Author: fourpointer

by

“Purpose” = “Compromise”

Rick Warren, pastor of the Church at Laodicea Saddleback Church, in an effort to show homosexuals that he could be just as tolerant of their sin as the next person, visited a gay thrift store in West Hollywood–all in the name of “Purpose” and “Unity” you know. You can see him trying to strike a “tolerant” pose here, with his arm around the openly gay owner of the store.

From TMZ.com:

We got this pic, taken yesterday at Out of the Closet thrift store. That’s Warren on the right (naturally), his arm around Erol Sarabi, who is openly gay. Warren, who supports the ban on gay marriage which has not sat real well with some Obama supporters, bought 8 to 10 books, two of which were his own (that doesn’t help with his Amazon ranking). Warren told Sarabi not to believe everything he reads, that he does a lot for AIDS research and was happy that Out of the Closet does free AIDS testing.

“Two of which were his own?” Are you kidding me?? He’s happy they do free AIDS testing? Is he happy they are living in outright sin also?

From another blog:

Meanwhile, in another attempt to soften his anti-homosexual stance, Warren pulled a message from his website. John Aravosis of Americablog noticed that Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church website on Friday said it explicitly bans gay “unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle” to become members. That message has since been removed. But one thing that hasn’t been permanently removed but “rather repurposed for clarity” is the site’s Q & A section addressing homosexuality. Kristin Cole, the press representative for the Saddleback Church purportedly e-mailed the gay website queerty saying:

I wanted to make sure you were aware that the Q & A addressing homosexuality on the Saddleback Church Web site has not been permanently removed, but rather repurposed for clarity. I know your readers have noticed the change. Click here and play the recorded answer to question 22, “What does the Bible say homosexuality?”

Is Rick Warren ashamed of taking–and maintaining–a biblical stance against homosexuality? It seems as though the quote from Martin Luther posted by Desert Pastor should be passed along to Mr. Warren.

I have to wonder something: how did the media get wind of this? How did TMZ find out that Mr. Purpose was at this thrift store? Paparazzi? I doubt it. How many Hollywood photogs are following Rick Warren around, cataloging his every move? No doubt The P.E.A.C.E. Pastor had someone put out the word he was visiting this place so they could do a photo-op of this event. It’s obvious the store owner didn’t approach Warren about having this picture taken, let alone forward it to the media.

You know, it wouldn’t seem so fishy if the Purpose Driven Pope hadn’t just been chosen to do the invocation at the inauguration for The Obamanation with all the kerfluffle that surrounded it. But the timing, the chutzpah, the obvious ham-handed attempt to look “tolerant” to those who are very intolerant of Christians–all in the name of “Purpose”–This was one big PR stunt meant to drive up book sales–Pastor Warren’s favorite “Purpose.”

by

Quiz

In 1559, Pope Pius IV gave the following excuse for not allowing people to read the Bible in their native tongue:

Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of the bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles.

Several years later, another writer said the following:

Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful…Since the word of God should be available at all times…suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.

Question: Who is the source for this second quote? And no fair Googling.

by

9 out of 10 dogs prefer to be house-trained with Newsweek

newsweek

After all, that seems to be about all that worthless rag seems to be good for lately. Consider their latest cover story–“Our Mutual Joy“, the attempt of one writer (Lisa Miller) to use Scripture to support homosexual marriage. She begins with an argument we have heard so many times from our LDS visitors:

Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

Ho-hum. This argument, when examined in light of Scripture, falls so flat on its face that even Joan Rivers’ plastic surgeon couldn’t fix it. Without going into detail, if you read the FULL accounts of these stories, you find that they paid a steep price for their adultery/polygamy (Abram + Hagar = Ishmael; David’s adultery with Bathsheba led to Absalom’s revolt; Solomon’s polygamy led to the troubles he outlines in Ecclesiastes. I adressed the issue of polygamy here.)

She then goes on to equate the “plight” of homosexuals being “denied the right to marry” with the battle over slavery in the US. I will not even dignify that crass accusation with comment.

Then she comes out with this gem:

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Uh…yeah…right. She might want to actually read the Bible before she comments on it. Matthew 19:4-6—And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who madethem at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Who has she been having Bible study with? Jack Black? “A MAN shall be joned to his WIFE.” These are both in the SINGULAR. Man. Wife. No plurals. 1st Timothy 3:2, 12—A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior…Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world.

Continue reading →

by

“JEHOVAH”–God’s “personal name?”

DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this post is NOT to discourage the use of the name “Jehovah.” The purpose is to dispel the notion put forth by the Watchtower Society that it is the ONLY name we are to use when referring to God. There is nothing wrong with using “Jehovah,” nor is it the only name we can use. That said…

———————————————————–

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS, OR WT for short) has spent years trumpeting that they alone use, quote, “The personal name of God.” But do they really?

Question–How many Jews, speaking Hebrew, about 4000 years ago, in the Middle East, used the sound we associate with the letter “J”?

Answer–“Yeah, I’d like to answer that. Uh, what?”

Now, I don’t claim to be a Hebrew scholar, but I have studied what many have had to say on this subject. That said, let’s take a look at the evolution of the name “JEHOVAH.”

For the sake of those of you who may be new to the Bible, whenever you see the word “LORD” in all capital letters in the Old Testament, that is how the translators render the Hebrew word יהוה (Reading right-to-left, the Hebrew characters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh. Transliterated into our alphabet, literally, “YHVH”).

Now, keep in mind that the Hebrew alphabet has no vowels to speak of (any Hebrew scholars, feel free to correct me here). So the writer would insert dots (called “vowel points”) above, under, and/or inside the characters to indicate the proper pronunciation. And according to most Bible scholars who have studied biblical Hebrew, the correct pronunciation would be “YAW-vey.”

Next, we bring in the Hebrew word “Adonai,” which translates into “Lord.” Eventually, because of the dispersions the Jews suffered, the Hebrew language began to fade. Legend has it that about 200 years before christ, Hebrew scribes began adding the vowel points for “Adonai” to the Tetragrammaton, (Either out of reverence for God’s name, or out of superstition they would mispronounce it, depending on who you read), thus making it to read “YaHoVaH” when transliterated into English. English changes over the years, the “Y” becomes a “J”, the first “a” becomes an “e” and we now have “Jehovah.”

This is where things get tricky for the JW. According to OFFICIAL WTBTS MATERIAL [Emphasis mine],

“The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book “Pugeo Fidei” of the year 1270.” (from Jehovah’s Witnesses own book “Aid to Bible Understanding” p.884)

In other words, the WTBTS considers the “personal name of God” to be a name erroneously invented by a 13th Century Catholic Monk. Their excuse? [Emphasis mine]

Today many Hebrew scholars prefer Yahweh as the true pronunciation.

However, consistency favors Jehovah. In what way? The pronunciation Jehovah has been accepted in English for centuries.

Those who object to using this pronunciation should also object to the use of the accepted pronunciation Jeremiah and even Jesus. Jeremiah would need to be changed to Yir·meyah’ or Yir·meya’hu, the original Hebrew pronunciations, and Jesus would become Ye·shu’a` (Hebrew) or I·e·sous’ (Greek). Hence, many Bible students, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, feel that consistency favors the use of the already well-known English-language “Jehovah” and its equivalent in other languages.

Stop! Ummmm, wait a sec. We have to pronounce it “Jehovah” in English–but it has, quote, “its equivalent in other languages.” So, if you pronounce THE EQUIVALENT in other languages, you don’t have to pronounce it “Jehovah.” But if you speak English, you have to say “Jehovah.” What about Jews? How are they supposed to pronounce it? I’m confused.

OK, so help me out here. The WTBTS is trying to tell us that the proper pronunciation of, quote, “The personal name of God” DEPENDS ON ITS ACCEPTANCE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (Or its equivalent in other languages)??? So, basically, Moses, David, Solomon, Abraham–these men did not know how to properly pronounce this name because THEY DIDN’T SPEAK ENGLISH!!

Oh, then there’s this one, from the Watchtower magazine itself [Emphasis mine]:

“…down through the centuries, the correct pronunciation of the divine name in Hebrew has been lost. Hence, it is uncertain what vowels should be used to fill in the name.”(Watchtower, Feb.1, 1980).

There is also evidence from other sources that “YAW-vey” is closer to the true pronunciation. From Let Us Reason Ministries [Emphasis mine]:

THE UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA says “JEHOVAH is an erroneous pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, a four lettered name of God, made up of the Hebrew letters Yod He Vav He. The word “JEHOVAH” therefore is a misreading for which there is no warrant and which makes no sense in Hebrew. The Hebrew letters point to a Yod Y…the more correct pronunciation is Yahweh or some form deriving from the same consonants. For example Yah is used in its shorter form in Ex.15:2 and 17:15, Isa.12:2 and Ps.118:14 .

The WTBTS is not sure what vowels should be used. They believe that the English rendering of YHVH is to be trusted over the rendering given by those who speak the language the Old Testament was written in. They say that we non-JW’s don’t use the real, quote, “personal name of God” when they themselves don’t even know what it is.

Oops.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 21)

fairWell, semester number 1 is over, I have about a month until the spring term begins, so let’s pick back up with our “50 Answers” segment. We pick up with the ancient Egyptian pagan mummy burial manual Book of Abraham.

Tower To Truth Question:

21. Does the LDS Church still regard the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price as Holy Scripture even after several prominent Egyptologists proved it was an ancient funeral scroll?

————————

FAIR Answer:

The LDS Church announced that fragments of the papyrus were from the Book of Breathings within two months of their acquisition.

The big print in the Church magazine published as soon as the scrolls were recovered can be seen here.

Critics often don’t tell people that we are missing at least 85% of the scrolls that Joseph Smith had. We don’t have papyrus with the Book of Abraham on it (except Facsimile #1) and have never claimed to.

To learn more: Book of Abraham:Book of the Dead

—————————-

My Response:

Currently, there are 10 fragments of the 11 papyri that Joseph Smith bought that became what we now know as the “Book of Abraham.” And wouldn’t you know it? The one that contained the actual text of the BOA is the one that no one can find. Gee, imagine that!

As I mentioned in my last Answer–stay focused. Again, in this response, FAIR is trying to take the focus off the main issue. That being, since the papyri that were recovered in NY’s Metropolitan Museum of Art were indeed part of the set of papyri that Joseph Smith was duped into believing were writings of Abraham, “written by his own hand upon papyrus,” and since, from the day Joseph found them, he purported that all of the papyri were the writings of the Jewish patriarch–then the fact that none of the papyri that survived the Chicago fire had anything to do with Abraham, and since the 10 remaining fragments are from the Egyptian “Book of Breathings” then I find it quite a remarkable coincidence that the only fragment that did NOT survive contained the actual text of the Book of Abraham.

Here’s the timeline:

  • July 1835: Michael Chandler and his travelling Egyptian exhibit rolls into Kirtland, OH. Chandler, upon hearing that Joseph Smith has translated ancient Egyptian (oops, sorry, I mean Reformed Egyptian) into English, sells Smith a set of papyri written entirely in Egyptian.
  • November 1835: Smith completes his “translation” of the papyri, and declares that these are the writings of Abraham–that they contain the account of Abram’s and Sarai’s journey into Egypt (found in Genesis 12:10-20).
  • 1844: Joseph Smith is killed in a Carthage, IL jail. The papyri are turned over to his mother, Lucy Mack Smith.
  • 1856: Lucy Smith dies. Emma Hale Smith, Joseph Smith III, and Emma’s second husband Lewis Bidamon, sell the papyri to Abel Combs. Two of the papyri were sent to be displayed in the St. louis (MO) Museum.
  • 1863: The St. Louis Museum closes, and the papyri are sent to the Chicago Museum (later renamed Wood’s Museum after its new owner Joseph Wood.
  • 1871: The Great Chicago Fire destroys Wood’s Museum, and the Egyptian papyri contained there. After this event, it was believed that the original Book of Abraham papyri would never be seen again.
  • 1947: Ludlow Bell, curator of theNew York Metropolitan Museum of Art, obtains several Egyptian papyri from one edward Heusser, widower of Alice Combs Weaver Heusser, daughter of Abel Combs’ housekeeper.
  • 1966: Aziz Suryal Atiya discovers Facsimile #1 in the Egyptian Collection at the Met.
  • 1967: LDS apologist Hugh Nibley–a man with NO training in Egyptian linguistics, takes a crash course under John Wilson and Klaus Baer in an attempt to learn enough to do some translating.
  • 1968: The LDS publication Improvement Era publishes an article containing color reproductions of a fragment that had been in the LDS archives since 1908.
  • 1968: Egyptian linguist Klaus Baer confirms that the Egyptian papyri that Michael Chandler sold to Joseph Smith were in fact part of an Egyptian embalming manual. They were not written by Abraham.

In fact, even as far back as 1856, an Egyptologist at the Louvre noted that there were several lacunae (missing portions) in the papyri, and that the attempts by Joseph Smith to fill them in were simply fueled by Smith’s imagination, and were nothing more than guesses.

So, where does that bring us? It brings us to the argument that FAIR is making, that even though we do not have the original text of the Book of Abraham (just like we don’t have the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, reformed Egyptian has neveer been heard, etc), we should believe the BOA is a sacred text, as much from God as the Bible–even though it was nothing more than a page in an Egyptian–a PAGAN Egyptian–funerary manual.

Well, just how good of an Egyptian linguist was our good “prophet?” Let’s talk to the experts (via Wikipedia):

Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted, of the University of Chicago noted:

“… these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”
Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

 

 

“It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations”
Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud…. Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”
Egyptologist Theodule Deveria also noted that portions of Facsimile 1 appeared to be incorrect, based on comparison with other similar Egyptian vignettes, and suspected that they had been reconstructed from lacunae in the original papyri. The papyri containing Facsimile 1 is acknowledged by Egyptologists to be a version of The Book of Breathings.

Granted, these men are more than likely humanistic scientists. And, granted, they didn’t have a peep stone so they could stick the papyrus in a hat and read what it said. But they are experts at deciphering hieroglyphics and interpreting Egyptian characters. And, once again, we have another reason why one should not believe the Book of Abraham to be true.

 

For a more in-depth discussion of this “Book of Abraham,” the Institute for Religious Research has put together the following video, “The Lost Book of Abraham.” It’s about an hour long, but if you’ve got time, and you’re interested, it’s worth it.

by

George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Address, 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

by

The lighter side of Reformation Day

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law;
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter’s profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints’ Bull’tin board:
“You cannot purchase merits, for we’re justified by grace!
Here’s 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!” Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
“Are these your books? Do you recant?” King Charles did demand,
“I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!” Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation –
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting “George” as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin’s model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation –
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Let’s raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that ‘catholic’ is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance! Oh…

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation –
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let’s start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

by

Obama’s Muslim faith

Oops! Barry Hussein slips up in an interview and discloses just where his “faith” is–and it ain’t in the Christian God! Barry lets it slip that his “god” is the Muslim “god” Allah. And the most galling thing about this clip–he doesn’t even blink! When it comes to profesional liars, this guy make Bill Clinton look like an ameteur.

Well, I did my early voting yesterday, and cast my vote against Islam and Sharia Law. I ain’t voting for a baby-killing Muslim.

by

America? Or Rome?

Back in September, Pilgrim posted a video of Voddie Baucham (pronounced BAHK-um) talking about the American public ejuhkashun, I mean, edgumaqatian, um, skrool system, and how “If we continue to send our children to Caesar for their education, we need to stop being surprised when they come home as Romans.”

Lately I have been noticing how the society we now live in is very similar to the days of the Roman Empire.

For example…

Rome

  • Romans’ popular cry was “Bread and Games!”
  • Romans delighted in gladiators and chariot races.
  • Romans put a high emphasis on knowledge, physical skills and attributes.
  • Romans were easily amused by theater.
  • Romans were given to drinking much wine.
  • Rome allowed you to belong to any religion you wanted so long as you understood that the Caesar was God.
  • Rome did everything they could to destroy Christians.

America

  • America Fills itself with potato chips and football.
  • America delights in Ultimate Fighting and NASCAR.
  • America puts a high emphasis on trivia, glamour, and physical attraction
  • America is easily amused by TV and movies.
  • America is given to much wine, beer, whiskey, Scotch, vodka, malt liquor, wine coolers…
  • America allows you to belong to any religion you want so long as you remember that the government is God.

How long until America begins doing everything it can to destroy Christians?

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 20)

Tower To Truth Question:

20. Since the word grace means a free gift that can’t be earned, why does the Book of Mormon state “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2_Ne. 25:23)

————————–

FAIR Answer:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes the same thing about grace that the earliest Christians believed. Modern Protestant ideas are different from earlier teachings, which is fine, but it doesn’t make Mormon ideas “false” if we agree with how the earliest followers of Jesus saw the matter.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

If there’s any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it’s the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don’t hold to this doctrine aren’t really Christians…

Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there’s an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the “false dilemma,” by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it’s either (1) a gift from God or (2) it’s something we earn by our works.

The early Christians [and the Latter-day Saints!] would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it’s conditioned on obedience….

The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.

—David W. Bercot, Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today’s Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity, 3rd edition, (Tyler, Texas: Scroll Publishing Company, 1999[1989]), 57, 61–62. ISBN 0924722002.

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the modified doctrines adopted later.

Further, the phrase “after all we can do” must be interpreted in light of other Book of Mormon passages which define “all we can do” as repentance and being forgiven of sin and cleansed of guilt (see Alma 24:10-12).

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, on of the present day apostles, spoke on these issues and doctrines thoroughly:

Dallin H. Oaks, “Have You Been Saved?,” Ensign (May 1998): 55. off-site
To learn more:

Grace wiki articles
Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?
Early Christian views on salvation
Relationship between works and grace [needs work]
Salvation by faith alone
Unforgivable sin

—————————–

My Response:

This is one of the core issues that separates the LDS system from true followers of Christ–the same question asked by the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:30—“What must I do to be saved?” So, what is the answer to that question? Well, the LDS believe that the Bible–and the Ante-Nicene Fathers–taught salvation by works. This is a total misinterpretation of what has been written. Good works are the mark of a true believer, and as James said, faith without works is dead (James 2:20). But we are not saved by our works.

And by appealing to the Early Church Fathers, they once again take the focus off of what the Bible says. We will address the word of God in a moment, but let’s just look at some of the quotes listed at the link entitled “Early Christian views on salvation.” First, the first quote from Justin Martyr, a quote that is taken so far out of context it may never find its way back:

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) said “works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:249, chap 100, Dialogue with Trypho)

Let’s look at the ENTIRE quote:

And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100)

This is just one more way that FAIR continues to lose crdibility. If they are going to quote someone, at least quote them fairly (pun intended). But nah, they would just rather find a quote with the words “work” and “salvation” and throw it to people who won’t take the time to do research about the actual quote. Because, after all, it’s us “anti-Mormons” who are the liars. Well, here, Justin was talking about Mary, who as a virgin conceived the body of Jesus by the Holy Ghost. This Jesus is the one who “works deliverence…” Next quote from Justin:

“by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:185, chap. 65, First Apology of Justin)

But Justin is not talking about being saved by our works. He is emphasizing the point made by James in James 2:20 (quoted above) and by Peter in 2nd Peter 1:10—Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall. In other words, show the world that you are saved, and do the good works that remind you of the salvation brought to you by Christ Jesus.

The other quotes they use, from such men as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Theophilus, are of the same type. They are not saying that we are saved by our works, but that doing good works proves that we are saved. You see, salvation by faith does not just mean “I believe the facts.” And that’s what James says when he writes You believe there is one God? You do well! Even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).

Let’s look at the word “salvation.” To Christians, this is a term that refers to our being forgiven of our sins, and having, even now, eternal life with Christ. But what do the LDS believe about “salvation?” Well, they have a very different view of what salvation is than do Christians.

See, the LDS teach that all people will be resurrected, and their spirit, soul, and body reunited after death. This was made possible by Christ’s work, which they believe began in Gethsemane and was finished on the Cross. But when the Mormon talks about salvation, they really mean “exaltation”–receiving the highest glory in the highest “Celestial” kingdom. This they receive because of their works. The more works they do, the more points they earn, and the closer to “exaltation” they get. So, contrary to FAIR’s above claim, they are NOT “in the company of the earliest Christians.”

So, what does the Bible say about “salvation by works?” Well, if you go to a Southern Baptist church, you have no doubt had Ephesians 2:8-9 stamped into your forehead. By grace you have been saved through faith and that is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, and not of works lest any man should boast. But see, FAIR sidesteps the whole issue of what exactly grace is. Which is what they do with all of their “answers.” They do not address the issue directly, but rather (a) smear God or his prophets, or they will (b) send people down a side road that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

So, what is the sequence? Well, first, when we are born, we are born into sin. And it is only by being quickened by the Holy Spirit that we can see that. Ephesians 2:1-3—1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. We were dead. Our spirit was dead to God. And only HE can bring it to life, because we were too busy chasing the things of this world.

Why? Because we are sinful creatures. Romans 5:12—Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. Romans 3:10, 23—There is none righteous, no, not one…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So, how are we justified? Well, we find the answer in the very next verse. Romans 3:24—being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. In fact, go through the entire New Testament. Try and find one place where it says that it is our works that save us. Nah, don’t bother. You won’t find it.

So, what is grace? Grace is this: God created everything, gave Adam everything he would ever need, but Adam wanted more. He wanted to be like God–in fact, wanted to BE GOD–and he rebelled against God’s command, plunging all of humanity into sin. Thus, we are all born as sinful, rebellious creatures who have no desire to know God. But God, because of His GRACE, sent His Son to pay the penalty and the debt that we owed, so that all who accept that sacrifice will be forgiven of their sins, and will be accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:6). We are saved by the grace of God, through our faith in Christ–not because we somehow “earn” that grace, nor is it conditioned on anything we can do. We only repent because God gives us the ability to do so.

Finally, let’s look at the Mormon idea of “grace.” In the LDS teaching manual “Gospel Principles,” they talk about a man who owed a great debt, which was paid by another who gave him an eternity to repay him. Elder Boyd K. Packer related a “parable” about this refinancing in Gospel Principles, pp. 75-77.

But let me tell you the way it really is: You see, to a Mormon, grace is nothing more than Financial Aid. God stands far away, and says, “You have a debt to pay. You pay off as much of it as you can, and I’ll make up the difference.” But that’s not how it is. Salvation by the grace of God means this: That we owed a debt–A 3 BILLION DOLLAR DEBT–and there was no way we could even begin to pay it with our own righteousness. Because the little trinkets of our “good deeds” are nothing more than filhty rags (Isaiah 64:6). No, my frined, God does not command us to “do good works,” and then promise to save us “after we have done all that we can do.” He pays off the debt completely, wiping it out with the blood of Christ.

Tetelestai!

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 19)

Tower To Truth Question:

19. Why do you baptize for the dead when both Mosiah 3:25 and the Bible state that there is no chance of salvation after death?

—————————–

FAIR Answer:

The passage in Mosiah 3:25, and any passages in the Bible which also imply there is no chance of salvation after death, are clearly addressed to those who have the opportunity to repent in this life. Those who have not, by no fault of their own, embraced the everlasting gospel in this life will have the opportunity to do so after death.

The critics are on thin ice with this attack—do they wish us to believe in a God so unjust that He would damn someone for all eternity, simply because they never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus?

Why wouldn’t members of the Church baptize for the dead, when the Bible teaches this idea? (See 1_Cor. 15:29.)

To learn more:Baptism for the dead

————————

My Response:

This is another of the most oft-debated issues in the Christian-Mormon dialog. And it is another issue where the LDS system, sadly, has so misinterpreted the Bible that one is hard-pressed to know how to start. But, start we must. Let’s begin with the LDS position, and see how their “scriptures” read.

Mosiah 3:24-27—And thus saith the Lord: They shall stand as a bright testimony against this people, at the judgment day; whereof they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil. And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls. Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever. And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen.

Notice some things about this passage. Notice that in the Mormon system, salvation comes based on our works. …they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil. And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations. According to this passage, if our works are evil, we will be condemned. This is a total contradiction of 2nd Corinthians 5:10—For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Thing is, The Judgment Seat of Christ is not about “judging” us to determine where we spend eternity. If one is standing at the Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ, that man is already saved, and is destined for Paradise. 2nd Cor. 5:9 has a parallel passage in 1st Corinthians 3:13-15—the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Will the person be tested by fire? No, his works will be tested. But even if the works are burned up, the person will be saved. The passage in Mosiah is diametrically opposed to the truth of the Bible.

Next, in the verse from Mosiah, the person whose works are evil will suffer “a state of misery and endless torment…” I’m not sure which original Reformed Egyptian word was used here, but in most languages, “endless” means Endless. Without end. Perpetual. Never ending. So, these that are “evil” are in a state of endless torment.

From whence they can no more return. Again, the wording is very clear. They cannot escape the state they are in. “…they can no more return.” What else does it say about these? they have drunk damnation to their own souls. They have been condemned, consigned to a never-ending state of misery, a place they can never leave. Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit. God’s justice must be done, and in order for that justice to be done, these people must be tormented forever. If they are not, then God’s justice is denied. therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever. Once these people have died. Once these people have been condemned. Once these people have drunk down the cup of God’s wrath. There is no more mercy for them. This is right in their very own Book of Mormon! Once this person dies, their chances for mercy have ended! They are consigned to eternal torment.

And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen. Now, look closely. It says their torment is “AS” a lake of fire, &c. They will suffer a fate that feels like a lake of fire, and they will burn forever and ever. No matter what kind of spin they try to put on this, there is no denying that the wicked, who deny Christ in this lifetime and do wicked works, will suffer endlessly, they will suffer by burning, and the smoke that is caused by their being burned will ascend forever. There are no conditions. There are no addendums. There are no escape clauses. There is no “Unless someone does something for them.” This is where the other LDS “scriptures” come in. Since Joseph Smith forgot to put anything in the BOM about baptism for the dead, it had to be added later on, in the other books he fabricated.

In their statement above, FAIR claims, “The passage in Mosiah 3:25, and any passages in the Bible which also imply there is no chance of salvation after death, are clearly addressed to those who have the opportunity to repent in this life. Those who have not, by no fault of their own, embraced the everlasting gospel in this life will have the opportunity to do so after death.” [emphasis mine]. Clearly? By whose reasoning? There is nothing in these passages from the Bible that say anything about whether the person “[had] the opportunity to repent in this life.” In fact, what do a couple of Bible passages tell us?

Hebrews 9:27—And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment… We are born, we live, we die, we are judged. Notice, the writer says “THE judgment.” We are judged worthy (by virtue of our faith in christ) or unworthy (by our rejection of Him).

Luke 16:25-26–“But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'” There is no way for the rich man to leave where he is.

So what does the Bible say about those who never hear the gospel? Romans 2:12, 14-15—12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law…14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them). Those who neve hear the gospel do have the law written on their hearts, although they do not acknowledge it comes from God. They have a conscience, and when they do the things in the Law, even though they have never heard the Law, that conscience carries the ame weight as the whole of the Law. As Paul said in the preceding chapter, so they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

“The critics are on thin ice with this attack—do they wish us to believe in a God so unjust that He would damn someone for all eternity, simply because they never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus?” No, friend. FAIR is the one calling God unjust, because that is indeed what he does. That does not make God “unjust,” contrarily it makes Him perfectly just.

Romans 9:14-16, 19-23–14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy…19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory?

To say that God MUST give everybody a chance to hear the gospel is to command of God that He bend to the feeble whims of human “fairness.” If that’s what FAIR wants to do, then be my guest. I will rather believe in a God who has every right to condemn the whole lot of the human race for our years of rebellion against Him.

Now, as for this matte of “baptism for the dead.” Never has an entire doctrine, built upon such a shaky foundation, ever caused so many headaches. Even the greatest theologians, historians, expositors and commentators who have wrestled with this passage for years are not much closer to an answer now than any have been in the past. But we do know this much: it is NOT talking about baptizing living people in place of dead people so the dead people can go on to some higher “glory.” In fact, there is nothing–NOTHING–that ANYBODY can do for someone, once that person has died. they are dead, they have been judged. Period. Paragraph.

1st Corinthians 15:29–Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? Notice something here: Paul says, what will they do who are baptized for the dead…? If Paul had meant to say that christians can be baptized vicariously for anyone who died before, then it only stands to reason he would have said something like, what will those of us do who are baptized for the dead…? At any rate, this verse cannot mean what the LDS system claims it means, since baptism can only come after a person hears the gospel and believes–and only in this lifetime (See Acts 16:32-33).

by

Todd Bentley’s “Circus and Travelling Sideshow” headed for Knoxville (MAYBE)

UPDATE: The Circus may not be coming to town after all. Much thanks to Douglas (Black Reforming Kid) and Scott771, who have pointed out that Todd Bentley’s own camp is admitting that he has been having an “unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff.” This didn’t come from any of us–those are the words of Fraud Fire Fresh Fire Ministries themselves, and you can read the whole statement on their homepage. You can read more about the fiasco at Religion News Blog.

=============================

I just learned this from reading one of Berean Wife’s comments, that the Todd Bentley Show is going to be making a stop in my neck of the woods, Knoxville, TN, near the end of September. Please pray for me, that I would understand what God would have me to do, who to call on for support in witnessing at this fiasco, and that He would open the eyes of those who have been blinded by this charade.

PS–there is a local church here that is doing publicity for this thing. May God help me to reach them as well.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answers 17 & 18)

Tower To Truth Question #17:

17. If the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel,” why does the LDS Church need additional works?

——————————-

FAIR Answer #17:

The Book of Mormon’s definition of “fulness of the gospel” is not “all truths taught in the Church.” The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ’s atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Critics do not trouble to understand what the Book of Mormon says before attacking it.

To learn more: Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

============================

Tower To Truth Question #18:

18. If the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel,” why doesn’t it say anything about so many important teachings such as eternal progression, celestial marriage, the Word of Wisdom, the plurality of Gods, the pre-existence of man, our mother in heaven, baptism for the dead, etc?

——————————————

FAIR Answer:

The Book of Mormon’s definition of “fulness of the gospel” is not “all truths taught in the Church.” The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ’s atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Critics do not trouble to understand what the Book of Mormon says before attacking it. Making the same attack twice (see #17) makes it no more convincing the second time.

To learn more: Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

———————————-
———————————-

My Response(s):

So, “fulness” doesn’t mean “fulness.” In Mormonese, “fulness” means “The only parts of our beliefs we will share with the world, lest they realize too quickly that we are indeed a false religion.” Now, FAIR claims that The Book of Mormon’s definition of “fulness of the gospel” is not “all truths taught in the Church.” I must have skipped over that part of the BOM where it actually defines the phrase “fulness of the everlasting gospel.” Oh, I know why. Because it doesn’t. So when they come a-knockin’ on your door, and they claim that their BOM contains the “fulness of the everlasting gospel,”–well, it doesn’t. It only contains the things they want you to hear before they start laying all that other gobbledy-gook on you. You know, the whole “milk before meat” shpiel.

If there’s one thing FAIR is good with, it is word games. And boy, do they play one here. What is it they say in their above answer? The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ’s atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. So, what do they define the MORMON gosepl as being? At the link entitled “Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel” they say that,

In this passage [3rd Nephi 27:13-19] , Jesus defines “the gospel” as:

  • Christ came into the world to do the Father’s will.
  • The Father sent Christ to be crucified.
  • Because of Christ’s atonement, all men will be judged by him according to their works (as opposed to not receiving a judgment at all and being cast out of God’s presence by default; 2_Ne. 9:8-9).
  • Those who repent and are baptized shall be filled (with the Holy Ghost, see 3_Ne. 12:6), and
  • if they continue in faith by enduring to the end they will be justified (declared “not guilty”) by Christ before the Father, but
    if they don’t endure they will be subject to the justice of God and cast out of his presence.
  • The Father’s words will all be fulfilled.
  • Because no unclean thing can enter the Father’s heavenly kingdom, only those who rely in faith on the atonement of Christ, repent, and are faithful to the end can be saved.

Funny. My Bible tells about all those things too. Does it not contain the “fulness of the everlasting gospel?” Well, according to Salt Lake City–not anymore.

Now, if you dig far enough into Mormon doctrine, you will find that this is not the end of the LDS “gospel.” In fact, this is only the beginning. You must accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. You must do this and do that and believe something else. What, in fact, are the “first principles and ordinances” of the MORMON gospel? well, the 4th “Article of Faith” found in the Pearl of Great Price says,

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Oops. Problem. These are simply the FIRST Principles and Ordinances. Why are they the “FIRST” Ordinances and Principles? Well, because if there is a first, there has to be a second, no? In fact, thanks to the fine people at CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry), there are several “core doctrines” of Mormon theology that you will not find in the “Most correct book of any on earth”:

Church organization
Plurality of Gods
Plurality of wives doctrine
Word of Wisdom
God is an exalted man
Celestial marriage
Men may become Gods
Three degrees of glory
Baptism for the dead
Eternal progression
The Aaronic Priesthood
Temple works of washings, anointing, endowmants, sealing.

So not only does the BOM not contain even one-third of essential Mormon doctrine–it doesn’t even define what it means by “fulness of the everlasting gospel.” To think, when they were making those 4000+ changes and additions, they could have at least slipped something in there about plurality of gods, celestial marriage, etc. I guess by the time Joseph came up with these things, it was too late.

This is simply another smokescreen thrown up by (un)FAIR to divert people from the truth. They figure if they throw out that little bone, people will say, “Oh, that’s what it means. OK” and move on. They don’t like when people go deeper than the cute little sound bites they offer. And unfortunately, most people will be convinced by these. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from dialoging with Mormons over the years it is this: You will not proof-text a Mormon. And it helps to be ready for them to answer our objections to their beliefs.

by

Breaking: Todd Bentley can heal cancer, but not his own marriage

Just found this over at I’m Speaking Truth:

It also appears that Todd’s is leaving his wife:
Separation May End Bentley’s Lakeland Appearances

Todd Bentley, the evangelist who has led the Florida Outpouring revival here in Lakeland since April 2, has filed for separation from his wife and might not return to the revival, according to his former local spokesperson, Lynne Breidenbach. She said Bentley made the announcement to his staff this afternoon. Bentley and his wife, Shonnah, have two daughters and a son and are Canadian citizens. Under Canadian law, separation is a first step in divorce proceedings and takes nine months. Bentley and his wife have been in marriage counseling for several months, Breidenbach said. She called the situation “very sad” but insisted it “doesn’t invalidate what Todd did” at the revival.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m laughing at this situation, as God hates divorce (Malachi 2:14-15). But, like IST, I find this situation highly ironic, in that Bentley claims that God is working through him to work “signs and wonders,” yet God can’t manage to put the Bentleys’ marriage back together.

by

A new way to describe false converts?

As I was driving along I-40 here yesterday, I saw something that started a chain of free-association in my head, and landed me on this thought: should we begin calling false converts “cowboy Christians?” Allow me to explain:

You see these guys all the time. They look the part. They act the part. They dress the part. They use all the right words and phrases. They walk around wearing the Wrangler™ Jeans, western shirts, a belt buckle that doubles as a full-length mirror, Justin™ Boots, cowboy hat. They’ve always got a wad of chew in their cheek, they go line-dancing every weekend, they go watch the rodeo every time it comes to town, and they drive a big, huge, full-size pickup truck,with dual rear wheels–and a sticker in the back window that says something like “Cowboy Up!”

By all of their outward appearances, you would swear they are a cowboy. There are truly real cowboys out there–but this guy ain’t one of them.

But they’re not.

What does this have to do with the church? This:

You see these guys all the time. They look the part. They act the part. They dress the part. They use all the right words and phrases. They walk around wearing the kahki dress pants, polo shirts, and they carry the biggest study Bible they can find. They’ve always got a smile on their face, they go to a building every Sunday and hear a speech, they have a couple CD’s from a singer that used the word “God” or “Christ” in one of their songs once, and they drive a big, huge, full-size pickup truck, with dual rear wheels–and a fish sticker on their back bumper.

By all of their outward appearances, you would swear they are a Christian. There are truly real Christians out there–but this guy ain’t one of them.

But they’re not. They think they’re saved because

  • they go to church (check)
  • their parents went to church (check)
  • their kids go to church (check)
  • they have had their children dedicated (check)
  • they have had their children baptized (check)
  • they send their monthly donation to the church (check)
  • they volunteer at the homeless shelter (check)

    • “OK, we’ve got the checklist finished! Now we can just sit back and wait for that sweet by-and-by, ’cause we’ve got our ducks in a row, and we’ve got our ticket stamped!”

    What they do not know–perhaps because their pastor has never told them–is that salvation is not about looking the part. It’s not about whether you wear a shirt-and-tie, or an old pair of jeans, when you walk in Sunday morning. It’s not about a list of “Things To Do” that we need to perform in order to get enough gold stars and smiley faces on God’s Heavenly Chart.

    Salvation is about seeing ourselves for being the dispicable creatures we are, and knowing that Christ Jesus–the Son of the Living God–came to earth, wrapped Himself in this disgusting stuff we call flesh, took our wounds, our stripes, our death, and made them His own, so that we could be the righteousness of God in Him. It is about seeing that all of our good deeds, and all of our “church” and all those little trinkets we call “good deeds” are nothing more than rags that are covered with the filth of human effort, and the stench of self-righteousness.

    A person can look the part, they can dress the part, they can talk the part. But unless that person sees that there is absolutely no way for them to reconcile themselves to God apart from repenting from their sins and confessing Christ Jesus as their Savior AND Lord, they are a “Cowboy Christian.” They look like one–but they ain’t.

    Isaiah 53:3-6—He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

    Isaiah 64:5-7—You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness, who remembers You in Your ways. You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—in these ways we continue; and we need to be saved. But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on Your name, who stirs himself up to take hold of You; for You have hidden Your face from us, and have consumed us because of our iniquities.

    2nd Corinthians 5:21—For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

    Philippians 1:9-11—And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

    by

    The Supremacy of Me Redux

    As a follow-up to CD’s post, I found this video of how the Seeker-Sensitive, Flesh-Driven Purpose-Driven follower would sing “Ode To Joy,” and who the focus of their worship really is:

    In case you can’t understand the lyrics, here they are:

    Me me me me
    Me me me me
    Me me me me
    Me me me me
    (Repeat)
     
    Galatians 6:14—God forbid that I should glory but in the Cross of Christ, by which the world was crucified unto me, and I was crucified unto the world!

    by

    50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 16)

    Tower To Truth Question:

    16. If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition?

    ————————–

    FAIR Answer:

    Christians should be careful with such attacks. If they don’t want to have a double standard, they’d have to realize that there are more differences in Biblical manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament! Yet, Latter-day Saints and other Christians still believe the Bible.

    Most of the changes to the Book of Mormon were issues of spelling, typos, and the like. A few changes were for clarification, but the original Book of Mormon text would easily serve members and scholars.

    To learn more:: Book of Mormon textual changes

    ————————-

    My Response:

    The LDS claim that the “changes” to the Bible have corrupted it, all the while claiming that the changes to the BOM were for “clarity.” As the Geico Caveman™ would say…

    “Yeah, I’d like to answer that. Uh…what?”

    What is the official Mormon stance on the accuracy of the Bible?

    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.

    Where do they get this idea from? The Book of Mormon:

    1st Nephi 13:26–And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

    So, basically, they will swallow–hook, line, and sinker–the Book of Mormon, with all of its 4000 changes, which are thouroughly documented. Yet ask them where these supposed “plain and precious truths” were taken out of the Bible–ask them to show you where it was not “correctly translated,” and they will give you a blank stare and offer some vague blurb about the “restoration of the gospel.”

    So, what are some of these changes to the “most correct book of any on earth?” Well, according to the link provided by FAIR,

    If one counts every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes. The critical issue is not the number of changes that have been made to the text, but the nature of the changes.

    Most changes are insignificant modifications to spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and are mainly due to the human failings of editors and publishers. For example, the word meet — meaning “appropriate” — as it appears in 1_Ne. 7:1, was spelled “mete” in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. (This is a common error made by scribes of dictated texts.) “Mete” means to distribute, but the context here is obvious, and so the spelling was corrected in later editions.

    Some of these typographical errors do affect the meaning of a passage or present a new understanding of it, but not in a way that presents a challenge to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. One example is 1_Ne. 12:18, which in all printed editions reads “a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God,” while the manuscript reads “the sword of the justice of the Eternal God.” In this instance, the typesetter accidentally dropped the s at the beginning of sword.

    In other words, God didn’t brush up on His grammar and spelling before He allowed Joseph Smith’s scribe to write down, word for word, what God “dictated” to Joseph Smith. But you have to remember how the Book of Mormon was “translated.” Joseph did not sit down with the plates and translate directly from the “golden plates.” Smith buried his head in a hat, along with a “peep stone”, and every word appeared before his eyes. Smith then told his scribe (whether Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris) what to write down. The word would stay there until it was written properly, and a new word would not appear until the present word was written properly.

    So, let’s look at some of these near-4000 changes, from the fine folks at the Institute for Religious Research. One thing to remember is the 1830 BOM was not divided into chapters and verses.

    1830:
    1 Nephi 3, p. 25 — And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh

    1837:
    1 Nephi 11:18 — And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.

    ————————-

    1830:
    1 Nephi 3, p. 25 — And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father!

    1837:
    1 Nephi 11:21 — And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

    ————————-

    At FAIR’s link, it says,

    Changes that would affect the authenticity of the Book of Mormon are limited to:

    those that are substantive AND
    could possibly change the doctrine of the book OR
    could be used as evidence that the book was written by Joseph Smith.

    As far as “changing doctrine,” that’s exactly what the above changes do. Those changes that “could be used as evidence that the book was written by Joseph Smith” could be, oh, I don’t know, maybe, grammar, syntax, punctuation. You know. Those things that Joseph Smith had no clue about. Well, apparently, God forgot to brush up on His grammar before He set about giving Joseph the BOM (from IRR):

    Improper use of “was” in 1830 edition later changed to “were”:
    “… Adam and Eve, which was our first parents …” [p. 15]
    “… the bands which was upon my wrists …” [p. 49]
    “… the priests was not to depend …” [p. 193]
    “… they was angry with me …” [p. 248]
    “… there was no wild beasts …” [p. 460]

    Improper use of “is” in the 1830 edition later changed to “are”:
    “… the words which is expedient …” [p. 67]
    “… But great is the promises of the Lord …” [p. 85]
    “… And whoredoms is an abomination …” [p. 127]
    “… here is our weapons of war …” [p. 346]

    Improper use of “a” in the 1830 edition later deleted from text:
    “… As I was a journeying …” [p. 249]
    “… he found Muloki a preaching …” [p. 284]
    “… had been a preparing the minds …” [p. 358]
    “… Moroni was a coming against them [p. 403]

    Are we to believe that God would tell Joseph to write that Moroni is “a-coming”? Or that Muloki was “a-preaching”? What, do they think God couldn’t make it through grammar school? The point is this: The LDS system claims that the Bible has been corrupted because

    “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 327). And LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson said, “Many insertions were made, some of them ‘slanted’ for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated” (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).

    Yet they will cling tenaciously to this Book of Mormon that was supposedly spoken by a “God” who couldn’t even speak basic English.

    The changes to the BOM are explained away by the mormon PR machine. Yet they will not accept the authenticity of the bible because of the supposed “careless transcribers, etc.” Well, as Joseph Smith might say, “That ain’t-a sowndin two rite too me”

    by

    Steven Curtis Chapman–“No Greater Love”

    This week’s video comes from…me. This is a little video I made, set to SCC’s song about forgiveness and reconciliation. The man you hear chanting at the end of the song is one of the men who carried out the attack on Ed McCully, Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Pete Fleming, and Roger Youderias. His name is Mincaye.

    Men of courage with your message of peace
    What is that look in your eyes?
    Why have you come to this faraway place?
    What is this story you would lay down your life to tell?
    What kind of love can this be?

    There is no greater love than this
    There is no greater gift that can ever be given
    To be willing to die so another might live
    There is no greater love than this

    Broken hearted from all you have lost
    How can you sing through your tears?
    What is this music that can bear such a cost?
    What is this fire that grows stronger against the wind?
    What kind of flame can this be?

    This is the love that God showed the world
    When He gave us His Son
    So we could know His love forever
    Beyond the gates of splendor

    There is no greater love than this
    There is no greater gift that can ever be given
    To be willing to die so another might live
    There is no greater love, there is no greater love, there is no greater love than this

    Here is a video of Mincaye with Steve Saint, son of Nate Saint (I didn’t make this one. haha.). As you watch this keep in mind that Mincaye killed Steve’s father. What’s the worst thing someone did to you (Not to mention Richard Abanes by name).