| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| Orthodox Christianity, Interpretation of Terms - The Godhead, PremIsis - The Bible Is Not The Absolute Basis of Truth, Differences - Joseph Smith Should Be Accepted Without Questions, Proposal Of A Way To Determine Truth, Jennifer's Testimony About The Pre-Existence |
|
The Mormon Challenge Thursday, June 26 Hello Gary, I am writing this with the sole interest in establishing a balanced basis for those that are seeking the truth. So that those that are genuinely interested in knowing which is the right path to go back to Father in Heaven may have a starting point, or at least some assistance when they read. Having said that I think it is a good thing you try to put the entirety of the text people write to you trying to explain their beliefs. It is indeed commendable. I think that is the spirit that Christ taught. Here are my comments: Orthodoxy You seem to have researched at length the LDS doctrine, and have made comparisons to make the point that LDS doctrine don't agree with what you call "Orthodox" Christianity. With a bit of tongue in cheek I am reminded of another "Orthodox" Christianity. Not to dwell on the obvious relativity of the term usage, "Orthodox" refers to the Eastern Christian Churches. The Easter Orthodox Christian Churches recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, up to the Second Nicene Council (787). The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the bishop of Rome separated from one another in a schism ocurred in 1054. The issues were related to Papal authority and a dispute over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only (Orthodoxy), or from the Father and the Son (the Western Church). It is interesting that you seem to refer to your denomination as the Orthodox Christianity, since real Orthodox Christian Churches are much older than your brand of Christianity. The root of your brand of Christianity lies in the Reformation. Reformation, as you know, is a departure from the much older Roman Catholic Church, which in turn seems to be a departure from the general Christianity by 1054 (at least from one point of view). All this makes your brand of Christianity an extremely unorthodox break away from Christianity in general. Or, perhaps you mean Orthodox in a general sense. Interpretation of terms You write copious arguments to show how Protestant doctrine is the far opposite of the LDS doctrine. I think you are right in the fact that Protestants use "Christians" terms to mean different things in comparison to the LDS use of the same terms. For example, the Bible, in Colossians 2:9, presents the term Godhead. Protestants, or at least some of them, interpret that as being the Trinity. In other words, one God that can divide Himself into three. LDS, on the other hand, takes the term Godhead for what it is, a group of persons, namely three members that compose the head of Godhood. If we stick to the real meaning of the term Godhead, we cannot help but imply that for a Godhead to exist it stands to reason that other gods need exist, albeit, only the Godhead being the object of worship, by command of the Most High God. Premises The greatest problem with all those arguments that I see is the fact that they are totally based on your own terms. They are based on the assumption that your interpretation is the absolute truth. Or, that the "orthodoxy," as you put it, is the absolute truth. The basic premise for all those arguments is that the Bible is the absolute basis for everything about Christianity or religion, for that matter. But the huge problem is that, in Christianity, apart from a few common, accepted points, each Christian denomination has its own interpretation of doctrines. So one would rightfully ask: what makes your interpretation of "Orthodox" Christianity be the one to be taken as the absolute truth? Moreover, if a really true absolute premise is not established, then any argument back and forth is only a war of words that really doesn't help the sincere seeker of the truth. The crucial question is: Does such a really true absolute premise exist? Or should one take your word or the word of scholars for it? One would say, but the Bible is the basis for all truth and any argument has to be based upon the Bible. Yes, LDS also believes in the Bible, and it is indeed part of their cannon. However, the general acceptance, by Protestants and othere, of the Bible as the only source of divine instructions is based on tradition. Which makes the very assertion that the Bible is the only source of truth by which one can judge, also an interpretation. For, who has established the Bible as the sole word of God? How can one know that God speaks only trough the Bible? Cannot God talk outside the Bible? If one accepts the premise that the Bible is the absolute basis, then, whose interpretation of the Bible the honest truth seeker should trust? Differences With all due respect, I think you are stating the obvious in your arguments. LDS church exists because Joseph went to the grove and asked the Father which of the churches he should join and he was informed that none of them were true and that they called His name with their lips but their hearts were away from Him. That alone eliminates all the necessity of arguments. There is nothing new in the arguments you present, no matter how deep you dig. Joseph was told that all those creeds were an abomination in God's sight. One would understand that if you don't accept the veracity of Joseph Smith experience then you need to use arguments such as the ones you present in the effort to prove he was not a prophet. However, the arguments anyone present to prove that Joseph was not a prophet will have to be based on a really, truly absolute source of truth and not one anyone's interpretation. That brings us back to the fact that the arguments you use are rooted on the premise that your interpretation that the Bible is the sole source of truth, and is the absolute measure against which the fact should be measured. But, which authority established that premise? Unless you are a true prophet called by God as mentioned in the Bible, and speak in the spirit of a prophet of God, the arguments you present are only fuel for an endless and fruitless volley of words, no matter how sincere and devoted you are. Proposal The problem lies in not that LDS can or cannot be called Christians, because by definition anyone that follows or says that follows Christ's teachings can be called a Christian, regardless whether the Protestants accept it or not. Since the very name of the LDS Church bears the name of Christ, than LDS is Christian, if nothing else, by the name it bears, according to definition. But the problem is not there, it resides precisely in the fact that Joseph Smith has declared that he saw God the Father and the Son which, if true, makes him a true prophet of God. The crux of the problem is to find out for sure if he is what he says he is. And we have seen above that that is not possible only by arguing based on interpretations. Anyone can read the Bible and say anything, just look at the hundres of Christians denominations that argue they have the truth because they read the Bible. What we need is a higher source of authority. A source that, when consulted, cannot leave room for doubt. A source that is not based on anyone's interpretation or on tradition. A source that, with true authority tells us unequivocally whether Joseph was a prophet. A source... well, the source that Joseph said called him to be a prophet. Don't you think that is fair? I propose that we all ask God. Because God, no matter how you interpret His nature, is the source of all truth and wants us to know the truth. He is the God of truth and light so it is only logical that we understand that He wants His creation to know the truth. If God responds and tells us that Joseph was telling the truth, than the outrageous things he said about the churches didn't come from him, but from God Himself. In that case, if we revile against Joseph Smith then we are reviling against God. So the really, truly ultimate question is: Do we want to ask the source of all truth to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God or do we want to continue to rely on our traditions (or othodoxy, as you put it) which origins we are not certain of? On Doctrine Reply I use the term Orthodox in relation to biblical doctrine, not in relation to an organization. If the doctrine conforms to the biblical imperatives and exists within the pages of the Bible and can properly be demonstrated that it is supported in the Bible, then it is Orthodox. The current doctrines of the Mormon church are not orthodox in relation to the Bible and not even orthodox in relation to the Book of Mormon. The current doctrines are orthodox by a Mormon definition in relation to the pronouncements of the Living Prophets as embodied in current Mormon doctrine which you accept as a consequence of [a claim of] continuing revelation. You are orthodox as defined in Mormon theology if you hold to the same doctrines as presented by the current Living Prophet, which includes any new revelation that he might speak and any old revelations or doctrines from previous prophets that he has not corrected or denied. The orthodoxy of the Bible is in relation to unchanging precepts that are found within its pages, while the orthodoxy of the Mormon church is based solely on the body of doctrine sustained by the Living Prophet and ever-changing doctrines presented by him which may and do invalidate or change the revelations in the Book of Mormon and previous prophets who are now dead. Orthodoxy under those conditions actually means change and not fidelity to established doctrines, only fidelity to a specific prophet at a specific time which is only the tenure of the current Living Prophet and whoever he might be in a future present time. You do not know what revelation will be presented tomorrow that may invalidate the current incarnation of the gospel that you must then follow in order obtain your exaltation. In fact, you may be practicing a currently established doctrine that will bring about your condemnation if you continue under the new revelation or you may not be practicing a certain action that is currently prohibited, but will become a new requirement to obtain exaltation. You are incorrect in your definition of the Trinitarian Godhead. God is not divided into three. The three are three persons in one God in being. The term "Godhead" means divinity or god and all that is the divine nature and does not imply that there is of necessity a multiplicity of gods. The application to Orthodox theology and the Biblical teaching is that there is only one God in existence. The Mormon godhead is more properly described as "the Head of the Gods," which is replicated in the triarchy of the office of the First Presidency consisting of the President of the Church and the First and Second Counselors, who are also referred to as Presidents. The God of Mormon theology is only singular as the object of worship in relation to this world and any other worlds that He may have personally organized in the past or will organize in the future, and authoritative only in relation to the Gods who will be exalted from this world as His children and those of His children who do not obtain an exaltation. However, He is only one of an infinity of other Gods who have organized their own worlds, which presents a contradiction, because He is not subject to any other higher God, the first of which would have been His Father and He is not recognized and worshiped by beings of any other world that He did not organize. Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are subservient to Him, but He does not appear to be subservient to His own Father. Perhaps that all changes when the newly exalted Gods obtain their own planet and father their own spiritual children. But, given that scenario, then it appears that the families will not spend eternity in the comfortable family groups, but will be split apart as the individual Gods go out on their own to organize their own universes and planets, and the authority of the Father over His children must be relinquished. The Mormon Godhead is divided, being composed of three separate individuals who are united only in purpose but not in being. The Father and any other two Gods could be defined as a Godhead, so it could actually be an ever-changing group. In Orthodox theology, the Godhead never changes. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are worshipped equally and corporally, and are deserving of that worship because they are one God in being. In Mormon theology, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost have attained to their exaltation and are considered to be Gods themselves. The Holy Ghost is now a God, although He does not have a body, however, it is necessary to have one to be exalted. It is unknown how those exaltations occurred, since they must have happened in the pre-existence, which means that there are other ways of obtaining exaltation that do not involve the eternal progression that every other Mormon must accomplish. Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost have not obtained their own planets and have not fathered their own family of pre-existent spirits, although, if they will do that in the future, then they will be worshipped by those beings as their Heavenly Fathers. Apparently, the reason it is claimed that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are not worshipped the same as God the Father in this world is because they are the brothers of all human beings while God the Father is the literal father of all human beings and His position trumps that of His children, even though they might be Gods themselves. Your approach to the authority and place of the Bible is a mirror of historic Mormon claims that reach back to Joseph Smith who claimed that there were inaccuracies in its translation, not of minor issues, but of major doctrines. The claim that the Bible is not only a corrupted translation, but has many parts that were added and other parts pertaining to the Mormon gospel that were removed by "corrupt Catholic priests," essentially relegates the Bible to fourth place on the list of Standard Works, the other three having authority over the content and interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is subject to the other three scriptures, because at any point that the Bible does not agree with the other three then that issue is considered to be an error in the Bible, either by means of an improper translation that is then corrected by a Mormon prophet solely by claiming a revelation, or represents an insertion or addition that does not belong. The Bible is not authoritative over the other three scriptures at any point where there is a disagreement with the Bible. This historic belief was well-stated by Apostle Orson Pratt in 1850: "What evidence have they that the book of Matthew was inspired of God, or any other of the books of the New Testament? The only evidence they have is tradition. . . . If it could be demonstrated by tradition, that every part of each book of the Old and New Testament, was in its original, actually written by inspiration, still it cannot be determined that there is one single true copy of those originals now in existence."The subtlety of Orson Pratt's claim is apparent, because what he is actually saying is that it is doubtful and has never been proved that the original Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was written by inspiration. So it does not actually matter if the original manuscripts could be found as originally penned, because they would not be considered to be authoritative. You are presenting the same concept in relation to your questions about the truth of the Bible. You believe that the Book of Mormon is true and all the pronouncements of the Living Prophets are all true, but according to your own statement and even that of Orson Pratt, who can say that is actually the case? Whose interpretation of the Book of Mormon can a person trust and which prophet can you say has stated an actual revelation from God? Since the majority of current major Mormon doctrines of the gospel are not found in the Book of Mormon, then the relevance of the Book of Mormon to belief is tenuous at best and the substance of the Mormon Gospel rests with the declarations of the Living Prophets, the content of which was unknown by the people noted in the Book of Mormon. So, if you believe in exaltation as a part of the Mormon gospel message for the people of the Book of Mormon, then they obtained their exaltation outside the parameters of the current Mormon gospel message and in a manner different from the manner practiced by you, and that belief is based on the pronouncements of the Living Prophets and not the Book of Mormon. Mormon prophets, general authorities and various writers have continued the claims against the Bible and Orthodox belief over the course of the existence of the Mormon church, attempting to use arguments they considered would be sufficient in order discredit the authority of the Bible and the claims of Orthodoxy. You seem to accept that approach as legitimate discourse on the part of the Mormon church, but not in relation to me or any Orthodox response to those claims or the doctrines that the Mormon church claims supplant Orthodox teaching. It can't be a one-way street, so if the Mormon church is going to claim for itself the position of the only true church and the Bible to be a corrupt and deficient document, then there will continue to be a response. The response will be to place on your shoulders the burden of proving what have been the historical claims of the Mormon church which it has been unable to support by evidence. The Bible was also a product of direct revelation, so if you are going to claim error on its part, then you must present the evidence to support your assertion, and stating that "God told the Living Prophets" is no tangible evidence that can be considered. But, there is evidence proving the Book of Mormon has been changed, in order to present a definition of God that is different from what was originally printed in the original 1830 edition, so Orson Pratt's claim must also be directed toward the Book of Mormon as well. I ask the same question in relation to Joseph Smith's blanket pronouncement and claim stating every single religious belief and church was false and apostate except for his own. Again, anyone can make a claim to have received a revelation or a vision, but a statement does not make itself true. You don't actually know if Joseph Smith went to the grove and received a revelation from God, because he never presented apostolic or prophetic credentials confirming his claim. You believe it all happened, because of your testimony and the feeling you believe is the confirmation, which is actually Gnosticism, but which version do you believe? The varying accounts of the First Vision and the discrepancies between them and the history of the period call the accounts into question. Joseph Smith also claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri, but that has been shown to be a lie, along with his inclusion in the same book of the prohibition against persons of black skin from holding the priesthood, claimed to have been established by God. God made no such statement, and the claim that God gave a revelation in 1976 rescinding a prohibition that He never established removes the credibility of the Living Prophets and turns that claimed revelation into a sham, because it makes God out to be a liar. The canonization of the Book of Abraham shows that the presidency and the general authorities, along with the membership of the church in general, who voted on the issue, could not detect the false nature of the document and installed it as Scripture when it was not. Agreement does not necessarily confirm Scripture or make Scripture, and belief, no matter how strongly felt, does not indicate that God has spoken or that what is being accepted is truth. The same issues are present in relation to Brigham Young's "Adam-God Doctrine" which he originated and taught beginning in 1852 and resulted in several generations of many faithful Mormons worshipping the wrong God, and their "burning bosom" confirmations still allowed them to believe false doctrine. The doctrine was not declared to be false until 1976. For 124 years, a heretical doctrine in relation to Mormon theology was present in the church and was ignored by the subsequent presidents and general authorities until Spencer W. Kimbal declared it to be heretical in 1976. Even then, Brigham Young was not declared to be a heretic and it was not admitted that he had originated and taught the doctrine, but it was stated that the doctrine was "alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations". Even those General Authorities who taught the doctrine have not been declared false teachers or heretics. To admit that Brigham Young was the culprit would have called into question the authority and integrity of the presidency, so it was seen as a better alternative to lie by omission about his involvement than admit to the real issue. What the Mormon church has done is reject the Bible as the authority in order to substitute the Book of Mormon and the pronouncements of the Living Prophets in its place. The Mormon church claims the Bible as one of its Scriptures, but it does not accept it as being authoritative outside the interpretation and application by Mormon prophets. In fact, it is considered to be full of errors and missing many "precious" parts that were removed by "corrupt Catholic priests" and replaced with false doctrines. The Mormon church does not accept the entire perfectly translated Joseph Smith Version (JST) of the Bible, but uses the corrupted KJV instead. If the Mormon church used the JST instead of the KJV, it would not be able to claim that there are errors and mistranslations, which it claims are in the KJV and are re-interpreted and corrected by the footnotes used in the attempt to bring it into accord with current Mormon teaching. A primary translation work by the foundational Mormon prophet is ignored by the Mormon church in order to preserve current Mormon doctrine not found in the KJV and also not found in the JST. Which Mormon organization should the honest seeker trust? Is it the RLDS (Community of Christ) that had the original manuscript of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, and was continued by his wife, mother and son, or perhaps one of the other one hundred or more Mormon splinter groups? You claim that it is the LDS that is the only true church, but the other 100 or more Mormon splinter groups claim that they are the true church also and they have their own testimonies that confirm their claim to themselves. The RLDS claim that Brigham Young was a usurper, liar and a heretic who led the LDS into error through false revelations. They have made the same claims against the LDS as the LDS has made against every other religious belief and organization, so, why are they wrong and the LDS is correct? You accept Joseph Smith's claims without question, so the contradictions and outright falsehoods stated by him and the issues presented in relation to Mormon doctrine are not important to you, because you either believe that they are not relevant and are resolved by later revelation or you adopt a dualistic approach to the definition of a prophet in which his errors are considered to be only his opinion, while other statements are considered to be revelation. It isn't that I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and then present arguments to back my belief, it is the fact that the arguments point to the reality that he was not a prophet and therefore I cannot accept the claim that he was. In relation to the term Christian, I have stated the following in one of the articles on the website: "They [Mormons] claim that they are Christians, because their church bears the name of Christ and they believe in Christ. But they believe in a Jesus Christ as defined by the Mormon church and not as defined by the Biblical record. They are not Biblical Christians, but are Mormon Christians, their Jesus Christ being defined by their own 'revelations' and doctrines. Traditional Biblical teaching and Mormon teaching about Jesus Christ are mutually opposed and opposite to each other and cannot be reconciled together."President Gordon Hinckley stated the same: "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times'"What President Hinckley was saying was simply a repetition of what Joseph Smith claimed, which was that every other religious belief and organization was false, and that includes the Jesus Christ as found in the Bible who is not defined the same as in Mormon theology. The definition of Jesus Christ accepted by President Hinckley is that presented by the Living Prophets, including himself, because the current definition of Jesus Christ is not the same as found in the Book of Mormon. So, he is rejecting the foundational definition in the Book of Mormon in order to substitute that of the Living Prophets. The problem with your proposal is that it is all one-sided, because your entire religious foundation is based on a claim by Joseph Smith that all other religious groups and beliefs are false, and you accept that statement without question. What you do is simply sweep away any disagreement or argument presented so that you do not have to deal with the real issues. You do not believe that the doctrines and foundation of the Mormon church are true because you have prayed and God has appeared to you and spoken to you, but you use your subjective feelings in order to confirm your belief, because everything just seems right or you have the magical feeling inside that you believe is the confirmation. Then you adopt the position that it doesn't make any difference if the prophet lies or gives a false revelation, because he was probably not speaking as a prophet at the time. Apparently many members, including the president and the general authorities must have used the criteria of the "burning bosom" when the Book of Abraham was canonized, which has turned out to be a fraudulent translation presented by Joseph Smith. God is not a liar, but Joseph Smith was, so to call him to accountability and scrutinize the doctrines that he taught is not "reviling" him or "reviling" against God. It is claimed that the Book of Mormon is a historical document, so at least the events should have some historical verification. It would not be fair to assert that all of the events and circumstances should be documented, but there should be at least enough evidence to establish the context and general location of the persons and incidents that are described. The Bible can point to documentation that establishes the existence of a verifiable historical context and that body of evidence continues to grow as time goes on. There is no Book of Mormon historical or archeological evidence regarding the events claimed to have occurred in the New World, so, as a historical document, it has some serious foundational issues. You only have the word of Joseph Smith who claimed to have been the translator and the Living Prophet as the validation that the Book of Mormon is true, and it is by the statements of the same and other living Prophets that changed the gospel message in the Book of Mormon to that which is found in the church today. You originally asked my definition of "Orthodox" which you have already defined, that being a belief in the Bible which you consider to be "tradition" implying that those beliefs have no Scriptural foundation. If Orthodox beliefs were not able to be demonstrated in the Bible, then they would be tradition, but that is not the case. Again, the burden falls on your shoulders to prove the claim that Orthodox beliefs are only "tradition" in relation to the Bible and that the Bible has been altered in accordance with the statements of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon - 1 Nephi 23:26, and the numerous other Prophets and General Authorities who have been unable to present the supporting evidence. The Mormon Challenge Thursday, July 24 Hello Gary, Thanks for taking the time to answer my comments I have a couple o questions that comes to my mind just by reading the first paragraph of your message. You don't need to answer if you don't want. You have written: I use the term Orthodox in relation to biblical doctrine, not in relation to an organization. If the doctrine conforms to the biblical imperatives and exists within the pages of the Bible and can properly be demonstrated that it is supported in the Bible, then it is Orthodox. Questions: The term biblical imperative seems to exclude any other revelation that God may want to give to His children. Also, who determines that these "imperatives" are God's mind? In other words, who is the final authority to validate the interpretation that you consider the correct "biblical imperative" to measure everything else? Complementing the above question then, the terms "support in the Bible" is very relative given the number of Christian interpretations of the Holy Writ passages,including yours. So, who determines the orthodoxy? And why this orthodoxy, as you put it, is the absolute truth to be followed by everyone? Why it is difficult for you to accept the fact that God can speak whenever He wants and call whomever He pleases, whenever He desires? On Doctrine Reply The use of the term "biblical imperatives" does not indicate that I exclude any revelation that God might give or impede His ability to transmit that revelation should He so choose. I don't deny God's ability to accomplish any of those actions that you mention at His good pleasure, however, if He should do so, then His prophet will be accompanied by prophetic credentials that validate his authority to speak on behalf of God. In that case, the prophet will speak without error, without ambiguity, without the necessity of correction and his presence will be attended by confirming miracles. The biblical imperatives are the essential doctrines of the Orthodox gospel message and the biblical definitions of all other doctrines. The point is, that the biblical imperatives of the gospel and other doctrines never change, while the gospel doctrines of the Mormon Living Prophets are in a continual state of change. There is no single everlasting gospel message in the Mormon church on which you can rely, because you are joined solely to the changing pronouncements of the Living Prophets through which the necessary gospel principles (imperatives) are not the same as found in the Book of Mormon, not the same as found in the early Mormon church and continue to change even today. Your foundational scripture, the Book of Mormon, is not the interpreter of current Mormon doctrine and does not have authority over the content of the current Mormon gospel message or the pronouncements of the Living Prophets if it is said that those pronouncements are revelations, because those revelations represent the changeable nature of the Mormon God who is not consistent as to the content of the gospel message that He presents and is not consistent with the unchangeable nature of truth. Truth in the Mormon church is a relative concept, in which a specific truth applies in one instance but does not in another. The concept is mirrored in current secular society as "situational ethics" in which the circumstance or predicament defines the nature of truth instead of truth defining the response to the circumstance or predicament. This idea of relativism was introduced into Mormon theology by Joseph Smith and its precept was used by him on a number of occasions. He stated, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."What he is saying is that specific truth is separate from any other specific truth within the context to which it is applied and does not have a relationship to any other context. That is the reason that the Mormon gospel principles can be changed when the existing principles become inconvenient or troublesome. God is willing to step in and declare false what He previously established as truth or declare to be truth what He previously declared to be false, all as a matter of convenience. Such was the case with the "new and everlasting covenant" given to Joseph Smith that established polygamy as one of the gospel principles necessary for exaltation, through which God stated "if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned, for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." Only 57 years later, God said that the revelation was no longer a requirement. Although the Manifesto of 1890 is said to be a message from God, President Woodruff stated that it was his "intention to submit to those laws [of the United States], and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise," and ". . .that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." So, the prohibition was not actually a forbiddance, because it only applied to new marriages, and the revelation was only his advice and his authority to enforce it as the President and Prophet of the church was only his influence. In the Book of Mormon, polygamy was condemned, and then Joseph Smith claimed that God said it brought about justification for David and Solomon, so it is claimed to have been a part of the Old Testament principles. But then, after David and Solomon, it was condemned in all cases in the Book of Mormon, then it was established as a necessary part of exaltation and then it was supposedly prohibited again. The changeable nature of God knows no bounds. The entire issue of polygamy never had to occur in the first place and there never had to be a resort to the claim of a revelation from God abolishing the practice, because God had already set the standard for when a command could be ignored: "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."On July 12, 1831 Joseph Smith received his first polygamy revelation stating that the Mormons were to marry the Lamanite women. So, nineteen days after that revelation, he received the revelation commanding that he not break the laws of the land. The church claims that Joseph Smith also received his actual polygamy revelation in 1831, but it was not recorded until 1843. The reality is that there were polygamous marriages with the Indians, and Joseph Smith began his polygamous relationships in the early to middle 1830's. Is it possible that you can actually ignore the problem that the two polygamy revelations and the revelation regarding the laws of the land created? I know you do not question any doctrine presented by your prophets, however you need to look at this issue with open eyes. Polygamy is not even the issue, because the problem is in relation to the character of God represented by His commands. Supposedly, God gave three revelations, and for Joseph Smith or any other Mormon to have obeyed any one of those revelations would have been a sin, because it would have involved breaking one of the other commands of God that had been given within the year. If a person obeyed the commands to engage in polygamy, then they would be violating the command to not break the laws of the land. If the person obeyed the command not to break the laws of the land and refused to engage in polygamy, then they would be violating the command of God to engage in polygamy. If they disobeyed the command to engage in polygamy with other Mormons, then they would suffer the additional onus of being damned and losing their exaltation. God's commands made it impossible not to sin, and there was no way of escape. The command to not break the laws of the land was the most inexplicable, because it presents the contradiction that the other two polygamy revelations represent. How is it that keeping the laws of God regarding polygamy would mean that a man would have "no need to break the laws of the land"? A man would absolutely have to break the laws of the land in order to obey the polygamy commands, unless the laws of the land were under the control of the Mormon church, which is a condition that Joseph Smith wished to impose when he decided to run for president of the United States and when he had himself declared to be king. As I mentioned in a prior note, when you accept the idea of continuing revelation, it will eventually circle around and bite you, and it did just that in only the second year of the existence of the church - and it revealed that God is either unable to understand the consequences of His revelations and commands, or is an unreasonable task master who delights in causing His children to sin. It you wish to defend your Prophet on this issue, then I would consider long and hard the idea that his words are more important than defending the character and integrity of God. Although Joseph Smith claimed to oppose Catholicism, he actually adopted the Catholic approach regarding the interpretation of Scripture. The Catholic church reserved Scripture to its hierarchy, which is the major reason that Latin was the main language used even in non Latin speaking countries and was the language used in the Mass. The Catholic church went so far as to prohibit the general population from possessing a copy of the Scripture in their own language and even martyred those who dared to print the Scripture for general distribution. Joseph Smith did not go nearly as far, since he encouraged the distribution, ownership and study of the Book of Mormon, however, he reserved the interpretation of its meaning to himself, originally as the "First Apostle" and only later as the "President, Prophet and Seer". Today that interpretive authority is still vested in the Presidency of the church, and as a member of a hierarchical organization, you are required to adopt those official doctrinal pronouncements without presenting any ideas of your own and your testimony must conform to those principles and no others, and you appear to accept that without question. You are mirroring the statement of Orson Pratt who stated that it is unknown if the Bible is inspired, even in the original documents. That is a much more insidious assertion than to claim that it has been mistranslated or changed, because it impugns the character and integrity of the authors without any evidence to back the claim. Since God is the author of revelation, and by definition the author of the Bible, then it is not acceptable to claim that it does not represent the mind of God in its entirety without any evidence. You accept the Book of Mormon as the mind of God because your prophets make that claim, and you question the Bible as the mind of God because your prophets make that claim, also without the evidence. As I have mentioned before, you accept everything that your prophets say without any questions being asked, because you have also accepted the coercive tactic used by the prophets, that to ask the hard questions of your prophets will actually endanger your exaltation. I am not sure why any legitimate prophet would not be willing to answer any question or be afraid of or feel threatened by any person who would ask any legitimate question in relation to the hard issues, since they have revelatory power to receive the answer directly from God. In the book of Acts, the apostle Paul preached to the Bereans, and Luke records the following: "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea; who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."If the doctrines that the apostle Paul preached could be questioned and subject to the scrutiny of the Scripture, which was the Old Testament at that time, then I don't think any Mormon prophet is exempt from the same, and that includes Joseph Smith. You should be doing the very thing for which the Bereans were commended. The Bible itself states its own authority: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished, unto all good works."The Mormon church claims that only a Mormon Prophet can interpret the Bible and the Mormon scriptures in a truthful and accurate manner and so that is where you place your trust, even though Prophets have spoken false doctrine and deliberately lied. But no Mormon prophet has ever been able to demonstrate an actual translation ability. You might wish to disagree with that in relation to Joseph Smith, but in the absence of an example of any of the original golden plates, you can only believe by faith that he translated the Book of Mormon, but without a foundation to do so. The apostle Paul gave instructions to Timothy, who was not an apostle, in relation to his place as a pastor. So, according to the Bible, any claim that an apostolic position is necessary in order to understand the Scripture is a false assertion. The apostle Paul also told Timothy: "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.The Mormon church claims that what was being preached in the early church was the Mormon gospel, and the reason those principles are not found in the Bible is because they were removed and changed by the Catholic church in order to substitute its own doctrine that came about as a result of apostasy. I know you are trying to make a case otherwise, but the Mormon church does not accept the Bible as authoritative over the doctrines found in the Book of Mormon or the pronouncement of any Mormon prophet. The reason for that position is the assertion that the Bible has been altered and no longer represents the original documents, and those claims are made by your prophets. However, as I have noted, the evidence has never been presented substantiating those claims, as well as substantiating the existence of the persons, places and events in the Book of Mormon. There is no Book of Mormon history to study outside the Book of Mormon itself and no Book of Mormon archaeology. There comes a time that to believe beyond a certain point requires that a person begin to look at evidence rather than trusting a subjective inner belief as a confirmation, which may have a source other than truth. The Book of Mormon claims to be a historical document which it is said is one of the confirmations of its validity, although not one historical reference can be validated. The Book of Mormon should be the source of great archaeological discoveries, such as the magnificent cites that were built and the writings that would have been left on the edifices representing either the Hebrew language or the Reformed Egyptian of the golden plates, or both. But nothing has been found, so the search has moved from the battle sites of the areas around Hill Cummorah in the state of New York, where at least 6 million people are said to have been killed but left no evidence, to areas in Central America. Yet, there is still no evidence to be found, and not even a hint in the oral histories of the Indians in the Americas regarding what would have been the most horrific war and bloodshed in the history of the world up until that time. You accept the Book of Mormon, not based on any empirical evidence, and you accept the statements of Joseph Smith, not based on any credentials that would have confirmed his authority as a prophet. Instead, you use the subjective nature of your emotions to be the validating factor or your belief. You claim that as faith, but it is just as easy to view it as an emotional reaction to a contrived situation, similar to a movie with actors who are not actually part of reality, and the characters that they are portraying are only representations from a written script rather than actual people. We can laugh, cry and identify with the action just as if it were real, but it is actually a false reality. Even Joseph Smith admitted to giving a revelation that came from his own desires, that turned out to be false - he felt very good about the revelation when he gave it, but it was false nevertheless. Although you claim to be led by the Holy Ghost, you do not give Him credit for His ability to exercise power by guiding you apart from the Living Prophet. If the Holy Ghost should so choose to present to you doctrine that is different from that taught by the Living Prophet, you would reject that information as coming from a source other than God, which would place you in the same position as those under the watch of Brigham Young who taught the false Adam-God doctrine. There were many in the church who did not accept what he taught, but they were considered to be the deviants, while the many others who did believe his doctrine thought they were part of the elite, because they accepted the Living Prophet without questioning what he taught. The doctrine was heretical and has been declared to be so, yet God did not remove Brigham Young from his position and for 124 years, the general authorities never acted to expunge the false doctrine embodied in the highest office of the church and those who believed his teaching also used their testimonies as the validation of their belief, which was actually to believe in and worship the wrong God. To worship the wrong God is idolatry and is no different than agnosticism or atheism. It was not a difficult task for people to determine that Brigham Young's doctrine was heretical, all they had to do was read, but they believed without using discernment, and they felt very good about their decision. As the conveyors and interpreters of Mormon doctrine, the prophets need to be held accountable and should be subject to scrutiny by something other than their own pronouncements. If it is necessary to inquire as to what entity they should be accountable, I think the question should be directed to the apostle Paul. The Mormon Challenge Friday, July 25 I read another of your responses. I though you has done extensive research about what LDS stands. I believe you have missed the point. See below: You have written: What the Mormon church has done is reject the Bible as the authority in order to substitute the Book of Mormon and the pronouncements of the Living Prophets in its place. The Mormon church claims the Bible as one of its Scriptures, but it does not accept it as being authoritative outside the interpretation and application by Mormon prophets.Comments: 1. The assertion that LDS doesn't accept the Bible as authoritative is completely incorrect. It is very far from the truth, as Joseph Smith went to the grove to pray to Father in Heaven precisely because he believed in the authority of the Bible. He believed that the Bible was telling the truth. Rather than believing in the ministers of the day, he went straight to the Bible which, in turn, told him to go directly to the Father. So, reading James he decided to do exactly what the Bible was telling him and us to do. Therefore, if the very person that organized the LDS Church, by command of God, searched the Bible for answers than, How can you say that the LDS doesn't accept the Bible as authoritative. What you say is misleading. What more acceptance of authority do you need? Furthermore, the problem you state above is not of accepting the Bible as authoritative. Again your argument is extremely misleading. One of the LDS Articles of Faith states that we believe the Bible to be word of God as far as its translation is correct. Which in essence means that LDS rejects MEN'S INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible's passages, NOT the Bible itself. Which, by the way, is totally consistent with what the boy Joseph did (He didn't believed on the minister's interpretations of the Bible). Men have no way to know for sure what the passages of the Bible are saying without the Holy Ghost who,by the way, is the one that gave those passages. Therefore, anything any man say of a passage of the Bible without relying on that Spirit is his own interpretation. THAT is what LDS rejects, not the Bible. So, what you're realy doing is creating a desinformation, or you realy don't understand what LDS stands for. 2. If you had a copy of the Book of Mormon in your hand, the first thing you'd read is: The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ. So what you say is another unfounded and misleading argument. The Book of Mormon is the writings of prophets of God that lived in this continent, centuries ago. They recorded the dealings of our Father in Heaven with their people, by command of God, to preserve His teachings to that people, so the descendants of that people one day could benefit from those teachings. Contrary to being a substitute, the Book of Mormon supports and complement the teachings found in the Bible. The Book of Mormon was not translated by scholars out of their wisdom, but by an unschooled boy, by the power of God (weak things to confound the wise). Therefore, its contents are more accurate because they came about by revelation direct from God. And together with the Bible, it is a powerful testimony of the reality of Jesus Christ and His atonement. Joseph didn't organize the LDS Church because he read the BoM and decided to do so. He organized the LDS Church because Jesus Christ Himself commanded him to do so. Which is the opposite to all the founders of churches who read something in the Bible and decided to create a church on their own. The BoM is simply another set of revelations from a loving Father in Heaven to help His children to obtain a testimony of the living Christ. Now, if you want to know wether the Book of Mormon is the true word of God what you need to do is to humbly, sincerly, wanting to know, pray to Father in Heaven to reveal it to you. If you do that without any reservation, you'll know. That's what I did and millions have done. You'll find out. But you need to believe that God can talk to you directly to your spirit as Paul says. You have to want to really know. Otherwise, it'd be the same as asking for a sign. And God will not give you a sign. But He can reveal it to your spirit that the Book of Mormon is His word. On Doctrine Reply I assume that your comment that "It is very far from the truth," is in reference to my statement rather than the content of the Bible? Your sentence is unclear, but I take that to be the case, because if you considered the Bible to be far from truth then it would not be authoritative. If you consider the Bible to be correct, then why did Joseph Smith say that it had been changed with additions and deletions by "corrupt Catholic priests"? If those additions and deletions were actually accomplished, then those parts that were added do not represent the mind of God, but only the statements authorized by the Catholic church, and the parts that were removed represent the mind of God that cannot be known. In that case, those parts that have been added are not authoritative in any manner. If those things were not actually accomplished, then Joseph Smith was either a very poor prophet or God made a terrible mistake by giving him such a revelation. The historical documents recording the statements of Mormon apostles and prophets make it very clear that the church does not accept the Bible as authoritative over the other three scriptures, but places the other three scriptures as authoritative over the Bible. Joseph Smith did not find any of his major doctrines in the Bible or the Book of Mormon (which is essentially second on the list of scriptures because the Doctrine and Covenants is where all current major doctrines are found, and possibly even in third place), but said he received them by revelation, and none of the major revelations regarding the Mormon gospel being taught in the church today are found in the Bible or the Book of Mormon as well. JOSEPH SMITH "We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Pearl of Great Price, p. 60 (1842) "Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327 BRIGHAM YOUNG "How do we know that the Bible is true? We know that a great deal of it is true, and that in many instances the translation is incorrect. . . . As I read the Bible it contains the words of the Father and Son, angels, good and bad, Lucifer, the devil, of wicked men and of good men, and some are lying and some - the good - are telling the truth; and if you believe it all to be the word of God you can go beyond me. I cannot believe it to be the word of God, but I believe it as it is." Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 208 (1871) "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 461 Apparently, Brigham Young was confused as to exactly which portions of the Bible were untrue. Even as the Prophet he was not able to discern where the errors might be, so he accepted it "as it is," whatever that might mean. Of course, the RLDS church had Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible in their possession, and Brigham Young could have used their publication taken from his handwritten manuscript to actually determine definitively what was true and not true about the Bible, but he refused. He also considered the Book of Mormon to be more correct than the Bible, so, he is stating that there are areas where it is not correct and not the word of God and is not authoritative. It was "good enough" for him as he interpreted it to mean what he wished. Elder CHARLES W. PENROSE "Those books that are now compiled in the Bible - and a great many more that are not there - were scattered abroad and hundreds of years after that, they were hunted up and examined; those that we now have were selected from a great mass of manuscripts and compiled; others were thrown away as non-canonical." Journal of Discourses, vol. 24, p. 209 (1883) Apostle ORSON PRATT "21.-God gave many revelation to Hebrew prophets, in the Hebrew language. Some of these revelations have been translated by human wisdom into many other languages, and called the Bible. The same revelations have been translated many times by different authors: but no two translations agree. They differ not only in words and style, but also in sentiment, according to the various opinions of the translators. These clashing translations are circulated among the people as the words of God, when, in reality they are the words of translators; and words too, selected by their own human wisdom. 22.-The original Hebrew manuscripts and tables of stone on which the revelations of God were recorded, and also all true copies of the same, contained the pure words of God; but any translations of them into another language by uninspired men would not be the words of God, as is clearly shown by each translator, giving a different rendering from any of the others. Therefor, the Bible in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Danish, and indeed, in all the languages of the earth, except the original in which it was given, is not the word of God, but the word of uninspired translators. It may be that now and then a sentence of these uninspired translations, is rendered in the same words that would be given by an inspired translator. But the people are unable to judge which of these isolated sentences have been rendered in the language of inspiration. Therefore, so far as the uninspired translators and the people are concerned, no part of the Bible can, with certainty, be known by them to be the word of God. 23.-The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible from which translations have been made, are evidently very much corrupted, as appears from the fact, that scarcely any two copies are alike in any chapter or verse. The original copies, having been entirely lost to the world for many generations, the learned are under the necessity of translating from such mutilated, imperfect, and, in very many instances, contradictory copies as still exist. This uncertainty, combined with the imperfections of uninspired translations, renders the Bibles of all languages, at the present day, emphatically the words of men, instead of the pure word of God. 24.-In order that the nations may have a perfect standard of salvation, it is necessary that they should have the pure word of God, free from all the imperfections of human wisdom and learning; free from the accumulating errors of ages of successive copying; free from the mutilations and alterations of unprincipled and wicked men; and free from the ignorance and uncertainty, arising from the absence of many lost books. 25.-To remedy all these evils and give the nations the Old and New Testaments in purity, would require the gift of translation by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Such a gift God gave to the great Prophet of the last days - Joseph Smith. He was inspired of God to translate the Scriptures; and to reveal some of the lost books; such as, the prophecy of Enoch, the Gook of Abraham, the Revelation to Moses, not included in the five books called the Pentateuch, and some other revelations not now in the Bible. By this great gift of the Spirit, he translated the Book of Mormon from the original language of the ancient inhabitants of America - a language entirely unknown to human wisdom at the present day. By the gift, he translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyrus, taken out of one of the catacombs of Egypt. By this gift, he translated from parchment a sacred revelation concerning the Apostle John and his great mission to "prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." (See Revelations x. 11.)" "Spiritual Gifts," Pamphlets of Orson Pratt, pp. 70, 71 Orson Pratt managed to sidestep the obvious problem, because the Book of Mormon containing the "perfect standard of salvation" would also have to be translated into the other languages of the world unless it is presumed that all the other nations would be required to learn English. Other than Joseph Smith, I am not aware that any Prophet of the Mormon church has ever claimed to have produced a translation of the Book of Mormon or any other foreign language document by means of inspiration, although it is claimed that the Prophet has the ability to translate any document from ancient times. Apparently foreign nations have been denied the perfect standard in their own language, because translations of the Book of Mormon are produced by professional translators rather than the prophet who has the gift. Orson Pratt's comment is quite clear, since he stated that the translation of the Book of Mormon was necessary because it contained the "perfect standard of salvation" and the "pure word of God" which he claimed the Bible does not. If the Bible does not contain those elements, then it is not authoritative by any standard. He was right about one thing, because the Bible does not contain the Mormon gospel message found in the Mormon church today, but, then again, the Book of Mormon does not contain it either, so the "perfect standard of salvation" as the "pure word of God" must not have been restored in the Book of Mormon, but had to be given later through the pronouncements of the Prophets found in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price, so they have the authority over the Bible and the Book of Mormon. President GEORGE A. SMITH "King James' translators were learned men selected by the King to translate the Scriptures. They translated the writings of the various apostles and prophets, and then took a vote among themselves to decide which were inspired and which were not. You will remember that no one among this body of learned divines even professed to have the inspiration of God upon him." Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 264 (1868) Sounds like he is describing the procedure used to ratify and canonize LDS Scripture by vote of the congregation. The real question is, since Joseph Smith had translated the Bible and had been commanded by God to publish it and it had been completed since 1833, why wasn't it published during the 11 years prior to his death? However, since it was published by the RLDS church in 1867, then all of the above quoted individuals, had no excuse not to know which portions of the Bible had been removed, changed or added. However, they continued to use the crippled King James Bible and it is still the official Bible used in the church today. Why is it that the Mormon church continues to use the KJV Bible when it does not represent the true words of God and how can it be said to be Scripture when it is in error? Apostle MARK E. PETERSON "Many insertions were made, some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at time deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated." "It is evident then that many of the 'plain and precious' things were omitted from the bible by failure to choose all of the authentic books for inclusion, and by deliberate changes, deletions and forgeries . . ." As Translated Correctly, pp. 4, 14. If you actually believe that the Bible is considered to be authoritative in relation to Mormon doctrine, then you believe without a foundation to do so, because your prophets and general authorities have removed any pretext of a foundation by their statements denying the validity of the Bible outside its interpretation by the Living Prophet. If Joseph Smith claimed that the Bible was authoritative, then why did he present his own "translation" in which he added and removed more material, and never restored the lost books that are claimed to have been removed and why didn't he restore the gospel message claimed to be the Mormon gospel message taught in the church today? Joseph Smith's claim that his reading of James prompted him to ask God about which group he should join has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is authoritative in relation to Mormon doctrine. Depending on which version of the First Vision you read, Joseph Smith was between 14 and 16 years old when he was visited either by angels, two men, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ and God or all of them together, so he was not supposed to know anything about every religious group in the world being false and he would have accepted the Bible for what it said, since he had no reason to believe otherwise. Trying to use Joseph Smith's actions in relation to the Bible prior to his First Vision and prior to the time that he began his religious quest to find the golden plates and establish the Mormon church is not accurate as to what he later believed about the changes in the Bible by the "corrupt Catholic priests" as a result of his numerous revelations. An appeal to Joseph Smith's actions in relation to the First Vision do not support your position at all. Your appeal to the Eighth Article of Faith does not support your contention, because the subject is translation, not interpretation, which means that the Bible is said to be fundamentally flawed as to what it actually says, rather than what individuals interpret it as saying. Of course the Mormon church rejects any interpretation that is not its own, but that is a completely different issue, separate from translation. What the Mormon church rejects is any interpretation not authorized by a Mormon prophet. Even an interpretation by an apostle who has a lower office of authority must defer to the prophet in relation to any point of interpretation that they might assert. That is certainly not the attitude exhibited by the Bereans in the book of Acts when they compared the teachings of the apostle Paul to the Scripture and made a decision based on that comparison, not because Paul said he was an apostle. I am aware of what the Mormon church stands for, which is a single authority vested in the current Living Prophet who determines and validates all doctrine for the time of his tenure, who can and does change and invalidate previous doctrine, including the restoration of the original Mormon gospel message in the Book of Mormon and previous Living Prophets, and, that as a continuing office, may, as occupied by a future Living prophet, invalidate the doctrine validated by the current Living Prophet and change again the principles of the Mormon gospel message. The Mormon gospel message taught in the Mormon church today is not the same as taught in the Book of Mormon. You do not realize the consequences of a belief in continuing revelation and you do not understand how far away from the restoration of the Mormon gospel message in the Book of Mormon your prophets have taken you because you do not question or judge their pronouncements against any standard except their own statements. You have no foundation on which to anchor your belief that is outside of your own subjective feelings of well-being in relation to what you have chosen to believe. Joseph Smith decided to change the definition of God, so, how does he reconcile Genesis 1 and 1 Nephi 17:36, and 22:26-31; 18:26-28 and John 4:24 with his new concept of a pantheon of gods and the new explanation that God is not a spirit but a person with a physical body? Since he was a prophet, the answer was simple - just deny the authoritative statements in the Book of Mormon and the Bible and present new "revelation" as progressive revelation, confirming the new teaching. In the case of the Book of Mormon and the Bible, he simply ignored and denied what it says about the creation. By "revelation" he added elements to the Genesis account in order to give the impression that multiple Gods participated in the creation. "I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible-Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith-in, by, through, and everything else. Roch-the head, Sheit-grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, 'The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.' That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."He also produced a new "translation" of some Egyptian papyri that he claimed were written by Abraham himself, that has been canonized in the Pearl of Great Price as the Book of Abraham (specifically chapter 4), which contradicts the other creation account found in the Book of Moses, also canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. As I have mentioned before, the Book of Abraham has been thoroughly discredited as a legitimate translation, because the documents from which it was claimed to have been translated are copies of portions of the Egyptian Book of the Dead called the Book of Breathings, which deal with pagan religious practices and beliefs and have nothing to do with Abraham and did not even exist in the time of Abraham. Joseph Smith gave a revelation stating that the effort to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada (which places a whole other reason for its existence into the equation), would be successful, but was actually a failure. When questioned by David Whitmer, Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery as to why the prophecy did not come true, he stated he did not know, but then received a revelation as follows: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil."It would seem that even revelations, no matter how strongly believed, and presumably confirmed by the inner sensations, are not actually validated as truth by the subjective nature of feelings. Even revelations from the deceptive heart of man and the devil can pass as truth and the prophet does not know the difference. I am not sure what the name on a book has to do with the content being true or false. I can write a book and give it the name, such as, The Appearance of Jesus Christ to the World, but that does not mean it is a legitimate testament, and you wouldn't believe that it was. That is the same issue in which it is claimed that the true church must have the name of Jesus Christ in its title, which at one time the Mormon church did not, and that was after it was called the Church of Christ. I noted in a reply to another individual, "The LDS church was originally called the 'Church of Christ' and not the 'Church of Jesus Christ'. On May 3, 1834, the name of the church was changed to 'Church of Latter Day Saints', with no mention of Jesus Christ. If the name Jesus Christ must be incorporated into the name of an organization in order for it to be legitimate, then for a few years under the leadership of Joseph Smith the Mormon church was not the true church and was not legitimate, because the church did not carry the name of Jesus Christ, and the foundational prophet ignored the words of the Book of Mormon that he had written only a few years before, 3 Nephi 27:5. Who then restored the Mormon church from its apostasy?"I am not denying that you believe in Jesus Christ, but I am stating that you believe in a different Jesus Christ, who is defined differently in Mormon doctrine from that found in the Bible. The names are the same, but the individuals are fundamentally different. Your own prophets have left the Book of Mormon far behind as the repository of the Mormon gospel message and have presented themselves as the source of revelation, not according to the patterns of the major revelations of the past, but claiming to receive direction through the "still small voice" of God, which may not be audible. So, now your doctrines are stated and interpreted by the prophets and you may not even know that they are presenting new doctrine or a new interpretation, because it is not stated as such and may not even be voted on by the church at large. That is a great deal for the prophets. In relation to what authority should I pray and inquire of God which might be the truth? Perhaps it is --- 1. The Book of Mormon that defines God as a Spirit, or Joseph Smith and the current Mormon church that defines God as a personage of tabernacle? 2. The Book of Mormon and the testimony of the three witness that claim there is one God, or Joseph Smith and the current Mormon church who claim there are an infinite number of Gods? 3. The Book of Mormon that says God dwells in the heart, or the Doctrine and Covenants that says God does not dwell in the heart and current Mormon doctrine that says God cannot dwell in the heart because He has a physical body? 4. The Book of Mormon that says there are only two destinations after death - heaven or hell, or current Mormon doctrine that says virtually everyone will find themselves in one of the three levels of heaven, except for the very small number who are the Sons of Perdition? 5. The Mormon prophet who prophesies that which does not come to pass, claims as a revelation that which he has created and claims as a translation that which he has fabricated and makes God into a liar? 6. The Book of Mormon that says it was the Holy Ghost who was the father of Jesus Christ, or Brigham Young who said that it was Adam who was the father of Jesus Christ, or the other Living Prophets who claim that it was God Himself who was the father? I did not bring the Bible into the equation, because the issues of many interpretations, confusing claims and contradictions are numerous in the Mormon church and have not been resolved by the Living Prophets. The charge is made by the Mormon church against the Bible regarding those same issues, but if the prophets who claim to receive the truth directly from God cannot get it right, then they need to deal with their own issues and you should be questioning the reasons for the problems. Those types of issues (such as, Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus Christ vs. God the Father is the father of Jesus Christ), are never united into a resolution, because it is not possible for a statement to be true and false at the same time. What usually happens is that the old statement is replaced by the new statement through a claim of progressive revelation which doesn't actually deal with the contradiction, since both statements are claimed to be a revelation. The old revelation is then left to languish and the hope is that it will be forgotten, and no one seems to realize the problem. I can read the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the pronouncements of the Mormon prophets and I can tell the difference between what they say and you can do the same. I am not aware of any Living Prophet, except for Joseph Smith, who has claimed to have used his translation ability to produce an inspired, corrected and reassembled version of the Bible, just as I have never heard of a Living Prophet who has translated the Book of Mormon into any other language or has demonstrated his ability to translate foreign language documents from antiquity, which is an ability said to be part of the President's sphere of gifts. Moroni 10:4 presents preconditions by claiming that a person should ask "with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ." If the person does not receive the magical manifestation in return from God, then the answer is not that the Book of Mormon is untrue or that the prophets are false, but that the person did not have a sincere heart, did not express real intent and did not have faith in Christ. Those are not acceptable criteria, because they only allow for two outcomes which point to only one conclusion. If the person does not receive the confirmation, then they are at fault, but Mormon doctrine is considered to be true, or the person receives their confirmation and again Mormon doctrine is considered to be true. I would be presuming on God to inquire of Him what He thinks of those issues, since He has already given His answer in Deuteronomy 13:1-11 and 18:20-22. The Mormon Challenge Friday, July 25 Hi Gary, You mention that there is no evidence of a pre-existence concept in the Bible. Please take a look at this testimony. http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/exhibit#Jennifer_Where_did_I_come_from On Doctrine Reply I have seen Jennifer's testimony on several web sites including You Tube. She presents her subject as if she had found some new truth never before seen and that the Orthodox community supposedly has no answer for what she claims is found in the Bible. I find it interesting that she does not mention the verses which she says convinced her that she lived before in the pre-existence and convinced her to become a Mormon. There is nothing new about her claims, because the verses in the Bible that are used by the Mormon church in the attempt to back a belief in the pre-existence are the same ones that have been used since the doctrine was introduced by Joseph Smith. There are basically four main passages: Jeremiah 1:5 Job 38:1-7 Ecclesiastes 12:7 John 9:1-3 JEREMIAH 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (KJV) The Mormon position is that the verse is a description of actual events where Jeremiah was present so that God could "know" him and could also sanctify and ordain Jeremiah in a physical manner. The knowledge of Jeremiah would have been gained by God in the pre-existence while his spirit existed with God, and his sanctification would have been accomplished there also, possibly by the laying on of hands. Additionally, it is believed that it is not possible to sanctify an individual (set them apart) or ordain them without the individual being present. Before a person could adopt those particular views, they must first adopt the definition of God presented in Mormon doctrine and also adopt the Mormon world view and presuppose the possibility of the pre-existence, and then adopt the Mormon definition of sanctification and ordination and the means of how those are accomplished. That means that Jennifer's beliefs did not originate with a reading of the Bible, but with a much more intensive indoctrination into Mormon theology which she accepted long before she developed her testimony about the pre-existence. Jennifer's viewpoint was shaped by Mormon doctrine, not by the Bible. The attributes of the Mormon God impose certain restrictions on His ability to act and limit His knowledge. Although there is a divergence of opinion within the Mormon church, at least two presidents of the church have stated that God is not perfect in knowledge, but will increase in knowledge throughout eternity. Brigham Young "We are now, or may be, as perfect in our sphere as God and Angels are in theirs, but the greatest intelligence in existence can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 93 ". . . Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful." Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 286 Wilford Woodruff "God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end." Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120 It is very possible that the restrictions placed upon God's knowledge prevented Him from knowing Jeremiah outside of the physical encounter that He would have had in the pre-existence, so the possibility that Jeremiah could be known by Him through omniscience is in serious question, and is the reason that the verse is interpreted in the such a manner as to require knowledge only from the pre-existence, but also because it was necessary in order to support the claim of a pre-existent state of being. If that is the case, then the Mormon God is not perfectly omniscient. Mormons should be concerned about the issue, because the contradiction in Mormon theology in relation to Jeremiah 1:5 is obvious, because if God was unable to know Jeremiah as a future human being by means of His omniscience, then God is also unable to know future events in detail and is unable to give prophetic revelation to his prophets regarding future events that is reliable or trustworthy. Mormons must abandon any pretext that God can know the future or give any revelation regarding those future events on which they can base their faith. The other issue is that the Mormon view presupposes the Mormon definition of sanctification and ordination, that requires that it be imparted by a physical means, such as the laying on of hands. For some unknown reason, God is unable to accomplish those actions by any other means, so Mormons limit what their God can and cannot do. Orthodox theology has no difficulties with Jeremiah 1:5, because the God of Orthodoxy has none of the physical limitations imposed on the Mormon God. The Orthodox God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. God's creation is restricted to a time frame imposed by Him at the creation, but God is not subject to restrictions, so He exists as the past, present and future in one present, and that is one of the specifics of His attributes when He refers to Himself as "I Am". It is a ludicrous concept to Orthodox Christians to assume that God is incapable of knowing any human being or event prior to existence or occurrence or that He does not know the future absolutely, because God is not limited by the time restrictions that He has placed on His creation. Unlike the Mormon God who is made of the same substance as the universe that He organizes, the Orthodox God has created the universe from nothing and He is not made of the same substance as His creation. It is also incomprehensible as to why an individual cannot be sanctified (set apart) for any purpose of God prior to their birth. Why God cannot accomplish sanctification and ordination by decree within His own mind is quite inexplicable. Mormons insert the actions mandated by their doctrines into the verse, by which they assert that sanctification and ordination is solely a physical act that must be accomplished in a certain manner, in a certain place with certain words spoken and by certain people, whether that be God or prophets or apostles or whomever is said to have the authority to impart that particular spiritual office, duty or blessing. It would be considered to be an invalid sanctification or ordination if God decided to accomplish it in a manner different from the standard used in the church, but God is allowed, and does, change His commands at will, and that is said to be quite acceptable. That is also quite an inexplicable contradiction. However, the verse does not even state that God sanctified Jeremiah before He existed, but before he came out of the womb, which means that he very well could have been present at his sanctification. It is only the knowledge of Jeremiah that the verse states happened before his conception. However, God speaks His own definition of the extent of His knowledge, which is a little wider than Mormon theology wishes to give Him credit: "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure . . .'"The passage in Jeremiah says nothing about a pre-existent spiritual state of being prior to birth. The claim that a pre-existent state is confirmed by the verse is predicated on inserting the doctrine into the verse where it does not exist and then limiting God to actions defined by Mormon doctrine and not by any statement of truth by God Himself. You have mentioned that I limit God to giving revelation solely in the Bible and not through Mormon prophets, but here your own prophets limit God to a being who is deficient in the ability to obtain knowledge: a God who can only "know" after coming into physical contact with the object of knowledge, which is an attribute of humanity, and is what Mormon doctrine attributes the origin of God to be. JOB 38:1-7 "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 'Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest: or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (KJV) The Mormon position is that God's questions to Job, as to where he was, implies that Job was actually somewhere during the events that God mentioned in the questions, which means that he was in the pre-existence at the time of the formation of the earth. Secondly, the mention of the sons of God indicates the presence of the human spirits in the pre-existence. The fact that God asks rhetorical questions of Job, indicates that Job's answer must be in the negative, which would require that he state that he was not present during the events about which he was being queried, which is the very point that God is stating in relation to Job's ignorance as compared to God's omniscience. If Job had been present during the events about which he was being questioned, then his answer would have been in the positive - "You know where I was God. I was with You in the pre-existence during all of those events and I know all about them." That would have negated the point that God was making and would have made His questions pointless. To see the pre-existence in the verses, a person must presuppose it is there by adopting the Mormon world view, that defines the sons of God as literal spirits fathered by God and His wives in the pre-existence, and then the entire pre-existence doctrinal system must be placed in the verses by means of an eisegetical interpretation from outside the context of the verses. Orthodox theology and Jewish theology would reject that belief, because the sons of God as angels are created beings and not procreated spirit children of God. Mormons claim that there is marriage and procreation in the next life, in direct opposition to what Jesus Christ Himself said in relation to question by the Sadducees about the woman who had seven husbands: "'In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.' But Jesus answered and said to them, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.'"ECCLESIASTES 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (KJV) The Mormon position is to state that it is not possible for something to return to God if it had not first been with God in a prior existence, specifically the pre-existence. The question is valid if one accepts the Mormon view of man, the Mormon world view and presumes the existence of the pre-existence, however, the question is not valid if one accepts the Orthodox belief that the spirit of man did not exist prior to conception. The verse says nothing about a pre-existant state of spiritual being, which Mormons insert into the verse from the outside based on their doctrine. The book of Zechariah states: "The burden [oracle, prophecy] of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."Orthodox belief understands the passage in Zechariah to mean that God originates the spirit of man in the womb at conception, not that He inserts it from an outside source. Mormons understand the passage to mean that God brings the spirit from its home planet where it has existed for an untold numbers of years and places it in the body of the person while in the womb. So Orthodoxy sees the action of God as a creative act synonymous with the impartation of life, while Mormons view it as an organizational act by which God massages the spirit so that its size will fit into the growing infant. In orthodox theology God literally gave the spirit as a creative act, while in Mormon theology God imparted the spirit from a pre-existent state. Apparently, in the Mormon pre-existence, spirits are born as infants and grow to adulthood just as physical infants are born and grow to adulthood, but when placed into the physical bodies of human babies, they have already grown to adulthood and enter as adults rather than as the same size as their infant host where they could then grow to adult size along with the human body. This was a problem for apostle Orson Pratt who also tried to explain why human beings have no memory of the pre-existence. He wrote: "The tabernacle [body] of both animals and vegetables continue to grow or increase in size, until they attain to the original magnitude of their respective spirits, after which the growth ceases. When the spirit first takes possession of the vegetable or animal seed or embryo, it contracts itself into a bulk of the same dimension as the seed or tabernacle into which it enters: this is proved from the fact, that the spiritual body of the Son of God, seen by Nebuchadnezzar, was of the size of a man, and yet this same spiritual body was afterwards sufficiently contracted to enter into, and to be wholly contained within an infant tabernacle. . . . Spirits, therefor, must be composed of substances, highly elastic in their nature, that is they have the power to resume their former dimensions, as additional matter is secreted for the enlargement of their tabernacles. "When all these spirits were sent forth from the eternal worlds, they were, no doubt, not infants; but when they entered the infant tabernacle, they were under the necessity, the same as our Lord and Savior, of being compressed, or diminished in size so that their spirits could be enclosed in infant tabernacles. . . . when this spirit was compressed, so as to be wholly enclosed in an infant tabernacle, it had a tendency to suspend memory. . . . So it is with man. When he enters a body of flesh, his spirit is so compressed and contracted in infancy that he forgets his former existence. . ."That is certainly a convenient explanation for the loss of memory, but it also presents the idea that spirits are confined to an ultimate size by some type of restraint which acts in a similar manner to a body. Orson Pratt also wrote: "The contraction of spiritual bodies is still further proved, from the fact, that a legion of wicked spirits actually huddled themselves together in the tabernacle of one man. These wicked spirits, being fallen angels, were actually in the shape and size of spirits of men, therefore, they must have been exceedingly contracted to have all entered one human body."The contradiction that Orson Pratt presented is striking, because one spirit loses its memory while trying to squeeze into the body of an infant, while the memories of a legion of fallen angels are not lost when they squeeze into one human being. If a person wishes to believe that there was an actual legion of devils, like Orson Pratt says, then there were somewhere between 3,000 - 6,000 devils occupying the body of the man. The incident in Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-37 reveals that the devils retained all of their memory, because they knew that Jesus was the Son of God and that their fate was to be tormented in the future. The book of Genesis states the following: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils he breath of life; and man became a living soul."Life did not come to the body of Adam until it was breathed into him by God, and his soul did not come from the pre-existence as a living entity, but he became a living soul as a result of the impartation of life by God at the point of his creation. There is no pre-existence in the Bible or the Book of Mormon, because the source of that teaching is the Living Prophet. JOHN 9:1-3 "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, 'Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (KJV) The Mormon position is that the nature of the question presumes that if the man had been born blind as a result of his sin, then that sin must have been committed in some prior existence, since it was not possible that sin could have been committed in the womb, therefore the disciples were asserting a belief in the pre-existence, and the fact that Jesus Christ did not correct them, indicates that He was affirming the reality of the pre-existence. The fact that it is not recorded that Jesus Christ offered a correction in relation to the Mormon claim that the apostles were asserting a belief in the pre-existence, is an argument from silence, which is actually no argument at all. The question that the disciples asked does not indicate at all that the only alternative explanation for the nature of that question was a belief in the pre-existence. Mormon theology makes a connection to the pre-existence by presumption and then places the entire doctrinal teaching about the pre-existence into the one verse. Jewish theologians actually did believe that a person could sin while in the womb, so the question by the disciples would have been asked from that perspective since they were the products of that belief system. That does not mean that they were right, but it also does not mean that they actually accepted the concept or understood the concept in relation to their question. That particular issue is not discussed during the incident as well as the concept of the pre-existence which is not mentioned at all. The issue is whether the man was blind as a result of sin, which Jesus Christ denies as the cause. If it is to be asserted by the Mormon church that John 9:1-3 is referring to the pre-existence in the manner of committing sin, then Romans 9:11 must also be included in that claim, but with some serious problems. The verse is quoted as follows: ". . . for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls . . ."Is that not the same issue in relation to John 9:1-3? In John 9:1-3 the Mormon church claims the man did not sin while in the pre-existence, and in Romans 9:11 it must be claimed by the Mormon church that the twins did nothing good or bad in the pre-existence. The second claim is the problem for Mormon theologians, because the twins should have done either good or bad in the pre-existence in relation to a very important event. Apparently, since Jacob and Esau had not done good or bad in the pre-existence, they must have been pacifists during the war between Jesus Christ and Satan and supported neither. Instead of there being one-third of God's children who supported Satan and two-thirds who supported Jesus Christ, there must have been another group who decided not to take a position in relation to either. Evidently, in the pre-existence the Scripture does not actually apply to the spirits who live there, because the Book of Mormon and the Bible say the following: "Wherefore, he that fighteth agains Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith of God."By definition, both in the Book of Mormon and the Bible, those who have not taken an active position in support of God and Jesus Christ are considered to be in opposition, and if they did not take a position "good or bad" during the war in the pre-existence, then they are considered to have been on the side of Satan. Mormon doctrine states that the spirits who were on the side of Satan in the pre-existence, will never receive mortal or temporal bodies. However, perhaps God has just overlooked 2 Nephi 10:16 and Luke 11:23, and considered the twins to have just been less valiant during the war. In Mormon theology, skin color, the country of birth and social position mirror the performance of the spirit in the pre-existence. Perhaps the twins being neither hot or cold were sent to a Middle Eastern country and to a dysfunctional family (although still in the lineage of the Messiah) and their skin color was such that it was light enough so that they could still hold the priesthood but could not be considered the best as "light and delightsome", but also not the worst as "dark and loathsome" that would have prevented them from holding the priesthood. However, if God chose that route, then He also chose to ignore His own revelation of scripture, which is a troubling issue in itself. If specific doctrines are believed and followed, then they lead a person on a journey during which various issues are encountered that are the product of the doctrines themselves. In the case of John 9:1-3, the Mormon doctrine leads to conflict with its own scripture and with the concepts presented in its major teaching on the pre-existence, and that does not include the conflict with the statement of Jesus Christ. Romans 9:11, in Orthodox theology, denies the possibility of an act of sin prior to birth and makes no mention whatsoever of a pre-existent state of spiritual being. The question by the disciples in John 9:1-3 does not necessarily presume that they believed that an act of sin could be committed prior to birth, and the complete absence of a mention of the pre-existence means that the concept must be inserted into the verse from outside. Again, the fact that Jesus Christ did not deal with that issue is a argument from silence that has no force of doctrine. It is not recorded that Jesus Christ made comments on a myriad of subjects, so is it presumed that we can adopt any position that we wish on those subjects? The silence of Jesus Christ on the subject of the pre-existence neither supports or opposes the Mormon view. The Mormon Challenge Monday, September 15 Hi Gary, You have written: "The use of the term "biblical imperatives" does not indicate that I exclude any revelation that God might give or impede His ability to transmit that revelation should He so choose. I don't deny God's ability to accomplish any of those actions that you mention at His good pleasure, however, if He should do so, then His prophet will be accompanied by prophetic credentials that validate his authority to speak on behalf of God. In that case, the prophet will speak without error, without ambiguity, without the necessity of correction and his presence will be attended by confirming miracles." The first assertion cannot be true, otherwise you'd accept that God can call prophets and apostles today, without any precondition, which you seem to tacitly reject. You seem to be only reafirming that if God wants to talk to man He has to conform Himself to your interpretation of what you read in the Bible. Also, how would you know if the prophet is speaking without error, ambiguity, necessity of correction if you don't have the Spirit of the Lord to confirm his words? Should you trust only in what you think are errors? Here are some questions worth to consider: Did God reveal to you what a prophet is like and what he should behave like? What measure do you use to determine the credentials of a prophet? Reading the bible? How can you be absolutely sure that what you think the credentials you read and mention are the only measure you should use to know what a prophet is? What is a prophet? Is it only a man that predicts things? Is he an imperfect man that speaks what God tells him to speak? Should a prophet be a perfect man? Is he a prophet every minute of the day? Can he have his own opinion? Can he make errors when he is not speaking as a prophet? Can a prophet be a normal man that sins just like any other? Does a prophet need to see God to be a prophet? Can a prophet not predict the future? Should a prophet be called by God directly? Can he be ordained by another man with authority of God to do be a prophet? Does a prophet need to have the Priesthood of God? Can someone be a prophet of God without the authority of the Priesthood of God? What is the main role of a prophet? What is the difference between a prophet and a seer and revelator? Would God reveal things to mankind without a prophet? What should we trust the most: what we read or what God reveals? If the text of the Bible was written by the Spirit of the Lord, shouldn't we have that same Spirit to understand what is written? The question about your affirmation on credentials and authority, etc. brings a problem. If you read a book, in this case the Bible, and tell people this is how a prophet should be, aren't you giving your interpretation of what you read? Aren't you putting yourself in a position of authority about what is and what is not a prophet of God? Aren't you asking people to believe your word, because you read that in the Bible and made that conclusion? (Aren't you trying to be a prophet, by telling people how a prophet should be?) Why, instead of asking God if Joseph was prophet or not, you prefer to rely only on your interpretation of what you have read? Aren't you being just like the ancient Israelites in the desert? When Moses put the snake in the stick and asked them to look, many didn't look. A simple thing, just look, and they didn't do it. They preferred to go about their own beliefs and ideas (I can almost hear some of them saying, "a serpent on a stick, gimme a break..."). If you reject asking the source of truth about Joseph Smith you are only behaving like those Israelites. They didn't look because they simple didn't believe that such a simple thing would cure them. By the same token I can almost hear you saying, "a prophet, an ignorant, sinner like that, gimme a break..." it doesn't match what I read in the Bible. But the Lord seems to be in a habit of using the weak things to confound scholars and people sure of themselves. I know it by experience. In other words you seem to be trusting on your own understanding that what you read is the complete and final criteria to judge a prophet. By doing so you seem to be saying to yourself and others, I already know the truth (which, with all respect, would be an extremely arrogant position), I don't need to ask God about it, as I already know He is not a prophet, because I concluded it from my readings. But, are you looking at the half full or half empty side of the glass to determine if Joseph was a prophet? Gary, if you ask God directly, humbly, wanting to know, like a little child, you will know that Joseph was prophet. You said above that you believe God has the "ability to transmit that revelation should He so choose," so, act on your own word and ask Him. "Prove me," God said. Furthermore, no amount of miracles would ever convince you that Joseph was a prophet of God. You must have that witness from the Lord Himself. On Doctrine Reply I am not sure why you would say that truthfulness, accuracy and credentials are preconditions that I have established that define a prophet. Am I to presume that falseness, ambiguity, later correction and lack of credentials are the hallmarks of a true prophet and approved by God? God has very strict standards in relation to the person who claims that God has spoken a word that He has not. I have noted several times that God sets the standards for His prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-11 and 18:20- 22. He also states some very serious specifics in Jeremiah 23:6-40. I did not create those standards, they are God's. The standard that you apply is none of the above, but simply how you feel about what the person says in relation to what you wish to believe, and any other statement or conflict of doctrine or outright falsehood is ignored as being their opinion. That is a standard that cannot be found in the Scripture. You have said that the Mormon church considers the Bible to be authoritative, but that is only true within the translations and interpretations sustained by the Living Prophet. However, the Living Prophet would have a very difficult time asserting that the Scriptures in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah do not constitute a legitimate test of a prophet as validated by the very words of God, because even Joseph Smith translated those passages word-for-word, the same as found in the King James Version of the Bible. If the Bible is not authoritative on that issue, then it is not authoritative on any issue. Since it is authoritative, then the prophesies of Joseph Smith and the doctrines of Brigham Young fall under the authority of those Scriptures and both men fail the test of a true prophet. Joseph Smith stated a false prophecy to which he admitted, and lied about translating scripture that he did not and changed the definition of God found in the Book of Mormon, and Brigham Young taught worship of a false god, his doctrine being declared heresy by president Spencer W. Kimball. So, what are the standards of the Mormon church that define a false prophet? Apparently heresy is not one of the defining factors. You are going around in circles regarding your questions about how to know if a prophet speaks without error, ambiguity, etc., since those are questions that apply to your prophets, but are questions you never ask because you accept your prophets as being true without applying any standard except that they occupy the office of a prophet and that you feel good about what you believe they have said. Therefore, you assume and accept as fact that they are true prophets. Which means that the prophet is his own standard of truthfulness, simply because he claims to receive revelation. You would say that I am only stating what I think are errors, but you are stating what you believe to be truth based on your subjective feelings as a confirmation of truth that you believe is a result of the testimony of the Holy Ghost. You believe that to be the case, because that is what Joseph Smith taught, found in found in the revelation to Oliver Cowdery, Doctrine and Covenants 9:8, and Moroni 10:4. But that is the very issue in relation to a prophet being false because he gives false prophecies, and the claim that prophecies are true because they feel right. However, there are two components to the "burning bosom" validation that are overlooked, and are stated by God in the revelation: "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that you bosom shall burn within you, therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong, therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."The revelation was given to Oliver Cowdery, as a means for him to determine whether Joseph Smith was translating correctly. It only applied to the translation of the Book of Mormon and to Oliver Cowdery. However, the church has appropriated the revelation as a test for truth at any level, but it is not applied as stated. There are two components that you do not utilize, because the first one you do not accept and the second does not actually happen. The first is "that you must study it out in your mind," which you do not do, because you simply accept your prophets without the application of any test. You do not study their pronouncements as to their relationship to previous scripture, or follow them to their logical ends. The second element is that you will never forget "the thing which is wrong" because you accept all revelations, but several generations of Mormons were taught the heretical Adam-God doctrine by Brigham Young, which they accepted as truth, validated by their subjective feelings of the burning bosom and even those who rejected the doctrine as incorrect never forgot the incorrect doctrine that they were being taught. You are apparently telling me that it is not possible to determine truth outside the pronouncements and interpretations of the prophets, you then accept what your prophets say without question, and, as a result, you will never know if they speak without error, ambiguity or necessity of correction. You claim that the Spirit of the Lord confirms their legitimacy to you by means of how you feel about a particular issue, so your subjective impressions and feelings become the standard by which you subject the statements of the prophets, however since you accept what they say anyway, your subjective feelings will always confirm their statements. You only allow one conclusion, and if you don't have that confirming impression at first, you do not reject the issue, like God said would be the case, instead, you will seek after it until you do have the confirming feeling, so your conclusion will always be to reject any alternative that would alter your pre-determined conclusion. However, in the process, you pass over the reality that your prophets have lied, have given false prophecies, have written and canonized false scripture and have taught false doctrine, and the church members, general authorities and presidents have happily accepted those aberrations as being truthful, and their subjective feelings gave them the confirmation that allowed them to feel secure in their belief even though they were wrong. Moroni 10:4 says nothing about studying the question out in your mind, just as it says nothing about the burning bosom being the confirmation by the Holy Ghost. Moroni 10:5 says that "the truth of all things" can be known using the same criteria in verse 4, but if that is the case, do you know all things, and are you able to apply that same criteria to every single decision in your life so that every one is perfectly correct? Here are some of the contradictions, ambiguities and errors that your prophets have presented that you ignore and do not deal with the consequences, because you do not actually follow the guidelines in Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9 or Moroni 10:4, 5: 1A. God is a Spirit - Book of Mormon, Alma 18:26-28; 22:8-11 1B. God is not a spirit, but a Personage of tabernacle - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22 2A. One God - Book of Mormon, Alma 11:27-39 2B. Many Gods - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 121:32; 132:20 3A. One God created all things - Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:14; Jacob 4:9 3B. God created all things through Jesus Christ - Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Moses 2:1, 26 3B. The Gods created all things - Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 4:1- 31; 5:1-21 (Who are the other Gods? We know that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are said to have been gods while in the preexistence, but who else? Adam?) 4A. God is Jesus Christ, Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:40; 1 Nephi 11:18; 1 Nephi 11:21 (original 1830 edition) 4BA. God is the Father of Jesus Christ, Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:40; 1 Nephi 11:18; 1 Nephi 11:21 (current edition) 5A. God is Jesus Christ - Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 26:12 (current edition) 5B. God and Jesus Christ are separate personages, Joseph Smith, "First Vision" version 2, King Follett Discourse, 1844 5C. God is the father of Jesus Christ, both His spirit and body - current Mormon doctrine 6A. God was judged by the world as the Lamb of God, Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 11:32 (original 1830 edition) 6B. The Son of God was judged as the Lamb of God, Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 11:32 (current edition) 7A. God is Adam - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1 p. 50ff 7B. Adam is not God, doctrine is heresy - Spencer W. Kimball, 1976 8A. God dwells in the heart - Book of Mormon, Alma 34:36 8B. God does not dwell in the heart - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 130:3 9A. God is from eternity (always God - no beginning) - Mosiah 3:5; Moroni 7:22; 8:18; Alma 11:39 9B. God was not always God (once a man - had a beginning) - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse 10A. God's decrees cannot be changed - Book of Mormon, Alma 41:8 10B. God's decrees change when it "seems" good to Him - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 56:4-5 11A. Holy Ghost is undefined as a power or personage in the Book of Mormon 11B. Holy Ghost is the mind of God - Joseph Smith, "Lectures on Faith" 11C. Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse 11D. Holy Ghost is a "Spirit man. He can only be in one place at a time . . ." - Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.359. 12A. Holy Ghost is the father of the temporal body of Jesus Christ- Book of Mormon, Alma 7:10 12B. Holy Ghost is not the father of the temporal body of Jesus Christ - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50ff 12C. God is the father of the temporal body of Jesus Christ - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50ff 12D. God is the father of the temporal body of Jesus Christ - current teaching 13A. No preexistence for man - Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:9; Alma 18:28, 34-36 13B. Man lived in the preexistence - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 93:23, 29-33; Pearl of Great Prince, Book of Abraham 3:18, 21-23 14A. No preexistence taught in the Book of Mormon. 14B. God is the father of all human spirits in the preexistence - Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 132; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 275 14C. Adam as God is the father of all human spirits in the preexistence, Deseret News, June 18, 1873 14D. Adam as God, is the Father of the temporal body of Jesus Christ by means of a sexual union with Mary, His own daughter - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50ff 15A. God created everything that is - Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 17:36; 2 Nephi 2:14-15; Alma 18;28-36 15B. God does not have the power to create the spirit of man - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse 16A. God cannot lie - Book of Mormon, Ether 3:12; 2 Nephi 9:34 16B. God commands lying - Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 2:22- 25 17A. God's word cannot change - Book of Mormon, Alma 41:8 17B. God's word can change - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 56:4-5 18A. No second chance after death - Book of Mormon, Mosiah 2:30-39; Alma 34:32-35 18B. Second chance after death - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 76:106-112; 88:99 19A. Salvation without baptism - Book of Mormon, Moroni 8:22-23; 2 Nephi 9:25-26, Mosiah 15:24-27 19B. Baptism for the dead - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 128:5, 17-16 20A. ". . . natural man is an enemy to God . . ." Book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:19 20B. "The natural man is of God." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 305 20C. ". . . not natural for men to be evil." John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 50 21A. Polygamy condemned - Book of Mormon, Jacob 1:15; 2:34; 3:5; Mosiah 11:2 21B. Polygamy Commanded - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 132:1, 37-39, 61 21C. David and Solomon condemned for polygamy, Book of Mormon, Jacob 1:15 21D. David and Solomon justified for polygamy, Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 132 22A. Adam lived in the Old World - Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 3:8, 10- 15 22B. Adam lived in America - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 107:53; 116:1; 117:8 23A. No paid ministry - Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 28:31; Mosiah 27:5 23B. Paid ministry commanded - Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 42:71-73; 43:12-13; 51:13-14 23C. No paid ministry the in current Mormon church, only "modest living allowances." You do not need the Spirit of the Lord to understand that the above list represents some very real and fundamental problems. But my questions to you are, Why do you presume that I do not have the Spirit of the Lord and what criteria do you use in order to come to that conclusion? All Christians have the Holy Spirit who was promised by Jesus Christ Himself, so you are making a claim about me in relation to something about which you do not know. I think that the questions you want me to consider in relation to a prophet are actually rhetorical in nature, because you have already come to a conclusion and wish for me to conclude the same as you, which is to give a pass to the prophets for failing the Biblical test of a true prophet. You appear to adopt the position that whatever I might say in relation to the Scripture is an opinion or an interpretation, while your prophets speak the truth, and when they don't, it is simply their opinion or interpretation which doesn't make any difference. Why that is acceptable for your prophets and not for me is a contradiction that you will have to explain. That is a convenient back door escape in order to give a pass to the prophets, but does not deal with the issues. Your basic claim is that if a person asks God for the truth, it will have been revealed through a Mormon prophet and confirmed by the subjective nature of feelings and emotions so that the person will believe that it just feels right, so it must be right. You leave an entire volume of revelation out of the equation, asserting that a person cannot read the Bible and understand truth apart from opinion or interpretation, because you do not believe that any person, other than a baptized member of the Mormon church who holds the priesthood has the Holy Spirit, can do that. Where that leaves women, who do not hold the priesthood, is a mystery. Apparently they must simply believe their husbands without question. Adopting that position invalidates the necessity of there being any written revelation, which would also include the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, because none of those writings could be understood apart from the interpretation by the Living Prophet. The issue goes back to the original communication that you sent, in relation to the authority of the Bible, which you claim that the Mormon church accepts, but in reality denies, because authority is vested in the Living Prophet, whose doctrines have left the Bible and the Book of Mormon to history and past generations. As I have noted several times, the Mormon gospel message taught in the church today is not found in the Book of Mormon, but is the product of the Living Prophet. It is inconceivable to you that I could actually read the Bible and come to a correct conclusion regarding what it says, because you believe that can only be done within the parameters of membership in the Mormon church which is necessary for receipt of the Holy Ghost by means of baptism into the church. Unless I have done that, then you state that I am only asserting my opinion, which you reject because you are a member of the Mormon church. That is just one of the differences and issues that divide Orthodox and Mormon belief. I do not accept the imposition of a physical organization between my relationship to God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. That is the Catholic church model of religious control, which brought about the Reformation and is one of the divisions between Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. The problem with the test that you claim that I must apply, is the fact that it only allows one conclusion, because it precludes any negative response. If I conclude differently than what you wish for me to believe, or I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks a different message to me, then you claim that I was not sincere, did not have real intent, was not humble and not asking as a little child. If I do as you say, then I have already accepted as truth, the method that you suggest that is presented in the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:5, which is the very book and method being questioned, which invalidates the test. Does prayer change the evidence that the Book of Mormon and the prophets are not true? Your testimony removes any consideration of those issues, but the issues still remain and the contradictions still require resolution. Why should I pray about Joseph Smith's revelations when they contradict the biblical Scripture? That would be presuming on the goodness of God, by demanding confirmation of truth that He has already confirmed through the Scripture, because if the Bible is true, then Mormon theology is not. That is the reality that you do not wish to consider. Why should I ask God to "prove" Himself, when He has already proven Himself through His Son and the Scripture without any questions from me. The real issue is, that you still cling to the claims of Joseph Smith that the Bible has been corrupted and is unreliable, so you don't accept it as authoritative, but, as I have stated before, the Mormon church has been unable to present the evidence for those claims for over 180 years. What you wish for me to accept is that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Mormon church is the only legitimate church organization on the earth, apart from any legitimate criteria to the contrary. That is an issue that you can only find support through the pronouncements of your prophets, not the Book of Mormon, not the Bible and not the history of the New Testament church, but you hope I will accept the claim because it just feels right to you. You place your trust in the Living Prophet, claiming that he is giving you the straight revelation from God that is truth, but that does not appear to be the case, since revelation through the Living Prophet in the Mormon church has been in a constant state of flux and contradiction: 1A. Aaron told the king that God was a Great Spirit, Alma 22:9-11 1B. Prophet Joseph Smith originally said that God was a personage of spirit, Lectures On Faith, Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, p. 53. 1C. Prophet Joseph Smith rejected those claims and teachings and changed the definition of God to a personage of tabernacle, Doctrine and Covenants, 84. 2A. Aaron told the king the message of the gospel that contained nothing about baptism or joining a church, Alma 22:15-18 2B. Now, the prophets have changed that message, and you must be baptized into the Mormon church to satisfy just one of the numerous elements of the Mormon gospel message. 3A. Aaron told the king, "And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance . . ," Alma 22:14a 3B. Now, the prophets have changed that, and claim that your works of righteousness are a necessary part of your appropriation of the atonement, and they are the sole factor leading to your exaltation. 3C. The Book of Mormon says that human beings cannot atone for sins, because the sacrifice must be "infinite and eternal," Alma 34:9-14 3D. Brigham Young taught that there are some sins that are not covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 53-54, but must be atoned for by the sinner requiring their death by the shedding of their blood (Blood Atonement), which is church doctrine today, so the atonement of Jesus Christ must not have been infinite and eternal. Those sins are, murder, adultery (second time, the first time can be forgiven), stealing, apostasy, taking the Lord's name in vain, breaking covenants and marrying or having sexual relations with a person of black skin. 4A. Prophet Brigham Young taught the church to worship Adam as God and as the literal Father of Jesus Christ, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51.. 4B. Prophet Wilford Woodruff taught the Adam-God doctrine. 4C. Prophets John Taylor (who succeeded Brigham Young), Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee did not address the issue as heresy and it was not declared so until Prophet Spencer W. Kimball declared it heresy in 1976 5A. Alma, the high priest, stated that Jesus Christ would be born by the power of the Holy Ghost and would be the Son of God, making the Holy Ghost and God the same person as the father of Jesus Christ, Alma 7:10. 5B. Prophet Brigham Young changed that truth some 1900 years later when he declared that the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus Christ, which is now official Mormon doctrine. 6A. Prophet Abinadi said that God would come to earth to be the Redeemer and that God and Jesus Christ were one person, "And they are one god, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." Mosiah 15:1-5. 6B. Prophet Joseph Smith changed that revelation and stated that God and Jesus Christ were separate persons as father and son. 7A. The Book of Mormon and the Bible state that Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit). 7B. Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith denied that to be he case in spite of the fact that the statements are written in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible: "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 19 8A. In the official version of Joseph Smith's "First Vision," he states that he saw both the Father and the Son in person. 8B. In 1832, Joseph Smith claimed to have received a revelation stating in part that the priesthood was necessary to see God, which was 12 years after he saw God in the "First Vision" without the priesthood: "And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live." Doctrine and Covenants, 84:21-22. You have asked me to "prove" God, but it is Joseph Smith and the Living Prophets who need to be proved, because they have failed the test of a true prophet according to God's own standards. God has already proved the issue, stated in His own words, so I will defer to his judgment and not to some subjective test of the emotions. The Mormon Challenge Monday, September 15 Hi Gary, You have written: The apostle Paul gave instructions to Timothy, who was not an apostle, in relation to his place as a pastor. So, according to the Bible, any claim that an apostolic position is necessary in order to understand the Scripture is a false assertion. T I don't really understand your argument as it is really lengthy and I cannot find the point. I will comment on the above though: We can agree easily that there is no need to claim to be an apostle to understand the scripture. As a matter of fact, that is my argument to you all along. While you assert that one needs to agree with your interpretation of the Bible to be right (or the protestant precepts), the LDS says that anyone has access to God. And if anyone wants to know the truth all s/he has to do is ask God directly with humility and he will reveal the truth to him. There is no need to interpret this or that, just ask God he will reveal it to you. And mind you, even if there were no Bible, every one would have the same right, access, and privilege and would be able to know the truth for themselves. Therefore, one doesn't really need a book to know the truth, all s/he needs to do is to ask the Father in the name of Christ with humility and the Father will reveal the truth to him by the Holy Ghost. When God has His church organized or in other instances He commands His servants to record these revelations for further use. There is no need to be an apostle or a seventy or a bishop to understand the scriptures. The scriptures come from God. Scripture is every word that comes out of the mouth of God in any age. Therefore, God being a loving Father wants every one of his children to understand and know the scriptures, because when it comes from His mouth they are His will for the salvation of man. It is easy if we record what comes out of His mouth so we can refer back to them. However, if you take the Bible and try to make God agree with what you interpret of it, it is the same as going backwards, because God is the one that gave the revelations recorded in the Bible in the first place. The Bible is not an end in itself, it has no authority in itself as it is a text as any. It is only a record of the will of God to certain people at a certain era, which happens to be applicable to us today because God loves us too. What has authority is the word that comes out of the mouth of God, independently whether it is written or not On Doctrine Reply I don't think you are trying very hard to understand what I wrote, not because it was difficult or unclear, but because you don't really want to deal with those issues. I don't like to deal with issues either because they give me a headache, but I do deal with them because they must be resolved. You resolve the issues by asserting your testimony to yourself, which allows you to pass them by as if they don't really matter. But they do matter in relation to truth. You state that what I say is found in the Bible is only my opinion and my interpretation, but what you find in the Bible and Mormon Scripture is the mind of God. If my "opinion" or "interpretation" does not conform to your "truth" then you reject it, because it does not conform to the statements of doctrine presented by your prophets, not because God has confirmed the truth to you. You said, "There is no need to be an apostle or a seventy or a bishop to understand the scriptures. The scriptures come from God. Scripture is every word that comes out of the mouth of God in any age. Therefore, God being a loving Father wants every one of his children to understand and know the scriptures, because when it comes from His mouth they are His will for the salvation of man."Why do you presume that God is a loving Father in relation to your understanding of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures so that you know the truth, but He is not a loving Father to me in relation to understanding the Bible, and only allows me to express my "opinion" or give a wrong "interpretation"? What you are actually saying is that God can confirm truth to me, but the only truth that the Mormon church allows to me is the confirmation that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God and that the Mormon church is the only true and legitimate organization on the earth, and that the Living Prophets are the conduits of modern revelation for a modern people. If I wish any truth after that, then I must repent, join and be baptized into the Mormon church and receive the priesthood. Outside of a confirmation that Joseph Smith and the Mormon church are true, spiritual truth for me exists only within the context of membership in the Mormon church, and no one outside of membership in the Mormon church has any truth or can exercise any valid faith. That is why Joseph Smith wrote in the Book of Mormon: "Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth."You place Scripture on the same subjective level as you do the definition of truth, which is that specific truths apply in one instance but do not in another. You claim that the Scripture (the Bible) is subject to that same criteria, as you stated, "The Bible is not an end in itself, it has no authority in itself as it is a text as any. It is only a record of the will of God to certain people at a certain era, which happens to be applicable to us today because God loves us too."For you, the Bible, as it may contain truth, applies only to truth in specific situations, to a specific people at a specific time, and only applies today as it is interpreted as being relevant by the Living Prophet. As I have mentioned before, you claim that the Mormon church accepts the Bible as authoritative, which I have said that it does not, and you have confirmed what I said in your statement. If the Bible represents the words and revelation of God, then why do you actually believe that it is not authoritative? You adopt that position, just as have your prophets and general authorities, because they do not say the same things as the Bible says, just as they do not say the same things as the Book of Mormon in relation to the Mormon gospel message. The major doctrines of the Mormon gospel message are not based on or found in the Bible and not even based on or found in the Book of Mormon. I maintain two basic assertions on the website which underlay what I write about the Mormon church, and they are: 1. The Mormon church rejects the authority of the Bible because the current Mormon doctrines of the gospel are not based on the Bible. 2. The Mormon gospel message today is not found in the Book of Mormon because the prophets have taken to themselves the definition of truth and the substance of revelation, by which they have become the foundation of doctrine, and by which all previous definitions of truth and the substance of any previous revelations can and are changed as a matter of convenience as Mormon doctrine is changed by them. As Mormon doctrine has changed over the years, it has come into increasing conflict with the Biblical Scripture, which does not change its doctrines and gospel message, requiring that the Mormon prophets interpret the Bible to say what it does not and insert Mormon doctrine into passages where it never existed. |
|
 COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE Bible | STORE |