| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| Nine Points Of Difference Between The Bible And Mormon Doctrine Retrospective |
The Mormon Challenge Wednesday, December 5 Whoever wrote the 9 points of difference between the Bible and Mormon doctrine certainly didn't do much research and certainly isn't very familiar with "Mormon" doctrine. 1. Mormons state there is no trinity? The first Article of Faith states; "We believe in God the Eternal Father, in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. Sounds like a trinity to me. We do believe they are seperate beings . . . as the Bible teaches. Did Christ pray to himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? 2. Mormons believe that Christ was once a man like all human beings, but became a god. His father was Elohim, and his mother was Mary. He had both human and godly characteristics while living in mortality. He couldn't have performed his mission if he didn't. 3. Mormons believed that the father of Jesus Christ was Adam. That is a phony claim that some non- Mormons tried to foist on us by a misunderstood discourse by Brigham Young. It was proven false long ago. 4. Mormons believe there is no "original sin". "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ are all made alive." However, we believe that we will personally be punished for our own sins and not Adam's transgression. 5. Mormons believe there is no hell for the unrepentant? That's the first I've heard of it. I suppose you believe we wear long hair to hide our horns too? 6. Mormons believe a person can be "saved" by proxy baptism for the dead. No, but like the Christians of Biblical times we do proxy baptisms for the dead. 1 Cor. 15:29. What happens to all the billions of people that lived their lives without ever hearing of Christ? Christ visited the spirits in prison while his body lay in the tomb. There he preached the gospel as well. Baptism is an earthly ordinance, just like marriage. When they except it on the other side, they must wait for us here to perform the ordinances for them. That is what the great work of the millenium will be, and why it will take 1000 years. 7. Mormons believe that after death they will be Gods. Only if we are judged faithful in all things. After all, Jesus promised us that we could be co-inheritors with him in all things, and of all the father has. 8. Mormons believe in the process of continuing revelation. FINALLY YOU HAVE GOTTEN SOMETHING RIGHT!!! As for polygamy, it was ordained of God for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses as well. They were all prophets of God. What God ordains is not a sin. It served God's purpose for a time in the early years of the Church. After it had fulfilled its purpose, God rescinded it, as he must have done at some time in ancient history as well don't you think? Otherwise we would all be practicing it to this day. 9. We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. That is true. For instance, the King James version of the Bible has the 6th commandment listed as "Thou shalt not kill." However the original Hebrew word was berosheit, more correctly translated as murder. That is pretty universally accepted among biblical scholars today. On Doctrine Reply Did you read the companion article? "The Nine Points Revisited" www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3morm004.htm I will review your comments, but most of them have been considered in the two articles and in other articles on the website. POINT 1: If you understood the concept of the Christian Trinity then you would not use a criticism that Christians are claiming that Jesus Christ prayed to Himself. That is not what is being described in the Trinitarian relationship and would be denied by any legitimate Trinitarian believer. [Later addendum: However, if a Mormon accepts the definition of God as presented in the Book of Mormon, then they are claiming exactly that Jesus Christ prayed to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane, because the Book of Mormon presents a modalistic god, who is only one person and who simply appears in different forms as different individuals.] The Christian Trinity is a unity of beings within and as one God, and is properly defined as: "Within the one eternal being of God there exists three eternally existing persons." Mormons cannot point to an eternally existing god because he had to be just a man before becoming a god and he then had to procreate the second person of the godhead who did not previously exist. It is unclear whether the third person of the godhead, the Holy Ghost, is a son of the father or has some other relationship. Mormons must claim that the elements (living "intelligences") that compose the spirit, body and physical components of the universe have always existed never having been created, but that is not the same as saying that the Mormon god who is composed of the association of unnumbered "intelligences" has existed as god for eternity. In reality, Mormons believe in an animate world, in which everything that exists is composed of the living "intelligences" that associate with each other of their own volition in order to form everything that is, and they existed prior to the existence of any universe, any man, any god or the Mormon gospel message. They are, in fact, the god makers and can also disassociate themselves from each other in order to remove from existence any entity that they have created by their association together, which includes man, god, spirit and material. Mormon theology denies that there is a Trinity by the Christian definition and instead substitutes a triumvirate for a godhead, in which there are three separate individuals who are not a unity of being but are only a unity of purpose. It is not a proper definition to say that the Mormon triumvirate is a trinity. Any three individuals can associate as a triumvirate, but only the beings of the Christian Godhood are a Trinity. Current Mormon teaching regarding the godhead is not the same as that found in the Book of Mormon which has very Trinitarian overtones but is more closely aligned with modalistic belief, which asserts that there is one god who appears, assumes the role of or expresses himself as the father, the son or the Holy Ghost, depending on which role he wishes to portray. ". . . Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. . ."You must also consider the following verses that have been changed in the Book of Mormon from the first printing in 1830 to say something completely different in current editions: "And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved."In the Book of Mormon, god is neither a trinity or a triumvirate, but a single being of modality who simply appears in different forms. It is often pointed out that in Joseph Smith's First Vision, he saw both the father and the son standing beside each other, so it is concluded that a modalistic godhood cannot be correct since there were two separate beings in view. However, the First Vision being noted is not the first account that Joseph Smith wrote regarding his claim to have had a vision. In his actual first account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith describes only one person appearing in the vision, with reference to a Father that is not seen. It is only in later versions of the First Vision that the appearance of the Father and Son together has been inserted: ". . . and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son they sins are forgiven thee, go [sic] they way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed [sic] for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life. . . . behold and lo I come quickly as it was w[r]itten of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father. . . ."However, even in the Book of Mormon, there is no modalistic trinity, because early Mormons (including Joseph Smith) did not believe that the Holy Ghost was a person, but was simply an emanation or the mind of god. "There are two personages . . . the Father and the son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father a personage of tabernacle, . . . called the Son because of the flesh . . . possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, . . ."It is taught by Mormons that the father and Jesus Christ are related as literal and biological father and son, but it is unknown how the Holy Ghost relates to the other two. Is he also a son of the father and therefore a brother of Jesus Christ just like Satan, or is he related in some other manner or is he not related at all? I maintain that to be true to Mormon theology, he is a son of the father but Mormon theology has not determined the final answer to those issues. Heber C. Kimbal did have an opinion and said, ". . . the Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God . . ," Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 179. The reason that the Holy Ghost was left out of the equation by Joseph Smith and early Mormons, was because they did not believe him to be a person, so he was left undefined as a being. It is only in later times that it has been concluded that the Holy Ghost is an actual personage of spirit and that the Holy Spirit is the mind of God rather than the Holy Ghost. However, the term Holy Ghost, is a King Jamesian term that is actually the same as the Holy Spirit and refers to the Holy Spirit as a person. Most orthodox believers understand that the names Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit refer to the same person, even though the name Holy Ghost is a misnomer. Joseph Smith simply picked up the terms used in the King James Bible and applied an erroneous definition to them and included them in the Book of Mormon, just as Mormon theologians have defined them to be two separate entities, which is not the case in the Bible. There is no such being as a ghost, so the name Holy Ghost is a misnomer and the name Holy Spirit should be used instead, which precludes that the Holy Spirit is a force or mind instead of a person. POINT 2: You have repeated what I stated, so I must assume that you agree with my statement. I think that current Mormon teaching is that Jesus Christ attained to his godhood in the pre-existence without going through Eternal Progression. If that is the case, then there is more than one way for a person to be exalted that does not involve following the precepts of the church. The same is true for the Holy Ghost, who never even obtained a body and could not have had children, both of which are necessary for exaltation. So, perhaps there are two additional ways to obtain exaltation outside following the precepts of the church and the gospel message. However, the real issue in relation to the paternity of Jesus Christ, is that Mary was the spirit daughter/child of god the father and his wife in the pre-existence. So, in order to become the father of Jesus Christ, god the father came to earth and literally had physical sexual relations with his own daughter Mary in order to father the temporal body of Jesus Christ into which his pre-existent spirit would enter. Incest was the manner in which the temporal body of Jesus Christ was conceived and is prohibited by direct command of God in Leviticus 18:6. POINT 3: There has never been a misunderstanding regarding what Brigham Young taught in relation to the Adam-God Doctrine. The doctrine is false in relation to current Mormon belief, but it cannot be claimed that it was not taught in the Mormon church or that it was not originated and taught by Brigham Young. His statements are quite clear and not based on just one discourse. There has only been a denial from the Presidency and General Authorities, when they knew very well what he had taught. President Spencer W. Kimball confirmed that the doctrine was present and taught in the church. "We warn against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance in the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."It is very hard to deny that there was in existence a complete doctrinal teaching regarding Adam as God that existed from the Presidency of Brigham Young but was not dealt with by future Presidents or declared to be heresy until 1976. You cannot blame non-Mormons for creating the doctrine which came directly from Brigham Young and was being taught in the church as noted in the statement by Spencer W. Kimball. He did not make the statement against an issue of doctrine that did not actually exist within the church. There is abundant evidence that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine, not only by his own recorded statements, but as a result of journal entries, articles in the Millennial Star, quotes by his special scribe and by persons teaching at Brigham Young University. "Was Brigham Young misquoted? It is the writer's opinion that the answer to this question is a categorical no. There is no the slightest evidence from Brigham Young, or any other source, that either his original remarks on April 9, 1852, or any of his subsequent statements were ever misquoted in the official publications of the Church. . . .The idea that Brigham Young did not teach the Adam-God Doctrine was a creation of the General Authorities in order the cover the fact that Brigham Young taught false doctrine, and allowed Spencer W. Kimball to claim that it was alleged that some unnamed General Authorities taught false doctrine (carefully leaving Brigham Young's name out of the issue) so that he would not have to be declared a false prophet, which would have destroyed the authority of the Presidency. If Brigham Young taught false doctrine, then the teachings and claims of any prophet of the Mormon church become suspect, including those of Joseph Smith. If you wish to accept the old denials regarding what Brigham Young actually taught, that will be your loss. But, if you really value and wish to know truth, then do your own research on the subject. You will be unable to prove that Brigham Young did not originate and teach the Adam-God doctrine. POINT 4 You have presented the contradiction in Mormon doctrine regarding original sin. Current Mormon theology states that Adam and Eve did not sin in the traditional sense, but that they deliberately transgressed a law, which was a direct command of God, without sinning and their fall was not downward but was upward, since the actions of Adam and Eve were their attempts to become gods, which is the point of the Eternal Progression and the belief that the most faithful of Mormons can attain godhood through their exaltation. Christian theology does not claim that people are judged for the sin of Adam and Eve but are judged as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, which is something very different. Christian theology states that the sin of Adam and Eve results in all of their future descendants being incapable of accomplishing any righteous act of their own volition or by their own actions which are defined as works, resulting in the reality that the only act that can be accomplished is that of sinning, which is an act in opposition to God. If Adam and Eve did not sin, then God was an unfair and unjust ogre for pronouncing the curses on both of them and on the serpent as well. If the actions of Adam and Eve were a fall upward, then they should have been praised by god rather than cursed, which was not the case. If there is no effect on future humanity for their sins and the curses pronounced by God, then every human being should be living in a perfect world and immune from disease and death and there should be numerous persons throughout history who have never sinned, since it is said by Mormons that even Adam and Eve did not sin. POINT 5 In Mormon theology, virtually every human being will be "saved" by the Mormon definition of the word, which means that they will be resurrected in the next life and will find themselves in one of the three levels of the Mormon heaven. The most faithful and perfect Mormons, after the "morning" of the first resurrection, will find themselves in the Celestial Heaven where they can be exalted to Godhood. Other Mormons who have not applied themselves diligently to the precepts of the church will not attain to the highest heaven, but after their resurrection will find themselves in the Terrestrial Heaven. Also, persons who have rejected the Mormon gospel during their mortal life but who have lived honorable lives will also find themselves in the Terrestrial Heaven after the second resurrection, after having spent their time in the spirit prison, a form of the Catholic purgatory, during which time they will accept the Mormon gospel. All other human beings, who are considered to be the wicked of the world, will find themselves in the Telestial Heaven (which in itself is a paradise) after they have spent the entire thousand years in spirit prison atoning for their sins and have gone through the second resurrection. Only a minute portion of humanity eventually find themselves in the hell of the Lake of Fire. The devil and his angels find themselves there, the spirit prison will be placed there after it is empty, and also the sons of perdition who are resurrected with shameful bodies at the second resurrection. The sons of perdition are defined as those who held the Melchizedek priesthood, had personal knowledge of God, went through the temple ceremonies and then became apostate. In other words, out of all humanity, only apostate Mormons will go to a final hell and everyone else will end up in the Telestial or Terrestrial heavens. Mormon theology does not state whether the Lake of Fire is a place where the inhabitants are eternally punished, or whether the individuals who find themselves there are eventually annihilated when the little "intelligences" disassociate themselves from each other, rendering the individuals out of existence. Apostle John A. Widtsoe taught that the sons of perdition will eventually have their bodies and spirits disassociated back into their basic composition as the "intelligences" that compose the physical and spiritual world and have existed prior to man and prior to god. POINT 6: 1 Corinthians 15:29 makes no statement that Christians baptized for the dead. The apostle Paul makes no statement that it was Christians to which he referred who baptized for the dead, or that the persons to which he wrote the letter were the ones who were baptizing for the dead. You presume by equivocation that the verse refers to the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead, and as a consequence you insert into the verse the Mormon theology regarding baptism for the dead, so you redact the verse, imposing a theology from outside the confines of the verse by which you interpret it through an eisegetical insertion of your belief into the verse in which it does not originally exist. Because baptism is the means by which an individual becomes a member of the Mormon church, and being a member is necessary in order to be resurrected; it is baptism that insures resurrection, which Mormons define as being "saved." ". . . we are the only people that know how to save our progenitors, . . . we in fact are the saviours of the world, if they ever are saved . . ."In Mormon theology it is not possible for a person to be "saved," which is resurrection, until they have been baptized, by choice in their temporal life or by proxy after death or after they have had their sins purged in spirit prison, at which time they can be baptized in the millennium and then qualify for resurrection, which is why you use 1 Corinthians 15:29 in the attempt to support the practice. POINT 7: I am not sure how you characterize exaltation to godhood as being an inheritance, because it is something that you earn by your conduct, which is defined as the performance of works. Exaltation to godhood is not a gift and not even a part of the atonement of Jesus Christ, which only guarantees resurrection, which is an event that will eventually happen to every human being, because it is assumed that every human being will eventually accept the Mormon gospel, with the exception of the sons of perdition. In relation to this point, you have repeated what I have stated, so like point #2, I presume you agree with what I posted. POINT 8: Joseph Smith stated in his 1843 revelation that god ordained polygamy for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon. The Book of Mormon makes no such statement and the Bible specifically forbids polygamy in Leviticus 18:18. Jacob 2:27-30 is used by Mormons as the foundational justification for why god can condemn and portray polygamy as a despicable conduct in one instance and then claim that it is an honorable spiritual act in another instance. A Mormon has stated the following to me, "Here polygamy is condemned; however, the Lord leaves himself an out in saying that if it be wisdom in him to raise up seed, he can command it referring to polygamy; but until that time the people are forbidden." Jacob 2:27-30 is used in order to justify Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy and also bolster the claim that polygamy is legitimate. The "out" that it is claimed that god uses is the claim that polygamy can be practiced in order to create temporal bodies into which spirits from the pre-existence can enter, presumably because current production of temporal bodies is not proceeding quickly enough. However, in the case of Joseph Smith, his first revelation that he claimed to have received on polygamy was not for raising up seed but was for Mormon men to cohabit with Indian women so that their progeny would become "white and delightsome." Effecting a change of skin color was the purpose. That is not part of the "out" specified in Jacob 2:27-30. So, it seems apparent that his first revelation from god on the subject of polygamy was not from god at all, since god did not follow his own criteria established in Jacob 2:27-30, which calls into question his second revelation as well, because the second revelation did not mention that the practice was for the purpose of raising up seed. In fact, it is stated in the revelation that the purpose is for obtaining exaltation: ". . . and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things . . ."There are issues in relation to Joseph Smith and polygamy which are as follows: 1. He lied publicly about the charge that he and the church practiced and taught polygamy, when he did have multiple wives, taught and originated the doctrine, and if he had received the 1843 revelation on polygamy as early as 1831, as the church wishes to claim, then his lies become even more pervasive. It is claimed that Joseph Smith lied as a result of the command of god to remain silent on the subject. However, the lie that Joseph Smith told was not just in relation to himself by which he would be required to accept his own responsibility for being a liar, but was extended to other individuals as well, since he stated that people who claimed that he was a polygamist were liars themselves. So it is a liar who stated that those who speak the truth are liars which is much different than a simple false denial that confirms a person as a liar, because it impugns the character of those who are actually speaking honorably. He specifically stated that William Law had lied when he made charges that Joseph Smith had committed polygamy, when William Law had told the truth. (Helaman 7:21, 2 Nephi 9:34) However god had already stated the conditions under which polygamy could be discontinued without a direct revelation from him to do so, and it would have then been unnecessary to lie under any circumstances, but that condition was conveniently ignored by Joseph Smith. "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land." Doctrine and Covenants, sect. 58, verse 21God 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 or else exaltation will be forfeited, which was a direct violation of the laws of the land. God commands that the Mormon refrain from lying but at the same time commands that lies be stated at will in order to deny the practice of polygamy. God places the Mormon in an impossible moral position from which there is no escape and He did it by direct command. God is endowed with two deviant human characteristics, which is not surprising since he was once just a man himself. 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? 2. Joseph Smith did not just practice polygamy, he also practiced polyandry on at least 11 occasions: the taking to wife of a woman who is already married, which by any definition is bigamy, a violation of the 10th Commandment and prohibited in Deuteronomy 22:22. He specifically made a request to husbands to give him their wives in polyandrous relationships. Nothing is stated in Jacob 2:27-30 about polyandry being acceptable and the 1843 revelation regarding polygamy that Joseph Smith claimed to have received says nothing about it either. 3. He polygamously married at least five pairs of sisters, specifically prohibited in Leviticus 18:18. Nothing is stated in Jacob 2:27-30 or in the revelation claimed to have been received that justifies those actions. 4. He polygamously married a mother and daughter, specifically prohibited in Leviticus 20:14. Nothing is stated in Jacob 2:27-30 or in the revelation claimed to have been received that justifies those actions. After the Manifesto of 1890 in which it was "recommended" that Mormons refrain from polygamy, Mormon leadership made sure that they were not in danger of damnation, by violating the "revelation" from god commanding the practice of polygamy. The Mormon hierarchy continued to personally practice the act while, at the same time, telling the members of the Mormon church not to do so. Testimony given to the United States Congress by the Mormon leadership in the Reed Smoot Case, 1891, revealed the corruption at the highest levels of the Mormon church. LDS Prophet and President Joseph Fielding Smith revealed that he was a practicing polygamist after the Manifesto of 1890. Apostle Marriner W. Merrill performed a polygamous marriage for his son Charles E. Merrill after the Manifesto of 1890. Many polygamous marriages were performed on the high seas, in Canada and in Mexico, not only with the blessing of the Mormon Presidency, but the plans were initiated through the Presidency. It is interesting that Prophets and Presidents Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph Fielding Smith and Heber J. Grant were all practicing polygamists after the Manifesto of 1890. Did god command the Manifesto of 1890 or not? If he did, then the presidents and general authorities of the church who continued the practice of polygamy had no defense and were liars without support from a command from god to do so, which means that they lied by their own choice and could only atone for that sin by means of Blood Atonement. If god didn't command the Manifesto of 1890, then the presidents of the church starting with Wilford Woodruff and continuing until this day have either lied regarding the issue or have been unable to determine the truth of the matter and have caused all Mormons who do not practice polygamy to lose any possibility of obtaining exaltation in the next life, and have broken the covenant with god to honor his commands and can only atone for that sin through Blood Atonement. POINT 9: If the reference to the use of kill instead of murder in the 10th commandment is the best you can do to support the claim that the entire KJV is in error and corrupted, then you have a very long way to go. You have chosen the wrong word to make your point. "Berosheit" is the word that Joseph Smith attempted to claim was the proper form to be used to indicate that the creation account indicated that god organized the universe from existing matter and that there was a plurality of gods who were involved in the creation. He accepted translations of the first verse of Genesis as follows, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," and also "The head of the Gods called the Gods together". The word refers to his claims in relation to Genesis 1:1 and not to the Commandment found in Exodus 20:13. The word translated in the KJV in Exodus 20:13 for kill is, "ratsach," Strong's #7523, and means: "to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), espc. to murder:-put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er)." The term can be translated as "kill" but in the context of the 10 Commandments should be more properly translated as "murder". However, since you consider the use of "kill" in the KJV translation to be so egregious that it proves the erroneous nature of that entire translation, then perhaps you can start with the most famous and important Mormon prophet and translator, Joseph Smith, who said he translated the Bible by inspiration from god (from his own English KJV) and produced his JST or Inspired Version of the Bible. He translated Exodus 20:13 as follows: "Thou shalt not kill." So, perhaps his claims to have properly translated the Bible and the Book of Mormon are also in error? If you make the claim against the KJV translators then you must be honest in your criticism and make the same claim against Joseph Smith. The Mormon Challenge Wednesday, January 2 POINT 1: You say that the so-called Christian Trinity states that "Within the one eternal being of God there exists three eternally existing persons." Mormon doctrine believes that "GOD" is an office in the Priesthood. This office is made up of three distinct beings; God the father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Perhaps our differences here are a matter of semantics. However, we do believe that there are three distinct beings in the Godhead that are one in purpose. In the second part of your argument, you say that “Mormons cannot point to an eternally existing god because he had to be just a man before becoming a god.” We have all existed eternally as intelligences. God did not create the world from nothing. He took unorganized matter and organized it. The original Hebrew word was “berosheit”, which means to organize. Eienstein theorized that matter cannot be destroyed, only rearranged. Seems that the 18th century farm boy with only a 3rd grade education was 100 years ahead of his time. Jesus as Jehovah was the God of the Old Testament. Through the authority of his father, he is the God of this earth. With this authority he was in charge of creating this earth and the heavens that we see. In that sense he is both Father and Son. He is the Father of this earth. So, the Book of Mormon does not differ in any way with current Church teachings. POINT 2: It is argued that polygamy is wrong, but many Old Testament prophets practiced it. What is ordained of God is holy. How Jesus was fathered is immaterial to his gospel and our salvation. POINT 3: I must disagree with your statement that “there has never been a misunderstanding regarding what Brigham Young taught in relation to the Adam-God theory. By the way, it was never accepted doctrine, so the correct appellation is theory. Admittedly Brigham Young made some confusing statements concerning Adam and God. He made several statements in 1852 and 1857 that have resulted in the Adam-God theory. However, he made many more statements that show that he clearly believed Adam and God the Father to be two different beings. Here are a few. " . . . the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1 p.238) What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do your believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.317 - p.318, Brigham Young, April 7, 1852, emphasis added) "The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870, emphasis added) Again, the Adam-God theory has never been accepted church doctrine. POINT 4: "Christian theology does not claim that people are judged for the sin of Adam and Eve but are judged as a result of the sin . . ." I believe that we can agree in part on this as far as it goes. However that statement that "future descendants being incapable of accomplishing any righteous act of their own volition or by their own actions" I will take exception with. I suppose that nothing the Apostles or Prophets did could be considered good? God's greatest gift to us is our free-agency. We can choose to do good or evil, and we will be judged by our deeds. Church doctrine does not state that there is no effect on humanity for Adam's fall. Au contraire, "Adam fell that man might be, and man is that he might have joy." (2 Nephi 2:25). "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." ( 2 Nephi 2: 22, 23.) The Church never stated that Adam and Eve did not sin. They had to break a commandment in order to bring sin and knowledge into the world. Everything has it’s opposites. We learn to appreciate things in relation to their opposites. POINT 5: "The sons of perdition are defined as those who held the Melchizedek priesthood, had personal knowledge of God, went through the temple ceremonies and then became apostate." No, this is not correct. A "son of perdition" is someone who has a perfect knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and then turns away from that knowledge . . . as did Judas and Cain. They not only become apostates, they become murderous in their hearts and fight against the truth. Many of the original witnesses to the Book of Mormon became apostates. Some of them rejoined the Church, some did not. None of them ever denied their testimonies. So none of them became "sons of perdition" by my understanding. POINT 6: I suggest you re-read 1 Corinthians. Paul is using baptism for the dead as a proof in an argument for a resurrection. ". . . if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" He was talking to the church in Corinth. It is obvious that the church was familiar with the practice. "In Mormon theology it is not possible for a person to be "saved," which is resurrection, until they have been baptized." False, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Everyone is resurrected. Baptism is the key to the Celestial Kingdom. Nobody can enter into the highest kingdom without baptism. POINT 7: I don't know where you got the idea that exaltation to godhood is an inheritance. I do agree that it is something that must be earned by our conduct. It is a part of the atonement in that without the atonement it would be impossible for any of us to even be resurrected and we would all be lost to outer darkness. POINT 8: Do you deny that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were polygamists? Do you deny that they were prophets? Obviously God did not condemn them for their polygamy. Solomon was condemned not so much for his practice of polygamy but for they manner in which he practiced it. Joseph Smith was given the revelation on polygamy some 10 years before he revealed it or practiced it. It seemed as foreign to him as it does to us today. As to your claims that Joseph married five pairs of sisters and a mother and daughter, I have read a number of histories on him and that is the first that I’ve heard of it. At the time many women (at their request) were sealed to him in the temple, but he never lived with them. "Did god command the Manifesto of 1890 or not? If he did, then the presidents and general authorities of the church who continued the practice of polygamy had no defense and were liars without support from a command from god." Are we searching for straws here? The manifesto outlawed any new marriages. It did not effect those already in existence. POINT 9: You are putting words into my mouth that were never inferred, a common trait among anti-Mormon writers. The Church uses the KJV of the Bible, so it has never been claimed that it is entirely in error and corrupted. Some verses lack their original clarity, and there are books mentioned that don't exist in the current Bible. On Doctrine Reply Welcome back to On Doctrine. Thank you for your reply.
POINT 1 I understand that you can define god as being an office in the priesthood consisting of three separate beings. What you are attempting to do is create an artificial trinity in which the godhead becomes corporeal as an active body as expressed through the office in the priesthood in order to claim that Mormons believe in a Trinitarian godhead similar to what is found in Orthodox belief. However, the office as the unifying factor is the problem, because the office exists apart from the occupants and any three personages of deity can occupy that office who are and must be totally separate beings from each other. That is not the definition of God in Orthodox theology. In Orthodox belief, God is not an office but a being and there is no other like Him, which is something entirely different than the Mormon concept in which there are an infinitude of gods who are just like each other and an infinitude of priesthoods with the office of god that are all identical. In the Book of Mormon, god is not an office and not a trinity or triumvirate of persons but a single being who manifests himself by making an appearance as different persons - simply masquerading as to whatever persona he wishes to express, which is modalism. It was only through the teachings of the prophets that the concept of god as an office and the three-person unity of purpose was put forth as the definition of the godhead. The problem with your argument in relation to the eternal existence of god and his constituent existence through the means of the intelligence is that you know that at one time god did not exist as god, because he first had to be a man, and in fact, at one time there was no god in existence of any type. God did not exist as an intelligence as a god, but as a man. That is the same origin as every other person who will either become a god or never become a god, so god has no unique origin in relation to every other human being, since at one time he was just a human being like everyone else. You simply push the origin of god farther into the past and postulate him as a mystical entity of intelligence that even preceded the existence of his spirit. That is the major difference between Mormon and Orthodox theology, because God in Orthodox theology is uncreated and has always been as He is, and every other being, whether spiritual or physical, at one time did not exist in any form and is a product of the creative act of God from nothing. It is interesting to consider Jesus Christ to be the father by means of his creative work, however, the Book of Mormon does not make a distinction between god and Jesus Christ. They are one god in the Book of Mormon, "the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth." "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 -The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son - And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." Mosiah 15:1-4 Since Mormon theology did not allow for a Trinitarian interpretation that allows the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be one God, the only alternative was a modalistic god who changes his appearance at will and through his various manifestations is both father and son. You are stretching the explanation to the breaking point by claiming that Jesus Christ is the father in relation to this earth because he helped to create it. So did other sons, such as Adam-Michael, and they are not the father. You do not worship Jesus Christ as the father. In Mormon theology God the father is the heavenly father to whom you give worship, he is the father of Jesus Christ, the father of your spirit, and Jesus Christ is your "elder brother". When you attempt to equate Jesus Christ with the father because he helped to create this earth, then you have also adopted the same argument presented by Brigham Young to justify his claim that Adam was the father and the god to whom everyone should give worship:
"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."
POINT 2
POINT 3
Brigham Young died in August of 1877, and L. John Nuttall, special secretary to Brigham Young,
wrote in his diary the following, dated Wednesday, February 7, 1877: The issue is not whether or not Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine, but the problem that Mormons have reconciling what he taught to previous and future Mormon doctrine and the contradictions that he revealed in relation to his other statements regarding the definition of god. Apostle Bruce McConkie states the problem and then presents his own contradictions in relation to his conclusions which he believes still allow Brigham Young to escape the charge of being a heretic and a false teacher.
"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that
the cultists ascribe to him. This {his teaching - ed.}, however, is not true. He expressed views that are
out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly,
the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham
Young contradicted Brigham Young, and he issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will
believe. The answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in
the Standard Works. . . . This puts me in mind of Paul's statement: 'There must be also heresies among
you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.' (1 Cor. 11:19) I do not know all
of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of
the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what
we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on
basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said:
'And all those who preach false doctrine, . . . wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty,
for they shall be thrust down to hell!' (2 Nephi 28:15) This clearly means that people who teach false
doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God
is, is one of those fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature
and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham
Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in this instance, he was
a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we
choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrine, we are making an election that will damn
us."
Apostle McConkie presents three standards that are very problematic: 2. Teaching false doctrine does not make a prophet a false teacher, false prophet or a heretic if "He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general." But the real question is, Why does the Holy Spirit guide in the generalities but not in the specifics? 3. If you, as a Mormon, adopt and teach the same doctrines such as the Adam-God doctrine taught by Brigham Young, you will be damned, but not the prophet who originated and taught the doctrine in the first place, because, "He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation led by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has gone on to eternal exaltation." Apparently god must have approved of leading his people astray into false doctrine about his own nature, so Brigham Young is justified as to his teaching, which also contradicts Deuteronomy 13:1-10. Prophets, presidents and seers should be held to a higher standard, but the reality is that they are held to a lower standard than the every-day Mormon believer, and the standard is set by leadership to benefit themselves. There is one standard that exonerates the prophet when he speaks falsely and another standard that condemns the adherent for believing what they are told by the same prophet. The church is double-minded on that issue, because it is much more concerned with the appearance of its prophets rather than the reality of their false statements and claims. To condemn a prophet for heresy would remove the authority of the presidency. That is the real issue.
Apostle McConkie claims as his authority the existence of the Standard Works: However, this is the very problem that is revealed in the teaching of the Adam-God Doctrine by Brigham Young and all previous and subsequent prophets. As the "Living Prophet" he had authority over the pronouncements and doctrines of Joseph Smith who was then the dead prophet, which is the core problem in continuing revelation. This problem is compounded by the fact that Joseph Smith was not true to the doctrines taught in the Book of Mormon, because he defined a god who is different than the one found within those pages, redefined the nature of hell and then imposed a priesthood that was not revealed in that restoration of the Mormon gospel and then adopted the precepts of the Eternal Progression and established polygamy as a requirement for exaltation, also elements that are not found in the restoration of the Mormon gospel message found in the Book of Mormon. The reality is, that apostle McConkie is asserting that the prophets are expected to support and sustain the Standard Works that are simply the interpretations or products of the prophets themselves. That is a great deal for the prophets who then become subject only to their own standards of justification. To which of the Standard Works do the prophets and the church defer? To the Bible that defines God as a spiritual being and not a person of tabernacle, self-existing from all eternity who is not a man that should lie? (Numbers 23:19) Perhaps the Book of Mormon that also defines God as a spirit and not person of tabernacle? (Alma 22:9-10) Maybe it is again the Book of Mormon that defines god in a modalistic and possibly even a Trinitarian manner in the verses that I noted in the previous communication? (1830 edition - 1 Nephi 13:40; 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32)
Maybe Joseph Smith could provide some clarification, starting with his first account of his First
Vision:
Only one personage, the Lord (Jesus Christ), appeared in that vision, which is much closer to Joseph
Smith's original recounting of a modalistic god in the Book of Mormon:
"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given
under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of god. and now, behold, this is the doctrine
of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is
one god, without end. Amen."
Joseph Smith's second account of the First Vision, the official version, may be much more clear.
"When the light rested upon me I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description)
standing above me in the air. One of them spoke unto me, calling me by name, and said, (pointing to the
other.) 'This is my beloved Son, hear him.' "
However, that second version of the First Vision is almost identical to the Lectures on Faith published
in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, which stated:
"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all
things - by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or
invisible; whether in heaven, on earth, or in he earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of
space - They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power:
possessing all perfection and fullness; The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of
tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man
was formed after his likeness, and in his image; . . . and is called the Son because of the flesh." Six years after the first account of the First Vision and eight years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith reveals a new definition of god by abandoning the Book of Mormon modalism and adopting a dualistic, Binitarian approach to the godhead, consisting of the father and the son as separate personages, but the Holy Spirit is not a person, only the expression of the mind of God. The Holy Ghost was undefined, because it was not believed that he was a person but simply the mind or power of god by means of which the godhead was unified in purpose.
In 1844, Joseph Smith made his final pronouncement regarding the nature of god: Joseph Smith's declaration was not true, because he moved from a belief in one god of modalism (Book of Mormon and the first version of the First Vision), to two gods (the second version of the First Vision) and the Lectures on Faith (in which god is defined as a spirit and not a personage of tabernacle), and finally to three separate personages (1844). Today the Mormon church adopts the 1844 definition of the godhead, but ignores the biblical version, the revelation from the golden plates in the Book of Mormon, the definitions found in the Lectures on Faith and the differing statements made in the various versions of the First Vision by Joseph Smith. The problem falls into the lap of Joseph Smith, who taught definitions of the godhead that were as different from the Book of Mormon as were Brigham Young's assertions about Adam-God in relation to previously established Mormon doctrine and Mormon doctrine today. Creative definitions of the godhead placed the Mormon church on an ever changing path which was difficult to follow, even for Joseph Smith:
"The heavens were 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 . . ." The problem with Joseph Smith's statement is apparent, because Adam is Michael, which means that Joseph Smith could not have seen two separate persons in his vision. When the church canonized the revelation as part of the Pearl of Great Price by vote on April 3, 1976, the words "and Michael" had been previously deleted. This probably happened under the watch of Brigham Young, however, the problem is that the church canonized a revelation that is falsified in its current form and the President and General Authorities did not know or did not admit to the difference. That is a relatively minor issue when compared with the Book of Abraham, that was canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price, but is a false and contrived translation by Joseph Smith. If the issue in relation to the Book of Abraham was only Joseph Smith's culpability and personal responsibility regarding his duplicity, then perhaps the issue would not be so serious. But others have become involved in his actions, because persons of black skin were denied the priesthood until June 9, 1978, solely on the basis of one verse in the Book of Abraham, 1:26. There is no other reference in the whole of Mormon scripture that denies the priesthood to persons with a black skin. If that were the only other issue, then perhaps god could rectify the situation after the resurrection, but the problem gets worse. On June 9, 1978, the First Presidency announced the revelation rescinding the prohibition, which then extended the priesthood to all worthy males of black skin. But the revelation reveals that god is a liar (which He denies is a possibility in Numbers 23:19), because he claims to have rescinded a prohibition that he established, which he did not establish but was only said to have been established as a result of the lie that Joseph Smith told in relation to his fraudulent translation of the Book of Abraham. The General Authorities knew as early as December 1967 that the Book of Abraham was a false translation and had been canonized as false scripture. All the presidency had to do was admit to the problem and allow the priesthood to be granted to all qualified persons of black skin, since no actual prohibition had ever been established by god, but it became necessary to attribute to god the character of a liar in order to protect the appearance and authority of Joseph Smith as a prophet and president, who was the actual liar. The litany of claims by former prophets and apostles who denied that persons of black skin could be part of the priesthood are justified by apostle McConkie using the same argument that he applied to the false Adam-God doctrine taught by Brigham Young. He exempts the General Authorities and then places the blame on the Mormon believer if questions are asked or objections raised:
"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that
Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write
me letters and say, 'You said such and such, an how is it now that we do such and such?' And all I can
say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern
prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young of president George Q.
Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with
a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. . . . We
have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the
darkness. . . . It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter
before the first day of June of this year (1978)." The presidents and general authorities who had made the most outrageous statements based on a false revelation that none of them were able to detect, are [the] same ones who claim the authority and ability to lead the church on a new path, following the modern "Living Prophet" who stated a revelation that god did not give. They were the ones who should have been repenting. It might be that what was said in the past doesn't make any difference to Bruce McConkie who believed that he was going to attain to his exaltation regardless of what he falsely stated, but to the numerous persons of black skin who believed the Mormon gospel but were denied their endowments and their exaltation because of a lie written and spoken by a prophet, it made and makes a very big difference.
POINT 4
"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ,
and to be reconciled to god; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can
do." If Mormons wish conduct to be the standard, then they must also understand that absolute perfection of conduct is the actual standard, which is stated in the verse quoted above, because the qualification is "all we can do" which means that every possible constituent of conduct must be satisfied before grace can have any effect. There can be no failure in any aspect of life, whether it be spiritual or moral because failure at any point invalidates the criteria of "all". That is an onus that is impossible to bear and impossible to accomplish, which is why the Bible has a different criteria:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of
works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge
of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart form the law is revealed, being witnessed by he law and
the prophets, even the righteousness of god, through fait in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by
his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His
blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance god had passed
over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that
He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? it is
excluded. By what Law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is
justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."
POINT 5 "What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy," Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, p. 358.
POINT 6
POINT 7 I think you will have to admit that the atonement has no actual part in your exaltation in spite of your attempt to make it so. If you were never born you would never be able to be exalted, so birth must be a part of the process also, but the reality is that is not the actual case. It is only your personal works by which you claim the ability to earn the highest exaltation, and Jesus Christ has no part in those works. If you do not accomplish the measure of the works, then you will not achieve exaltation in spite of the atonement.
POINT 8 What you are left with is Jacob 2:27-30 in the Book of Mormon which does not justify Joseph Smith's claim about polygamous marriages with the Indians and it does not justify his later revelation regarding polygamy within the church and his own conduct in that respect, because neither revelation was predicated on the idea that polygamy was for raising up seed, but the first was for making the Indians "white and delightsome" and the second was for obtaining the highest exaltation. The only biblical passage that can be cited for support is 2 Samuel 12:7-8, and even if it could be accepted that the issue is polygamy, it was not stated that it was instituted in order to raise seed to God or that it was necessary so that David could receive an exaltation to godhood.
POINT 9 Basically the Mormon church is now backpedaling on the issue of the nature of the errors in the Bible, because current scholarship has proved the original claims to be false, so the church has simply adopted another claim by the early prophets and general authorities and pushed the problem back into history by claiming that the translation is not particularly incorrect, but that the original documents themselves contained the errors that have been incorporated into the translation. Since the major errors were supposedly introduced by the Catholic church, moving the issue back into history places it in a time when the Catholic church had not yet been formed, so the problem for the church is compounded. However, Joseph Smith's Inspired translation (JST) should have eliminated all of the errors and reinstated all of the missing parts, which it did not do. Since it was a translation done by the foundational Mormon prophet, then it should be considered superior to the KJV, but that is not the case in relation to the LDS church, although the RLDS church accepted it very soon after the death of Joseph Smith. When later prophets and general authorities refuse to canonize and accept a major work by the foundational prophet, but instead substitute what they consider to be a defective and less reliable "scripture" in its place, then that should raise numerous red flags as to the motive behind that decision.
Are you willing to apply the same standard to the Book of Mormon that you apply to the Bible? You
state, ". . . and there are books mentioned that don't exist in the current Bible." I must presume that is a
criticism of the Bible, implying that it is not complete because of those presumed missing books. I know
that is what you have either been told or read, because that is a regular criticism that I receive from
many Mormons. However, if that is a criticism of the Bible, it is also a criticism of the Book of Mormon
as well, since there are numerous books mentioned within its pages that are not included, such as: There are also the 116 missing pages at the beginning of the Book of Mormon that were lost because of Joseph Smith's claim that he ignored the direct command of god, and were not retranslated. If there are claimed to be missing parts in the Bible, specifically the distinctions of the Mormon gospel message, than again that same criticism must be leveled against the Book of Mormon as well, because there are numerous doctrines that are part of the current Mormon gospel message that are not found in the Book of Mormon which was and is said to be the restoration of the gospel message. Some of those elements are:
1. There is no Priesthood such as that found in the church today in the Book of Mormon.
2. There is no Eternal Progression in the Book of Mormon.
3. There is no polygamy allowed in the Book of Mormon.
4. No temple as found in the church today in the Book of Mormon. 5. There is no baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon. 6. There is no genealogical work in the Book of Mormon. 7. There is no escape from hell in the Book of Mormon, Alma 42:16. 8. No second chance for a presentation of the gospel in "spirit prison," Alma 34:32-34. 9. No spirit prison in the Book of Mormon. 10. There are no Telestial, Terrestrial or Celestial kingdoms in the Book of Mormon, the Telestial Kingdom being a new word coined by Joseph Smith after the Book of Mormon was written. The Mormon gospel message which was claimed to have been restored in the Book of Mormon is not the gospel message taught in the Mormon church today because the current gospel message is the product of the prophets after the introduction of the Book of Mormon. That is the problem with the claim and practice of continuing revelation. The acceptance of the idea of continuing revelation, or progressive revelation, allows changes to occur that may and do contradict the foundational revelations and scriptures of the Mormon church, and those changes can occur without explanation and for reasons that have no basis in actual new revelations. The church has a history of such changes, beginning with Joseph Smith:
1. The Book of Mormon, 1830: a singular modalistic god of spirit - god and Jesus Christ being the
same person, (1 Nephi 11:18, 21; 1 Nephi 13:40 - original 1830 edition), Ether 3:14. The intent of the nine points was to show that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Mormon doctrine and Orthodox doctrine. When the Book of Mormon was first published, those differences were not nearly as great, but as time and new revelations have been added to Mormon theology, the gap between the two has widened drastically. There is virtually no theological position or point of terminology that does not have a different definition in Mormon belief, so, although the words used are the same, the definitions understood by both Mormons and Orthodox Christians are completely different. Unless that is understood, during a conversation between a Mormon and an Orthodox believer, both will think they are talking about the same thing, when the definitions applied to the terms are completely opposite or completely different. Mormon and Orthodox doctrine are mutually exclusive. A choice must be made between one or the other, because they cannot both be true and they cannot be reconciled to each other. The Mormon Challenge Friday, April 18 It's a pitty that you did not have the faith to stay with the church if you truly were once a member. If Adam were God the Father, I feel certain that Joseph Smith would have declared it. Taking things out of someone's journal doesn't mean a thing. We can all come away from a meeting with a different interpretation of what was presented. I do know that there was an apostasy. The scriptures predicted it, as well as a restoration. As for the nature of God. What the Mormon Church teaches is what the original Church taught. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Crhist, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) Tertullian (140-230 AD) recognized that there was a corrupting influece at work: "No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:286) If the members of the Godhead are different manisfestations of the same person or substance, as some assert, then many scriptural passages make no sense at all. Much of this confusion centers around John 10:30: "I and my Father are one." The Holy Ghost is also included in this oneness. The scriptures assert, and many of the early Christian writers testified, howerver, that they were three separate and distince persons who shared a oneness, not in identity of person, but in purpose, unity, and will. Why would Jesus have prayed to himself in the Garden of Gethsemene? Why would he have prayed to himself to have the cup removed? Why would he have cried in agony on the cross "My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" What imploring value would those petitions have had if made only to himself? If they were one and the same, would Jesus have said "My Father is greater than I"? (John 14:28) Would Jesus have said "I seek not mine own will, buth the will of the Father which hath sent me"? (John 5:30) The Savior said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31) The Father bore witness of him at His baptism. In Genesis 1:26, God said, "Let US make man in OUR image." Who were the others? Justin Martyr (110-165 AD) acknowledged that Jesus was the begotten Son of God, and then rightfully concluded "that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:264). Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 264 AD) acknowledged and recognized that Christ and the Father were two seperate and distinct beings. (Ibid, 6:92). If Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the same person, or of the same essence, then why is it that a man who speaks "a word against teh Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: butr whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him"? (Matt 12:32) At the baptism of Jesus, all three members of the Godhead were manifest distinctly and apart from each other. When Stephen was being stoned to death, he looked up to heaven and declared that he saw Jesus sitting on the right hand side of God. (Acts 7:55) While John may make it sound like Jesus and his Father are the same person, the meaning becomes clear when compared to other scriptures. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Does anyone really believe that a husband and wife merge into one individual upon marriage? Jesus prayed that the type of oneness he and his Father shared would be extended to his disciples: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee" (John 17:21) So where did this idea of three Gods in One come from? It came from the Greek philosophers. Edwin Hatch a noted Christian author, recognized early Christianity's affinity for Greek philosophy. He stated: "The dominant Theistic philosophy of Greece became the dominant philosophy of Christianity. It prevailed in form as well as in substance." (The Influence of Greek Thought and Ideas on the Crhistian Church) There were two opposing doctrines in the Nicene Council. Airas taught that God the Father was uncreated and had always existed. The Son however was created by the Father. The Greek philosophy of Athanasias taught that there was only one God, and so Alexander and his deacon Athanasias taught that God and Jesus were coequal. The Nicene Creed was a political expediency to reconcile. Here are fourteen evidences of the apostasy. 1. The loss of the apostles. Eph 4:11 - The church was built on the foundation of apostles and prophets. 2. There are more than 70 spriptures in the Bible that speak of apostasy. In referrence to Matt. 24:5, 24, Justin Martyr commented "and so has it come about." 3, The end of the Bible. If the apostles had not been taken from the earth, more epistles would have been written to explain and correct doctrines being taught in the various churches. 4. Loss of miracles. John Wesley commented that it didn't appear that these extraordinary gifts of the spirt were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. 5. The dark ages. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the light of the world. It follows that if His Church had remained on the earth, there should have been a period of enlightenment that followed. Instead, we see almost 1000 years of retrogression that history refers to as the "Dark Ages" . 6. Teachings changed. William Manchester, author of "A World Lit only by Fire" referred to the church as "hoplessly at odds with the preachings of Jesus, whose existence was the sole reason for its existence." 7. Ordinances changed. Isaiah prophesied, "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." (Isaiah 24:5) Even Pope Adrian VI (1522 AD) acknowledged the corruption of ordinances. 8, Mode of prayer. The framework for meaninful prayer was clearly outlined in the New Testament. It was simple and straight forward. First, we pray to God the Father. Second, we pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Third, we say our individual prayers with a sincere heart. The savior was critical of repetitive prayers with no thought or feeling. 9. Scriptures removed. In the original Church, the scriptures were accessible and regularly read by all people. Mosheim, a noted historian had this to say about what happened. Paul admonished Timothy to "study . . . the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15), and then observed that "from a child thou has known the holy scriptures." (2 Timothy 3:15). The Catholic Church also decreed that "the holy scriptures were not composed for the use of the multitude, but only for that of their spiritual teachers; and, of consequence, ordered these divine records to be taken from people in all places where it was allowed to execute its imperious demands." 10. Wicked leaders. According to Peter, Church leaders should be examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:3). However, after the death of the apostles we see widespread corruption and vice. William Manchester wrote this about the clergy during the time of Magellan: "At amy given moment the most dangerous enemy in Europe was the reigning pope. . . . the five Vicars of Christ who ruled the Holy See during Magellan's lifetime were the least Christian of men: the least devout, least scrupulous, least compassionate, and among the least chaste -- lechers, almost without exception." 11. Moral decline. 12. Name changed. The ongoing churches in orthodox Christianity no longer bore the name of Christ. With all the spinoffs during the Protestant reformation, why did none of them call themselves the "Church of Jesus Christ." As Paul said: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:11-13) 13. Loss of Priesthood. The priesthood is like a spiritual power of attorney. It becomes a form of divine investiture of authority by which the acts and words of the priesthood bearer become the acts and words of the Savior. Hebrews 5:4 tells us how this authority is to be passed on. Sola scriptura goes against this scripture. There are only two churches that have any claim on authority; the Catholics and the Mormons. Only one of them has a valid claim. 14. Intolerance. The inquisition and persecution of various religions is proof in itself of a falling away from the truth. Jesus and the early Church were tolerant of others. On Doctrine Reply I have not been a member of the LDS church. I have relatives who are Mormons, going back to England in the 1840's.They came to the U.S. and eventually made their way by wagon train to Salt Lake and most of their descendants are still living in Utah. A daughter and son-in-law (who accompanied a hand cart train) of the immigrants renounced the church and escaped to California, believing that they would be killed by the daughter's father for leaving Zion. They were, in fact, pursued by the father and brothers, but a sudden snowstorm blocked the pass and the daughter was able to escape and later joined her husband. The majority of the descendants still identify with the Mormon church, with the exception of a few who have written to me noting that they have left the church. A modalistic god contradicts what is found in the Bible but it does not contradict the teaching of the Book of Mormon. It was only after the publication of the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith adopted a binitarian view of the godhead (father and son), but he also adopted the view that the Holy Ghost was only the mind or power of god and not a person. It was still later, presented during the King Follett Discourse, that he stated his new tritheistic view that there were three separate persons in the godhead and that the Holy Ghost was a personage, not of tabernacle but of spirit, and then he claimed that he had always held to that belief when he had not. That view was fourteen years after the publication of the Book of Mormon and was only presented after claims that he had spoken with the deities on occasion, none of which resulted in a revelation from god stating the nature of his existence. Since Joseph Smith changed his mind three times regarding the nature of god, it is really unknown where he would have gone with his views had he not been murdered. As I mentioned in my other communication, Trinitarian theology does not accept the claim that it presents Jesus Christ as praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane. That is not what Trinitarian theology represents and is not what the definition that I presented to you states as the nature of the godhead. There are many groups who try to make the claim that Trinitarian theology is an adaptation of Platonic Greek philosophy. However, the doctrine is found in the Scripture so there must be an explanation as to how it got there. Of course, the Mormon church must go back to its original claims that it was inserted by the Catholic church, which also removed any vestige of the Mormon concept of the godhead, which it is claimed was the original teaching of the early church. The reality is, that the doctrine of the Trinity was known and taught in the church long before the formation of the Catholic church, which also places it long prior to the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed was not the origin of Trinitarian doctrine. The question is, which of the three concepts of the Mormon godhead is the Mormon church going to claim was the original belief that existed in the early church: was it the oldest teaching about modalism in the Book of Mormon, the binitarian polytheistic view of Joseph Smith's second teaching or the tritheisic polytheism of his pronouncement before his death? The problem is tied to the claims made by the Mormon church in regards to statements by some ante-Nicene fathers that it is claimed represent Mormon doctrine supposedly taught in the early church. Just as with the statement by Justin Martyr, which was pulled our of context, and the statements by Dionysius of Alexandria, which he later recanted, none of the statements were accompanied by any of the missing Scriptural references. In the writings of the early church fathers, the Mormon church can find no quotes from any Scripture claimed to have been removed by the Catholic church representing the Mormon definition of the godhead. Justin Martyr Trinitarian doctrine does, in fact, assert that Jesus Christ is separate from the Father, because they are not the same person. That is why I said that Trinitarians would not affirm that Jesus prayed to himself in the Garden of Eden. Jesus Christ prayed to the Father. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father and the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father. They are one God. Justin Martyr's statement is quite correct in relation to his Trinitarian views. "Moses, then, the blessed and faithful servant of God, declares that He who appeared to Abraham under the oak in Mamre is God, sent with the two angels in His company to judge Sodom by Another who remains ever in the super celestial places, invisible to all men, holding personal intercourse with none, whom we believe to be Maker and Father of all things; for he speaks thus: 'God appeared to him under the oak in Mamre....'.... I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things - above whom there is no other God - wishes to announce to them .He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things - numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world - above whom there is no other God - has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with. The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: 'The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.'...He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.'"Dionysius of Alexandria Dionysius made comments indicating that Jesus Christ had not always lived with God, had come from God like a river or spring or like a plant from a seed and was begotten from God. His comments were considered heretical by most and he received a response from Dionysius of Rome in the manner of a correction, if not a rebuke. How he came to his original conclusion is unknown. "The Son of God is a creature and made, and not His own by nature, but in essence alien from the Father just as a husbandman is from the vine, or the shipbuilder is from the boat; for that being a creature, He was not before He came to be."Dionysus of Alexandiria later wrote corrections regarding his statement. Three of those statements are noted below: "For never was there a time when God was not a Father. . . . that Christ is forever, being Word and Wisdom and Power. For it is not to be supposed that God, having at first no issue, afterward begat a Son. But the Son has his being not of Himself, but of the Father."If you wish to adopt Dionysius as a kindred believer, you can do so. However, the reaction by those who were around him at the time, reveals that he did not represent the mainstream position of the majority of the church leaders, especially Dinonysius of Rome, whose reply to him was straight Trinitarian doctrine. On the other hand, he did not represent the Mormon position regarding the godhead as it is taught in the Mormon church today, since he did not affirm a literal procreation of Jesus Christ between God and a heavenly mother, or that Jesus Christ was born as a spirit being who was the brother of Lucifer and of all spirit human beings. The fact that he deviated from a Trinitarian viewpoint does not automatically place him in the Mormon theological camp. There are thousands of people who have weighed in with their varying opinions on the godhead, which says nothing about the reality of its definition. You are presuming, by equivocation, that the statements of Dionysius represented a belief in a godhead as found in the Mormon church - a belief that is claimed to have once existed in the early church but was erased from history. Dionysius did not provide any biblical support for his divergent statements, so you cannot point to any Scriptural foundation which is claimed to have once existed but has been removed from the Bible. I don't think you are willing to deal with the major issue in relation to what Brigham Young taught. The Mormon church claims to be the only true church because it is led by Living Prophets, a continuing procession of men of whom Brigham Young was a part. Brigham Young stated: "The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. 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 , for it they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth."The problem is that what Brigham Young claimed could not happen, did in fact happen, he was the source of the problem and god did not sweep him from the earth because of his false teaching like he said would happen. The Living Prophet led many members of the church into false doctrine, and the problem was not addressed until Spencer W. Kimball declared the teaching to be heresy in 1976, after 125 years. There is no guarantee that the church will not be led astray from its historic doctrines because of the existence of a Living Prophet. It is convenient to reject the statements made in diaries and personal journals, because it is claimed that they are a result of misunderstandings. However, that is a position that you cannot support, because the History of the Church was compiled using as a major resource the diaries and journals of various Mormon leaders and church members. There was no means to physically record actual statements of your leaders and prophets unless written in their own hand, so they were written by scribes, which you must also reject because of the possibility of errors being introduced in the transcription. Even major portions of Joseph Smith's diaries were not written by him but by his various scribes over the years and his sermons were not written by him for posterity but were recorded by his scribes and others in their diaries. Even his last major doctrinal pronouncements in the King Follett Discourse, regarding the nature of God, did not come from original documents written by Joseph Smith, but from those written by others during the preaching of the sermon and printed in the Times and Seasons, so you must reject those claims also. You may choose to reject the diary entry of L. John Nuttall, but in the absence of any evidence that he misstated what Brigham Young said, then you reject the record without a foundation to do so, simply because what he said is inconvenient in relation to what you wish to believe about Brigham Young and the authority of the prophet. What the church believes about the apostasy is that every single human being in the world rejected what it claims was knowledge of the Mormon gospel, which it also claims was taught in the early church, and as a result the church disappeared and became void. Your appeal to the statement by Tertullian is an attempt to support that contention, in addition to the claim that it was necessary for there to be apostles in order to keep doctrine pure. However, you have misrepresented Tertullian's statement as indicating that it was necessary for there to be apostles in order to have pure doctrine preserved. That is not what he said and was not the subject of his statement. He was discussing the issue and the claims that the apostle Paul was teaching about a new God that was different from the God of the Old Testament and Old Covenant. His conclusion was that he was teaching about the same God, but that the old ordinances of the Law had been repealed. His statement, that you quoted, indicated that the apostles did not change their teaching during their lifetime, not that their continued existence was the defining factor in preventing apostasy, because the Bible presents a very different historical picture revealed in the writings of the apostles themselves. Just as the Mormon definition of God suffered at the hands of Brigham Young, the gospel message was not held in its purity by certain Christian believers during the ministry of the apostles and even in churches established by them. That was the reason for the letters that were written to the churches, especially by the apostle Paul: "But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ, For is one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear [accept] this beautifully.The apostle Peter and Jude stated that false teachers would enter the fellowships of the very people to whom they were writing, and were, in fact, already there, 2 Peter 2; Jude 4-19. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."Those are foundational writings in the Scripture, and before they were even penned, there were false teachers within the fellowship. You cannot make a case that this was the result of the Catholic church, which was not even in existence, because the first Catholic leaders had not even been born. The difficulty you have is separating the church that Jesus Christ is building from a physical organization established by men, so you presume the lack of a physical organization or the apostasy of a physical organization is the same as there being the loss of the church that Jesus Christ builds. Jesus Christ is not building a physical organization. He is building a body of believers. Point 1 You state the work of the apostles, not realizing that their work was only foundational and not continuing. A foundation is laid only once and then the building is constructed on the top of it. The apostles did not build the church, but provided the foundational preaching of the gospel. It is Jesus Christ who builds the church, Matthew 16:18, and it is Jesus Christ who is the theological foundation of the church, Hebrews 2:10. Ephesians 2:20 states that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, not that the church is built on the apostles and prophets. The foundation of the apostles and prophets is Jesus Christ, who is the Chief Cornerstone, Ephesians 2:20. 1 Corinthians 3:11 states, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." If you believe that Ephesians 2:20 is saying that a foundation must continually be built by a continuing succession of apostles, then you must also believe that Jesus Christ is continually establishing a new foundation, since He is called the Corner Stone of the foundation. Is Jesus Christ still building the foundation or is He building His church? If you presume that the church went into a complete apostasy so that it failed and went out of existence, then you must also presume that Jesus Christ was a failure as the foundation and was unable to keep His promise to build a church which nothing would prevail against. Then you must presume that under the leadership of Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ had to once again construct another foundation to build still another church: a foundation that would be as weak as the first that failed. In your theology, Jesus Christ is unable to keep those that are His safe from apostasy, and so He is a failure as a Shepherd and as a consequence you would do well to consider whether the Jesus Christ of the Mormon church is able to also keep your soul from harm as well. If He could not accomplish the more simple task of preserving His church, how is He going to accomplish the more difficult? Ephesians 2:20 also notes the order of importance in relation to apostles and prophets: ". . . built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets . . ." Ephesians 4:11 states the same order: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets . . ." In 1 Corinthians 12:28, the order is stated as: "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets . . ." The Mormon church has reversed the order, placing the prophet at the head of the church and the apostles as secondary or subordinate positions. If the apostles are the foundation, why are they not in the first position and the prophets in the secondary? Joseph Smith was originally called "the first Elder" and not the first apostle. If it is said that the prophet of the church is the leader, then he must be greater than the apostles, but Joseph Smith was a prophet before he claimed to be an apostle and established the church as a prophet and not as an apostle. The Mormon church did not have apostles until almost five years after the church was organized. How was the church organized and built without the foundation of apostles? If the priesthood, both Aaronic and Melchizedek branches, is an absolute necessity, how did the Mormon church operate from April 1830 until the Melchizedek priesthood was first conferred on the elders in June of 1831? For almost five years the church operated without apostles and for over a year without the priesthood, both of which were unknown in the Book of Mormon. When the apostles were first introduced into the Mormon church, February 14, 1835 (D.H.C., vol. 2, pp. 180-200), the elders and high priests performed the ordination of the 12 to the higher office of apostle. In the LDS church today, no individual can perform the functions of an office that is higher than the one they hold, or ordain someone to a higher office than they hold. Why that prohibition seems to have become effective only after the ordination of the original 12 apostles by those holding lower positions of authority is very much a mystery. The Mormon church claims that it represents the pattern established by Jesus Christ who had 12 apostles and of the original New Testament church that had 12 apostles. However, the New Testament church had 13 apostles. The Mormon church or |