehemiah 9:6, Ephesians 4:10 and Jesus Christ passing through the heavens in Hebrews 4:14. You may also be referring to 1 Corinthians 15:40.

Paul speaks of being caught up to the third heaven (ouranos) the heavens, from which we have named the planet Uranus. He was also in paradise (paradeisos) a park or Eden. There are, by implication, three heavens since he was in the third, but by the same reasoning there may be more than three, but that is not the inference.

Paul does not mention the name of the third heaven except for calling it paradise, but apparently it was the heaven of God, since he heard things about which he could not speak.

Paul speaks nothing about hell in relation to where he was. Once again the Mormon church has reached into the Bible, which it claims has been changed, books added and deleted by "corrupt Catholic priests" in an attempt to find a foundation for its teaching about the future destiny of man. Paul is not speaking about the celestial, terrestrial and telestial kingdoms. Those terms were applied by Joseph Smith and the term telestial was a word that he manufactured himself. The teaching of the Mormon church is that the Celestial Kingdom is the third heaven about which Paul spoke, the Terrestrial Kingdom is the second heaven which is by implication, and the Telestial Kingdom is the first heaven which is by implication.

In 1 Corinthians 15:40, Paul does speak about the celestial and terrestrial bodies as to their glory, but again, he does not speak about the telestial, because that is a word made up and inserted into Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation of the Bible. Paul is not speaking about degrees of glory, as to levels of habitation after the resurrection, but as to the state of the body, the terrestrial state when in the physical state of man and the heavenly, celestial state of the resurrected body. Read verse 35 and the subject becomes clear. The question was asked, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" His answer is in verse 40 where he explains that there is an earthly body, but in the resurrection there is a heavenly body. He explains clearly the meaning of verse 40 in verses 42-49:.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised and imperishable body: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written, 'The first man, Adam. became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.".

He is referring to Adam as to his human, physical creation. But the last Adam is a reference to Jesus Christ who was a life-giving soul of the spiritual nature. His comparisons are clear. The physical dies, the spiritual lives. The first Adam dies, and in him all die, but through the work of the last Adam life is given to the human spirit..

"However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.".

These verses should be read carefully by Mormons, because to appeal to Paul for confirmation of Mormon doctrine is a very dangerous thing. Paul will not allow himself to be used in that manner as verses 42 to 49 show. In these verses Paul denies the teaching as to the origin of "spirit children" and the claim by the Mormon church that the spirits of men existed in a spiritual world prior to being sent to this world. His statements are in verses 46 and 47 where he says:.

46: "...the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual."
47: "The first man [Adam] is from the earth, earthy; the second man [Jesus Christ] is from heaven."

If the natural world is the first, then there is no previous existence in another spiritual state, because the spiritual state is second. Paul is absolutely clear.

It is a long journey from Paul to the teaching of Joseph Smith about the three kingdoms and a real leap of faith to define a telestial world not even mentioned by Paul. Neither Paul or the Bible teach that there are three degrees of heavenly glory after the resurrection, which is what the Mormon church claims that Paul was teaching. But that abuses what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 and inserts a teaching about which he said nothing. The use of 1 Corinthians 15:40 to support the teaching tears the verse out of context and ignores the subject about which Paul was teaching and claims his explanation applied to some other subject not even discussed by Paul.

It is also claimed by the Mormon church that Christ referred to the three levels heavenly glory in John 14:2:

"In my Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you."

Presumably, the "many dwelling places" are the three kingdoms. It is hard to define "many" as being "three" and if Jesus Christ actually meant three, why didn't He just say "three"? The interpretation applied is spurious.

It is a dangerous thing to use single verses from the Bible as doctrines unto themselves and to establish the foundation of proposed doctrines with out first verifying their context, and then reading the passages both before and after the verses.

The teaching about the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms was by Joseph Smith and is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Jesus Christ has existed from eternity, without beginning and is the third person of the Trinity. John 1:1; John 8:58; John 17:5, 24; Colossians 1:17
?

It should read "second person of the Trinity" - the Holy Spirit is the third. My textual error.

Jesus Christ is God. John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8; John 20:28.
(The three members of the Godhead are gods but the three together are God. This is a translation of the Hebrew word for the presidency of the godhead which is a so-called singular plural such as the board of governors is a singular plural.)

I am not sure which Hebrew word to which you have reference. I will take a guess and assume you refer to the word elohiym first mentioned in the first verse of Genesis.

This is a masculine, plural noun, denoting strength as in mighty, power or strong and used in relation to deity such as god or God. The word is in the plural, but not as to multiples of a number, but a singular-plural concept of a unity as in majesties. The term is also applied to magistrates, judges, the mighty, angels, god, gods and most specifically to the supreme deity of God in the Old Testament. The term is used generally in relation to the powers of majesty that these personages exemplify.

The term is not used in reference to a presidency or as an example of a board of governors. In those terms, such as the presidency, the entire chain of command is the "one", just as in the board of governors in which the entire composition of the board is the "one". If one uses the definition or example of a presidency or board of directors in relation to Genesis 1:1, then it must be translated as follows:

"In the beginning, the presidency or board of directors created the heavens and the earth."

In the book of Deuteronomy, the word is used as follows:

"Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"
Deuteronomy 6:4

The terms used are as follows:
"Hear, O Israel! (Yehovah) is our (Elohiym), (Yahovah) is (echad)!" Deuteronomy 6:4 transliteration.

The term "Yehovah" is singular, applied to the singular-plural of Elohiym, denoting the one God is a unity. It is the singular God "Yehovah" who is the singular-plural "Elohim". This is not the same as that God being a president with authority over others, or the member of a board of directors in which all are equal and he just happens to the head. This concept cannot be held, because of the use of the "echand" for the term "one". "Echad" is used as a compound unity, meaning united, alike, altogether. It is used in place of the word "yachiyd" which is in the absolute, meaning only or sole. If one applies the concept of a presidency or board of directors to the verse then it must be translated as follows:

"Hear, of Israel! (Yehovah) is our (Elohiym), (Yahovah) is (echad)!"
Deuteronomy 6:4 transliteration

The term "Yehovah" is singular, applied to the singular-plural of Elohiym, denoting the one God is a unity. It is the singular God "Yehovah" who is the singular-plural "Elohim". This is not the same as that God being a president with authority over others, or the member of a board of directors in which all are equal and he just happens to the head. This concept cannot be held, because of the use of the "echand" for the term "one". "Echad" is used as a compound unity, meaning united, alike, altogether. It is used in place of the word "yachiyd" which is in the absolute, meaning only or sole. If one applies the concept of a presidency or board of directors to the verse then it must be translated as follows:

"Hear, O Israel! Our God is a presidency or board of directors, our God is one!" This is a nonsense statement in relation to Jewish belief about the nature of God. It would not be accepted by any scholar knowledgeable in the Jewish language and it would not be accepted as to the correct Jewish belief stated in the verse.

Current Mormon teaching holds to the position that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct deities. This concept is rejected in Deuteronomy 6:4, which states that God is one. It is rejected by Jewish belief, that to claim that their God consisted of three separate gods, would be considered blasphemy.

The Mormon church today claims that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods, possibly related to each other only as father and son or brothers. This rejects the clear teaching in the Book of Mormon that there is only one God. The Book of Mormon also teaches a Trinitarian and singular view of God (others claim a modalistic view, but I still maintain the Book of Mormon was written from a Trinitarian view):

"And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son... And thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit, or the son to the Father, being one god, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation..."
Mosiah 15:1, 2, 5

"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters."
Ether 3:14

""Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? and Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
Alma 11:38-39

"And Amulek said: 'Yea, there is a true and living god.' Now Zeezrom said: 'Is there more than one God?' And he answered, 'No.'"
Alma 11:27-29

cf. 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7.

Why did not Joseph Smith translate the meaning of "elohiym" in his "Inspired Version" as being a presidency or board of directors? The reason he did not, was because he developed his theology regarding elohiym after he produced his "Inspired Version" of the Bible. No less an authority than the Mormon historian James Talmage said of the meaning of elohiym:

"In form the word is a Hebrew plural noun; but it connotes the plurality of excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number. It is expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church or Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father. . . ."
James Talmage, "Jesus the Christ", Salt Lake City, Deseret Book Company, 1962, p. 38.

If the term is used in relation to the name of God, the Eternal Father, denoting a plurality of excellence of intensity rather than number, then it is applied to a singular individual and is not used in relation to a presidency or board of directors. The Mormon church has been forced to re- evaluate Joseph Smith's later interpretation of Genesis 1, because Hebrew scholars have found his knowledge of the Hebrew language to have been deeply flawed.

The question must once again be asked. Why does the Mormon church today teach a different doctrine than what is taught in the Book of Mormon?

Jesus Christ alone is the Creator, out of nothing,
(I have noted this point elsewhere but I am unsure of why you state it.)
of everything that is. Isaiah 44:24; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17

I think I covered this above in regards to the creation in Genesis 1.

Jesus Christ is omniscient - knowing everything
(except the time of His return in majesty, which only the Father knows)
that is to be known having created everything that could be known. John 16:30; John 2:24, 25; Colossians 2:3.

Certainly, as to His return for His church, as stated in Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7-8. Does this impugn his omniscience? Not in the least. He voluntarily suspended His position in the Deity to be born of a human being, and so did He limit Himself as to his omniscience

Jesus Christ in omnipresent - being everywhere at the once, the same as the Father. Matthew 18:20; Ephesians 1:22-23; Ephesians 4:10.
(I have trouble with this point. I believe this to mean His influence not necessarily His person.)

I'm not sure how you consider the meaning to be influence, or how that influence is somehow projected everywhere, as if it had a greater power of omnipresence than the person who you consider to be a god. Taking your belief to its logical conclusion then, the influence of Christ has greater power than Jesus Christ himself because it is everywhere and He is not. Of course, since the current teaching of the Mormon church is that Jesus Christ is a god and has a physical body of flesh and bone, is not omnipresent and cannot be in more than one place at a time, then you are left with no other alternative than to claim that He is present by influence. But, in accepting that doctrine, you fall back on the modalistic doctrine that some Mormon apologists would claim is taught in the Book of Mormon, namely that there is only one god with three emanations or functions through which he appears. The teaching in the Bible is that Christ is omnipresent:

"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
Matthew 18:20
cf. Matthew 28:20

This concept is also indicated by the Scriptures that state Christ lives in the believer:
cf, John 14:20, John 17:23, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27

"I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am He who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."
Revelation 2:23

If Jesus Christ does not search the hearts and minds of every person at every point in time at the same time, then He cannot judge perfectly the conduct of man. He can only search hearts and minds if He does so to each human being at the same time in every part of the world. The presence of Jesus Christ is not digital, but it is analog. He does not sample a bit here and a bit there, but encompasses His searching all at one time.

One point should be noted, that Joseph Smith in his handwritten 1832 account of the "First Vision" noted that he saw only the "Lord" (meaning Jesus Christ) and not the Father and the Son together or separately.
(Where can I read this account?)

Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1969, pp. 277-278.
I found a transcript, so I will send it to you e-mail with an attached file. I also found a photograph of the original document. It is difficult to read the handwriting, but you can try.

I have sent the following e-mail attached files on the First Vision:
1832fvis.txt - First Vision transcript with a comment
1832fvis.jpg - Photo of Joseph Smith's handwritten copy of 1832
1852fvis.gif - First Vision account given to Erastus Holmes, printed in the Deseret News, 1852

Current Mormon theology is radically polytheistic. All Mormons have the potential, by following the teachings of the Mormon church, to attain to the highest exaltation; and at that point, they could all attain to godhood if they had all followed the guidelines correctly, although they will not all do so. Since this process has been going on from the infinity of eternity past and will continue through the infinity of eternity in the future, there are, and will be, an infinite number of gods in the universe. This is polytheism taken to the maximum.
(No, because all will not attain that desired goal.)

It is true that all will not attain to the goal, but in relation to Biblical teaching in which no one can be equal to God, it is a polytheistic belief taken to the maximum. Also, since this process has been going on from eternity past, there are an infinite number of Mormon gods already in existence with an infinite number still to be made as the future is infinite also.

The Mormon God is also not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent and cannot create from nothing, but can organize existing matter into structures such as planets.
(I comment on this in another place).

No comment.

(I personally accept that Jesus could have been married as it was a strong belief of the Jews that they should marry rather than not marry, but I certainly agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever in the Bible that He was married except the rather flimsy point of the marriage at Cana where He was an honoured guest?. The point then must be left for future, very future, confirmation or otherwise.)

If you choose to entertain the belief, be aware that it really has no support. The New Testament never mentions that Jesus had a wife or children, a glaring omission if Jesus was actually married. The marriage at Cana was certainly not his, because the Bible specifically states that he and his disciples had been invited. The groom does not need to be invited to his own wedding. In John 4:46 it is noted that Jesus returned to Cana "...where he had made the water wine." It is not stated that he returned to where he was married. While on the cross, Jesus made provision for his mother by entrusting her care to the apostle John. No mention is made of his making provision for a wife or children. After he began his ministry, Jesus did not have a permanent home, as is indicated in Matthew 8:20, "...the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." There are no records from the early church that indicate that it was ever believed or taught that Jesus Christ had a wife or children.

Brigham Young's teaching was certainly aberrant in that it was not correct in relation to Mormon doctrine as taught today. I believe he taught the doctrine for a very good reason, as can be seen in point #2 above. But, as a result of the doctrine being declared as heretical, what does the church do with the people who believed the doctrine and worshipped the wrong God all those years. Does it matter which God they worshipped? Perhaps all can be corrected at the resurrection when they will have a chance to learn the real truth and believe in a proper God?
(That is the day to which I look forward but with some trepidation!)
(Do you know of any text by Brigham Young where he uses the words 'Adam-God' or where he says that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ? In all his writings, that I have read, President Young teaches that The Father was that 'character' in the Garden of Eden and that He spoke with Adam and Eve until the expulsion.)

You can find the statement in "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 1, pp.50-51 and in the Millennial Star, November 26, 1853, Vol. 15, pp. 769-770.

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father and our god, and the only god with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later...the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy ghost."

The situation with Adam and Michael was also a problem for Joseph Smith in his Vision of the Celestial Kingdom, January 21, 1836, which was canonized by the church on April 23, 1976..

"The heavens opened upon us and I beheld the celestial Kingdom of God,... I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin..."
"Joseph Smith's Diary," January 21, 1836, p.136.

The words, at first glace, don't appear to be anything unusual, except that when the church printed the revelation, the words "and Michael" were deleted, with no notation as to the reason. Some persons in the hierarchy took it upon themselves to change the words of a revelation by a prophet. The question is, why?

The answer is that it was a cover-up by the hierarchy, designed as a deception in order to protect the authority of Joseph Smith as a prophet. It was very likely believed that people would not notice such an innocuous deletion and if they did, they would not realize the reason. Joseph Smith taught the following:

"And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel"
"Doctrine and Covenants", 107:54

"And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days." Doctrine and Covenants," 27:11

The problem is quite clear. If Adam is Michael, then Joseph Smith could not have seen "Adam, and Abraham and Michael" in his vision.

There are those who might justify the omission by stating that Joseph Smith simply made an error in his manuscript of the vision (just like I have made typing and other grammatical errors in this document), but that evades the obvious issues. It was not until about eight years after the revelation that Joseph Smith was killed. It is not possible that the error would have not been discovered and corrected in that amount of time. Again, the presidents of the church failed to identify the problem, from 1836 to 1976, and allowed the church body to vote their approval without being apprised of the error.

If you fear the day when you will stand before Jesus Christ, then I would suggest that you read Romans chapter 8 and Ephesians 3:8-21.

It was Adam and Eve who reproduced themselves, in their sinful state, creating children after their kind. Had they not sinned, he children they would have produced would have been in the state of innocence in which Adam and Eve were created
(Had they not sinned there would have been no children).

This is a teaching that is not found in the Bible. After their creation, God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful, to multiply and fill the earth PRIOR to the time that they sinned. It is also apparent that Adam and Eve were created with physical bodies and had all the physical attributes necessary for procreation at the time of their creation. There is no foundation for the claim that Adam and Eve could not have produced children before their fall.

I presume you are referring to 2 Nephi 2:22-23 as the verification for the claim that Adam and Eve could not have children prior to the fall. I fail to see the reasoning in the verse, because the statement is made without explanation as to why. Why could they have not remained in the same state and why could they not have had children?

There is a concept of opposition being taught in the verses. A concept that has no foundation in reality. It is claimed that there can be no understanding of joy without misery and not knowing good without knowing sin. That is the claim by the serpent in his temptation of Eve, that by eating the fruit she would know good and evil. It was a lie from the mouth of the serpent then, because Eve already knew that to violate the prohibition was wrong. What Eve found was not the knowledge of good and evil but the results of experiencing and participating in an evil act of disobedience. The teaching is a lie now, because it presumes that God created evil in order that man might have a knowledge of what is good. Satan is then no longer the tempter but God makes the temptation.

The Mormon church teaches that it was impossible for Adam and Eve to have children until they knew the difference between good and evil. They were also commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply, so the claim is made that Adam and Eve were placed in a dilemma that they could not solve. They HAD to sin in order to have children. It is then taught that what they actually did was a transgression, not really a sin. They fell upward instead of downward because through their sin they became aware of and could follow the beliefs of the Mormon religion.

"This old sectarian doctrine, built around the idea of man's natural depravity and weakness inherited from Adam, is at the root of innumerable problems among us. Adam was one of the greatest men who has ever lived upon the earth...

Under Christ Adam yet stands at our head... Adam fell, but he fell in the right direction. He fell toward the goal...

Adam fell, but he fell upward. Jesus says to us, "Come up higher."
Sterling W. Sill, member of the first Quorum of Seventy, Deseret New, church section, July 31, 1965, p. 7.

Now am I to presume that the disobedience of Adam and Eve to a direct command of God is considered not to be a sin? If that is not sin then what is sin? And if that is not a fall downward, then what is? They were commanded not to eat and they did eat by their own choice apart from the approval of God. They were judged, condemned, the sentence of death was pronounced on them and they were removed from the garden. What is being taught in Mormon doctrine is an attempt to reverse the accountability that man has to God, and to reverse what is claimed about the character of man. Man is presumed, after he has sinned to be more holy and godly than before he sinned.

The book of James is used as the major proof text in order to present the doctrine of works being necessary for salvation in the Mormon church. But in relation to the character and integrity of God, four verses are conveniently overlooked:

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren."
James 1:13-16

The dilemma that is claimed to have brought about the fall (upward) in the lives of Adam and Eve was not placed there by God, but by the writer of the Book of Mormon who presumed an explanation for an event about which he was in great error, and in that error presumed to impugn the character of God.

There is no second chance to believe the truth in the next life, and there is no exaltation to godhood for persons who do believe the truth. All persons, no matter how good their character or deeds may seem to be, are naturally opposed to God, incapable of pleasing God by any action on their part, and will spend eternity in hell with the devil and his angels if they have not believed and accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:40-41.
(What about Paul's description of the three degrees of glory?)

I was not clear in relation to the inhabitants of the Lake of Fire. The truly evil persons of the world such as Hitler and Stalin will not be cast into the Lake of Fire but will spend their thousand years in the torment of purgatory after which they will be resurrected to the Telestial Kingdom.

Not many will make it into the Lake of Fire. Only the devil and his angels, and the sons of perdition who are those who are sent there. The sons of perdition are those who held the Melchizedek Priesthood, of God and made sacred temple covenants. Some of them were murderers and some sinned in various ways against the Holy Ghost. This lake of Fire is eternal in nature, or is it? There are two opinions in the Mormon church regarding the subject. Some believe that it is eternal for all of the inhabitants. Some believe that it is eternal for the devil and his angels, but that after some unspecified length of time, the sons of perdition will have their non- glorified bodies (and spirits?) dissolved into their original composition of intelligent entities. These little intelligences will await the call of another god to be once again become spirit bodies form infusion into another temporal body on some other planet.

I have no other particular comment to make on this subject other than to say that the teaching is strictly a Mormon doctrine, not supported anywhere in the Bible.

Only 2 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith re-wrote the words in a revelation, stating:

"Doctrine and Covenants", 19:6

Church historian B.H. Roberts explained the revelation as follows:

"Christians believed that to receive eternal punishment was to be punished eternally. This popular Christian error was corrected in a revelation to Martin Harris.."
B.H. Roberts, "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History". p. 408

"Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to god, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his beast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment."
Book of Mormon, Mosiah 2:38-39

So, it is written (contrary to the revelation by Joseph Smith) that there is "never ending torment".
(This problem with 'never-ending' torment can be explained very simply. Imagine a civil prison lasting for all time, imagine a prisoner enduring a six months sentence, and another enduring a twelve year sentence and so on. Their respective sentences will end but the prison or 'torment' goes on.)

But the reference in Mosiah is that the individual "endures" the torment forever, not that the instrument of torment exists with no one to occupy it. One must be under the influence of the torment to endure it. One cannot endure a torment if one is not under its influence. If one is not under the influence of the torment, then there is no torment to endure. You present a current argument, but it is very weak. The book of Mosiah is very clear on this point.

The reason the church attempts to switch the meaning of the reference in the book of Mosiah is because the teaching about the eternity of torment changed after the publication of the Book of Mormon. Prior to and during the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was strongly anti-Universalist. Universalism was gaining in popularity and claimed that all men would ultimately be "saved" and go to heaven. After the publication of the book of Mormon, Joseph Smith reversed his position and became a supporter of Universalism and changed his interpretation of Mosiah to fit his new view. Current Mormon teaching also places the same twist on Mosiah in order to conform to the view that hell is not eternal. It is a convenient doctrine, because it soothes the conscience to believe that things are not as bad for the sinner in the next life as they could be.

I am aware that, in Mormon teaching, not all Mormons will attain to godhood, because they have not all distinguished themselves in the performance of their duties. Some will be subservient in a lower lever of the Celestial Kingdom.
(Not just Mormons but any one who does not satisfy the demands of the Eternal Father)

Yes, that is correct Mormon doctrine, but my point is that it has no support in the Bible.

However, within the statement is a problem: God commands that the Mormon obey the laws of the land but at the same time He commands the Mormon to practice polygamy in Joseph Smith's revelation. God places the Mormon in an impossible position from which there is no escape and He did it by direct command. Did God forget what he said so that He was confused, calling on Mormons to obey two conflicting commands? Or was it Joseph Smith who was the author of the confusion, presenting his own agenda as a revelation from God?
(As I understand the constitution of the United States,
1 (American) men and women are free to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, which includes polygamy in the case of the Mormon church.
2. Utah was not in the Union at the time therefore they were not necessarily bound by the law.
3. When Utah became a state the members of that state were obliged to obey the laws of the Constitution.
4. President Woodruff, after much prayer, received a revelation freeing the saints from the commandment of plural marriages.)

The Constitution does guarantee freedom of worship, but it does not guarantee absolute freedom of worship. The framers of the Constitution never had in mind the possibility that there would be religious freedom issues asserted that would be substantially different from the traditional religious views that they believed or supported themselves. Therefore, it was assumed that the laws of the country, which were derived from their religious Judeo-Christian background would be sufficient to protect the individual from any real religious oppression. Therefore, it was assumed that the laws of the land, being reasonable and based on religious standards, would be obeyed by the population. The religious freedom clause in the Constitution, therefore, was never seen as a means to avoid legal obligations. Many people have set up sham religious organizations in an attempt to circumvent Constitutional, Federal and State law, and they have been prosecuted for those infractions. The practice of polygamy was illegal in the United States prior to the establishment of the Mormon church, and, as such the command of God that the people obey the laws of the country should have been considered at the time of establishment. If one wishes to believe and practice that which is illegal, based on an appeal to Acts 5:29, then one must be prepared to abide by the consequences. Polygamy is illegal in the United States, certain members of Mormon sects being prosecuted at this very time for violation of those laws against it..

There are religious groups in the United States who have certain religious persuasions that are not only a violation of Constitutional, Federal and State law but are abhorrent to most thinking people. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to allow blood transfusions, even for their children, placing themselves and their children at risk of death. The Jehovah's witness can be prosecuted for not allowing their child to receive proper medical treatment. The same situation applies to those of Christian Science belief who deny that disease is real. They also put themselves and their children at risk by refusing medical help. They can also be prosecuted for denying their children medical help. These are certainly valid religious beliefs under the Constitution because it does not define what a valid religious belief is. But they are certainly not Mormon beliefs and they are not Biblical beliefs. But they are prosecutable under Federal and State laws.

A person would not hold to the position that those who would claim that murder is justifiable, under the umbrella of religious freedom, and is protected under the Constitution. Unfortunately, for the Mormon church, this was a practice in Utah under the leadership and teaching of Brigham Young, and is revealed by the belief and practices contained in the doctrine "Blood Atonement". If you have been informed of this practice by the church, then it is a good thing. If you have not, then you need to do some research. I will only give a few quotes:.

"Let me suppose a case, Suppose you fond your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands...

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for in..."
President Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses", Vol. 3, p. 247

In a great misunderstanding and misapplication of the meaning and reason of the Old Testament sacrificial system Brigham Young stated the following:

"As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day... The law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days, and there are sis that the blood of a lamb or a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man."
President Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses", Vol. 4, p. 54

It was NEVER taught in the Old Testament, either in the Law or through the sacrificial system that a man could atone for his own sins by his own death.

"I know when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them not to destroy them... I know there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and the law might have its course."
President Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses", Vol. 4, p. 53

"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it."
President Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses", Vol. 4, p. 220, 1857

So, Brigham Young states that the words of Jesus Christ regarding loving your neighbor, Matthew 5:43 as a reference to Leviticus 19:18, means murder in the name of Blood Atonement. This is an incredible teaching.

If man could atone for his own sins by shedding his own blood, then the death of Jesus Christ was pointless. It is only the shedding of blood on the cross by Jesus Christ that can atone for sins.

There are those in the church who day the teaching was just a doctrine but was never actually practiced, Apostle Bruce McConkie being one who made that assertion ("Doctrines of Salvation", Bruce R. McConkie). However the words of Brigham Young reveal that Apostle McConkie did not state the truth.

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins."
Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses", Vol. 4, p. 220, 1857

Utah was not a state, but it was a territory, part of, governed by and subject to all the Federal laws of the United States. Utah had a governor, who at one time was Brigham Young, who was responsible to the Federal government and was charged with maintaining Federal law. Inhabitants of Utah were protected under the Constitution of the United States and all Federal laws, but were also under obligation to those laws and were prosecuted under the Federal laws of the United states prior to Utah becoming a state.

The point of the section on polygamy was to reveal the contradictions in Mormon revelations and the falsehoods created by the leadership. God is also part of the contradiction, because he commands the believers to obey the laws of the land, but then turns the other way and commands that they engage in a practice that violates the laws that he commanded them to obey. No matter which revelation the Mormon chooses to obey, he engages in sin in regards to the command of the other revelation. This is an untenable position. The point regarding the leadership is that they engaged in polygamous activity after the Manifesto of 1890 was issued, including President Woodruff, encouraged others to engage in the practice and then lied about the fact under oath to the United States Congress. This is prevarication at the highest level of religious leadership, it was pervasive, it was calculated and it is not acceptable for any type of authority.

The Book of Mormon also condemns and ridicules those who believe in the Bible, 2 Nephi 29:3-10.

(I fail to see how you come to this conclusion when all that this scripture is saying is that anyone is a fool who thinks that The Bible is all that we have from God. Indeed who knows how much scripture there has been given to man since Adam or how much more may be given?)

The condemnation is much great than that. The people who would say "Sola Scriptura" (The Bible only) are said to forget about the travails of the Jews, cursed the Jews, hated the Jews and not sought to recover the Jews (verses 4-5).

There is still the question asked at the head of this section. and it is tied in with verse 9:
"Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also."

The two testimonies being noted in Mormon teaching as the Book of Mormon and the Bible which is also applied to 2 Corinthians 13:1. A very weak connection at best. But the question still is; if the Mormon church considers the Bible to be one of its Scriptures, then why don't the Bible and the Book of Mormon say the same thing? But even more serious to the Mormon believer is, why is current Mormon doctrine different from that taught in the Book of Mormon?

The additional problem associated with the "Book of Abraham" is the fact that it was used to perpetuate the inferiority of Black persons and was used to deny them the priesthood in the Mormon church.
(No, that was a slavery problem.)

[LATTER ADDITION: I missed the comment in my original reply.]
There was a very real slavery problem within the Mormon church just as was found in orthodox Christian churches. Deep inside, both groups realized the moral implications and tried to find a justification for the practice. Orthodox Christians went to the Old Testament and tried to make the claim that the curse on Cain was a black skin, and that the descendants of Ham resulted in the black race which was to be a servant race. However, the curse was not on Ham, but on his son Canaan, Genesis 11:24-27. There is no mention that the curse involved a dark skin on either Cain or Ham or Canaan.

Mormons also adopted the belief that the Curse on Cain was a black skin and that the descendants of Ham were black, but reached even farther back in order to find a reason for the black skin and justification for slavery, asserting that black skin was a result of those persons being unfaithful or cowardly in the pre-existence, when called on to fight against the rebellion of Satan. So, from the very time of their pre-existence, those persons were cursed with blackness as a judgment and were disqualified from holding the priesthood prior to their appearance in earthly tabernacles. It was not just a color difference, but a qualitative difference of character, integrity and spiritual worthiness that was identified by color. There was also a nationality identification as part of the difference as well, leading to a classification system based on nationality and the various shadings of skin color within those nationalities as well. Black was considered to be the worst, white was considered to be the best, and where a person found themselves within those parameters became a defining factor in relation to how the person was viewed in relation to the church.

Mormons also owned slaves and there were slaves in Salt Lake City and in the rest of Utah. However, slavery was not the justification for the prohibition against black persons holding the priesthood, but the fact that they were black and were disqualified because of judgment by God based on conduct in the pre-existence. Even black persons who were not slaves or had been freed could not hold the priesthood.

21. Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of ham and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah his father, who blessed him with the blessing of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim in from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry
Book of Abraham, 1:23-27

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a clack skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessing of the gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning. . .

But what a contrast! The sons of Seth, Enoch and Noah honored by the blessings and rights of Priesthood! . . . And the sons of Cain, denied the priesthood; not privileged to receive the covenants of glory in the kingdom of God! . . .w will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our Negro brethren, for they are our brethren--children of god--notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.
President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, Salt Lake City, 1935, pp. 101- 102.

...those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are know to us as the Negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin.
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 476-477.

The Book of Mormon speaks about the black skin of the American Indians, but it says nothing about the skin of the black man. In fact, there is a serious difficulty in the Book of Mormon about the position of all men in relation to God which contradicts the anti-black doctrine:

Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.
For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
2 Nephi 26:28, 33.

The reality, as admitted by the Presidency, there was only one prohibition against persons of black skin from holding the priesthood, and the source was the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from the Egyptian papyri.

I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life."
President David O. McKay, Mormonism and the Negro, part 2, p. 19.

It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible."
President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Improvement Era, vol. 27, p. 565.

It is quite true that there is no prohibition in any scripture against persons of black skin holding the priesthood. The reality is, there is no priesthood mentioned in the Book of Mormon and no indication that anyone ever held a priesthood in the manner that is taught and practiced in the Mormon church today. The institution of the priesthood did not come about until Joseph Smith claimed to have had the office bestowed on him by the apostle John. So, far from the prohibition being rooted in the pre-existence, it was a prohibition rooted in the 19th century, taught specifically by Joseph Smith, incorporated into the false translation of the Book of Abraham and adopted by all the presidents of the church, without foundation to do so, until the prohibition was lifted with a statement by President Spencer Kimball, who stated that a revelation from God had been received stating,

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come.... Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."
Deseret News, June 9, 1978, p. 1A

It is a mystery why, when there was no scriptural prohibition against black persons holding the priesthood, it was necessary for God to give a revelation, stating that the non-existent prohibition had been lifted. The only foundation for the prohibition had been the spurious Book of Abraham, which, by its fraudulent character, was no authority at all.

By claiming a revelation from God, the presidency made God a participant in a prohibition that he did not instigate, and attempted to exonerate Joseph Smith and the General Authorities of the church who had instigated the prohibition.

(I do not have the knowledge of the scriptures or the history of the church which you have, I am still learning. I have made several comments as you can see if the coloured text has remained but I have decided to send this as it stands realising that we cannot convert each other to our own ways of thinking. All I can say is that my testimony is rock-solid, as is your friend's testimony.

I realise, of course, that falling back on our testimony is possibly a sort of cop-out rather like saying, 'It is, so there' and is further diluted by mine being written not spoken and I have no way of knowing if you are touched by the spirit with regard to the truthfullness of my testimony. I know beyond all doubt that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only church on the face of the Earth which has all the truth. I concede that other churches and individuals may be possessed of some truth, indeed much truth, and they should be respected for that. Indeed we should all come together in the spirit of Christ-like love and share all truth together. I hope that you reply to this e-mail when time permits, not to contend, but simply that we may develop some sort of friendship, as true friendship is not only difficult to find but also to keep.}

Yours most sincerely
M —

PS
I have just pasted this e-mail into my outbox and the coloured text is now black.
This means that you will have to read it very carefully to find my comments
Sorry about that. I will understand if you do not trail through it all and reply.

END OF PART 2 - "CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON"
Nine Points Of Difference Between The Bible And Mormon Doctrine

RETURN TO PART 1

THIS IS PART 2

GO TO PART 3

TOP OF PAGE

GO TO HOME PAGE

GO TO ORGANIZATIONS MASTER LIST

GO TO WRITINGS MASTER PAGE