Book of Mormon

by

Comparing the two witnesses of Jesus Christ.

Virgin Birth

The following is from 4 Mormon:

BIBLE’S WITNESS OF CHRIST

BOOK OF MORMON’S WITNESS OF CHRIST

Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:1 and Micah 5:2)

Jesus Christ was born at Jerusalem. (Alma 7:10)

Jesus Christ promised: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
(Matthew 24:35)

“…there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” —1 Nephi 13:28

During Jesus’ death, darkness covered the earth for three hours. (Matthew 27:45)

At Jesus’ death, darkness covered the earth for three days. (Helaman 14:20, 27)

Christ’s followers were first called “Christians” at Antioch (after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven).
(Acts 11:26)

Christ’s followers were called “Christians” at 73 B.C. (70+ years before Christ was born).
(Alma 46:15).

Melchizedek (a picture of Christ in the Old Testament) was “without father.” (Hebrews 7:3)

Melchizedek “did reign under his father.”
(Alma 13:18)
by

Nada Scriptura?

Maturity

The world’s false religions and cults have many similarities, and one common thread among them all is their disbelief / distrust / disdain for the Bible.

And among these groups, five stand out as surprising when you consider that they believe themselves to be Christian, and as everybody knows, “Christians” believe the Bible . . . don’t they?

Whether it’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses who discourage individual understanding of the Scriptures . . .

Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.

The Watchtower / October 1, 1967 / Page 587

. . . even going so far as to employ scare tactics that you’ll become apostate for reading the Bible on your own or in a small group:

They say that it is sufficient to read the bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago…

The Watchtower / August 15, 1981/Pages 28-29


Or whether it’s the Mormons spreading their seeds of doubt . . .

It was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.

Joseph Smith /Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith /Page 10

. . . and blatantly attacking the Word of God:

This congregation heard brother O. Pratt scan the validity of the Bible, and I thought by the time he got through, that you would scarcely think a Bible worth picking up and carrying home, should you find one in the streets.

Brigham Young / Journal of Discourses / Volume 3 Page 116

Or whether it’s the liberal churches who “take the Bible seriously but not literally.”

Liberality

Or whether it’s the Emergents whose greatest “virtue” is ambiguity, and whose mantra is “did God really say that?” all the while dismissing the importance of the very Bible they claim to believe:

This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is… When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true.

Rob Bell / Velvet Elvis / Pages 67-68

I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible, that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again—like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.

Kristen Bell (Rob Bell’s wife) / Christianity Today / November 2004

Or whether it’s the Roman Catholic Church who in times past would burn you at the stake for merely possessing the Scriptures in your native tongue, but who now settle for pompously looking down their noses at you for daring to hold God’s inspired, infallible Word above that of their fallible, uninspired popes, priests, and man-made traditions.

Stake

So, whether you’re discouraged from reading your Bible, or the Bible is impugned so that you conclude it can’t be trusted, the desired result is always the same: Once you put down the word of God, or place some other “authority” above it, heresy will always follow.

As Gary Gilley aptly said in his book This Little Church Went to Market:

Today, virtually every heresy found in the Christian ranks can be traced back to some form of rejection of the Bible as God’s final authority. It may be pragmatism (which adds success to the Bible); mysticism (which adds experience); tradition (which adds the past): legalism (which adds man’s rules); or philosophy such as psychology (which adds man’s wisdom). The end result is all the same: the Word of God takes a back seat to the inventions and imaginations of men.

Essentially, all these false religions and cults have one goal in mind: To get you to stop trusting the words of the living God and instead, put your trust in their organization. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and we will trust His word over the lies, rumors, heresies, doubts, and traditions of these false organizations. But what about you? When the question of the authority of Scripture comes up are you going to believe the empty words of false prophets, teachers, popes, and organizations, or the words of God Himself?

GalaxyFor the most part these counterfeit groups would agree that God created the heavens and the earth and that He is the architect of everything from the vastness of the galaxies yet to be discovered by man, to the tiniest microorganisms that are more complex than any supercomputers that we could ever build. And with few exceptions I’m confident that these groups also believe that God sustains His creation and that He’s omnipotent, omniscient, and all powerful.

Yet ironically they do not believe He had or has the power to sustain and preserve His word from generation to generation. How convenient for them that the God of all creation has this one weakness (that their popes, prophets, and programs can help God out with).

God was very clear about the tenacity of His Word: It is forever settled in Heaven (Psalm 119:89), it endures forever (Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:25), the smallest letter or stroke of the law shall not pass (Matthew 5:18), and Heaven and earth will pass away before His word does (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 16:17, Luke 21:33).

Yet the false prophets will have you believe that the sovereign God who created and sustains the universe simply could not ensure the preservation of His own Word, but their “new revelation” on the other hand, is accurate and can be trusted in spite of the fact that their doctrines keep being added to, subtracted from, and changing from prophet to prophet, from leader to leader, and from pope to pope.

Bible The Scriptures are for our instruction and to provide hope (Romans 15:4), for teaching (Deuteronomy 11:9, 2 Chronicles 17:9), for equipping Christians for good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and it gives us assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13).


Furthermore, God’s Word is more precious than silver and gold (Psalm 119:72), it’s a lamp, a light, and the way of life (Proverbs 6:23), it’s a lamp unto our feet (Psalm 119:105), it teaches us to fear the Lord (Deuteronomy 17:19), it purifies (Psalm 119:9), it gives understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130), it teaches us so that we can walk in His paths (Isaiah 2:3), it sanctifies (John 17:17, Ephesians 5:26), it testifies to Jesus Christ (John 5:39), it leads us to Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:24), and it judges our thoughts and attitudes (Hebrews 4:12).

DeconstructionWhen you consider what God’s Word does, you can see why false religions and cults wish to separate you from it! If they can drive a wedge between you and the word of God, then they will have successfully separated you from the only source by which to measure truth. Then you are easy prey for their new revelations, their other gospels (Galatians 1:6-9), and their false christs.

So, I have three questions:

1. The Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures to assure that what the Apostle Paul was teaching was accurate (Acts 17:11). Why are these false religions and cults advising you not to take up the Scriptures to see if what they’re teaching is true?

2.The Apostle Paul told us that our struggle is against spiritual powers and forces of wickedness (Ephesians 6:11-12) and in this fight he tells us to put on the armor of God (Ephesians 6:13), in which one of these is the sword of the Spirit–the very word of God. Why would false religions and cults want to disarm you from one of the best offensive and defensive weapons God has provided the Believer and instructed him to wield?

3. Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Disciples read the Scriptures and quoted from them regularly. In fact, when Satan tried to thwart Jesus’ mission on earth by twisting Scripture, Jesus quoted from the Scripture each time in rebuttal, effectively disarming the father of lies with the words of truth (Matthew 4:1-11). If the Scriptures were good enough and valuable enough for Jesus Christ and the Apostles, why do the false religions and cults say that they’re not good enough for you?

CultsFor all the reasons above it is apparent why false religions and cults reject the Bible and the idea of Sola Scriptura. When those groups claiming to be “Christian” are compared to the Light of the Scriptures they always come up short and their errors, falsehoods, heresies, and soul-damning doctrines of demons are exposed. If they can get you to doubt the Bible, they will quickly fill that void with their own “authority.”

Remember, we were never told that man shall live on the Church, the prophets, or popes, but we are told that man shall live on “every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3).

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” – John 8:31-32

________________________________________________________________________________

For more on the Bible see : Bible Reference Notes – The Holy Scriptures


by

Mississippi Farm Boy Claims a Revelation from God: LDS Church is Apostate.

Mormonism

Here’s a great question from Jessica over at I Love Mormons:

I have a hypothetical scenario I want to run by you. What would happen if a 14-yr-old LDS kid from Mississippi suddenly showed up on the scene claiming he had received personal revelation from God that the LDS church became apostate after the death of Joseph Smith? This young boy (we’ll call him Joe) claims God revealed to him that the King Follett Discourse never happened the way the history books have it. Rather, after the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others changed many historical documents to try to make it appear like Joseph Smith taught polygamy and polytheism. Joe says Joseph Smith never believed in a plurality of gods; rather, he believed in and taught the Trinity as evidenced by the Book of Mormon. Joe claims Brigham Young edited the D&C and PofGP to add the teachings on polygamy and plurality of gods. Joe starts admonishing LDS that God views the current teachings of the modern-day LDS church as an abomination.

Question: How would you decide whether the 14-yr-old was trustworthy and believable?

by

Moroni struck by lightning.

As reported at KSL News:

SOUTH JORDAN — There were some 6,000 to 8,000 lightning strikes in the Salt Lake Valley Saturday, and it appears one of them struck the new Oquirrh Mountain temple.

Witnesses say the lightning blackened the arm, trumpet and face of the Moroni statue that sits on top of the temple’s steeple.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not confirmed the lightning strike.

And if the LDS organization never confirms the lightning strike, then it never really happened.

In the realm of subjective confirmations, a lightning strike trumps a “burning in the bosom” any day.

HT: Christian Research Council

_____________________________________________________________________

See related: Let the idols hit the floor!

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (Answers 25, 26, and 27)

FAIR

Because of the repetitive nature of the next three questions, I have decided to lump them into one post.

Tower To Truth Question:

25. Why does the Book of Mormon contain extensive, word-for-word quotes from the Bible if the LDS Church is correct in teaching that the Bible has been corrupted?

FAIR Answer:

It would be more correct to say that the Book of Mormon teaches that plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible 1_Ne. 13:28. The vast majority of that which has remained in the Bible is both true and valuable.

Latter-day Saints take two years of every four in Sunday School studying the Bible. They cherish it. They merely refuse to believe that the Bible is all that God has said, or can say. God can speak whenever He wishes.

To learn more: Bible basics

For extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change and deletions in the very early years, see here.

To learn more: Biblical completeness

————————————-

Tower To Truth Question:

26. Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries?

FAIR Answer:

The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were “added” because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense. (Italics can mislead us, however, in suggesting that there is such a thing as a word-for-word translation without interpretation, save for the italics.)

Thus, in some cases the italic words are necessary, and Joseph or another translator would have had to put them in. In other cases, Joseph removed the italic words. (It’s not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation era, much less that he knew what the italics meant.)

This is really a question about why the Book of Mormon text is often very close (or, in some cases, identical to) the King James Version. If Joseph was trying to forge a book (as the critics claim) then why did he quote from the Bible, the one book his readers would be sure to know?

To learn more: Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

————————————-

Tower To Truth Question:

27. If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English?

FAIR Answer:

Because Joseph translated it as King James English.

Why do modern translations of the Greek and Hebrew Bible sound like modern English, even though the texts are hundreds or thousands of years old? Because that’s how the translators translated them. It doesn’t say anything about what the language is like on the original. (French translators make totally different translations than English translators, but the manuscripts remain the same!)

Do Christians condemn the Bible as an inauthentic record because their translations sound like 21st century English? This question is a good example of how insincere these “questions” from an anti-Mormon ministry are.

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

My Response:

OK, we’ll take the first one (Answer 25), since it is the simplest. It is simply another example of Mormon double-speak. They are basically saying, “We don’t believe the Bible has been corrupted. We just believe some things have been removed.”

Doesn’t the “fact” (quote-unquote) that things have “been removed” (quote-unquote), by default, render something “corrupt?” The word “corrupt” comes from the Latin (through Middle English) “to break.” In fact, according to Merriam-Webster, to “corrupt” means “to alter from the original or correct form or version” (See full entry here). So….if something was “removed,” doesn’t that, automatically, mean that it has been “altered from its original form?” But, this is, yet again, another example of a Mormon defining things differently than what they really mean. Oh, and, as usual, not a word about which of the “truths, plain and most precious” were removed. Yeah, good luck getting an answer on THAT.

Then there is the link that says, “For extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change and deletions in the very early years.” Of course, that link takes you to another FAIR page where they quote Blake Ostler. Oh, yeah, real unbiased work, there. **rolls eyes** Oh, and as far as trying ot use Vagany against the reliability of Scripture, let’s look at the quote from FAIR:

“In AD 178 the secular writer Celsus stated in polemic against the Christians: some of the believers . . . have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics.’ (quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, SC 132, 2, 27).

Now, one thing you need to know about Celsus: he was a heretic. He vehemently opposed the Christians and went out of his way to disparage them. Which means he is exactly the kind of person FAIR will quote in order to defend their beliefs–a known heretic! Way to go, guys! I suppose that next, in order to “prove” the Bible was wrong about the creation account, they will probably be quoting Charles Darwin.

Oh, and by the way, here is the full quote from Origen (emphasis mine):

After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.

I suppose that is enough evidence to shatter FAIR’s misuse of someone’s quote. And, yeah, there are going to be differences in the various Hebrew manuscripts. It would be interesting if FAIR would live up to their acronym and share with us some of these differences from Tov’s book. Oh wait……are those crickets I hear chirping in Utah? Yeah, I thought so.

—————–

So, for the second (Answer 26), let’s boil it down. Let’s look at the main thrust of their response:

The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were “added” because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense.

RED FLAG ALERT!
RED FLAG ALERT!

The Book of Mormon was not written in Hebrew, or Greek! IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN IN REFORMED EGYPTIAN! (A language which, by the way, has NEVER existed at ANY TIME IN HISTORY). So the argument that the italics were added to the Hebrew for insertion into the BOM is silly, because Isaiah was written in Hebrew while the BOM was written in a totally different language! BUSTED!! That would be like saying “The parts of the Bagavad Gita that were plagiarized from Das Kapital kept the italics to get the sense of what the Japanese meant.” We’re talking about completely different languages, so their answer on this point is moot.

——————————–

Finally, Answer #27. I would have to say this isn’t much of an issue. Of course the gold-digger was going to translate it into the language of his day, so I really don’t think that’s any ground we need to cover.

by

Africa desperately needs help with combating cults.

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock . . . – Acts 20:29

Source: Africa Center for Apologetics Research

____________________________________________________________

See related posts:

Charismania unrestrained: Africa’s witch children

The Hell-bound false prophetess Helen Ukpabio of Liberty Gospel Church in Nigeria

Sam and Esther: The least of these

Who they were then, and who they are now

by

The preaching of the cross is foolishness . . . to Mormons.

garden-of-gethsemaneThe Mormon organization has no problem with Masonic symbols, occultic symbols, and even inverted pentagrams adorning their temples, but they draw the line when it comes to that offensive cross. The two most common ‘excuses’ they provide for their aversion to the cross are:

1). “The cross is a pagan symbol.”

And the pagan symbols in Mormonism are not pagan? Not to mention the pagan practices that go on inside.

2). “We wish to focus on Jesus’ life, not His death.”

Ah, in this one statement Mormons reveal that they have absolutely no idea the true purpose of Christ’s coming to earth nor what it meant for Him to become a propitiation for the believer’s sins. Neither do they understand the fundamentals of the Christian faith or the very Gospel itself. For the Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. How can you possibly “focus on His life” at the exclusion of His death . . . the very reason He came to earth (Mark 10:45)?

The preaching of the cross is a stumbling block to the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile (1 Corinthians 1:23) but it appears to be both to the Mormon.

Mormons not only have an aversion to the symbol of the cross like a vampire to a crucifix, but Mormons have an aversion to what the cross represents. Just like Satan who desires nothing more than to avert the sinner’s gaze away from the redemptive work accomplished by Jesus on the cross, Mormons attempt to direct the attention of their followers away from the redemptive work accomplished by Jesus on the cross as well. For example:

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ took upon himself the sins of all mankind.

Gospel Principles

Page 70

1997

The night preceding His crucifixion, Jesus Christ . . . . took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world.

Milton R. Hunter

The Gospel Through The Ages

Page 182

1945

Jesus, therefore, preceding crucifixion, had His last great struggle, while in mortality, with Satan and with death and came forth victorious.

Milton R. Hunter

The Gospel Through The Ages

Page 183

1945

If you’re believing in a “savior” that bore your sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, then you’re believing in one of the many false Christs that the True Christ warned us about, and you are still dead in your sins and will face the righteous, holy, and eternal wrath of God when you die.

Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22), but Mormonism would have you believe that the Garden of Gethsemane was where Jesus bore our sins and that His ‘sweating’ (not ‘shedding’) of blood had something to do with our redemption. The context of ‘shedding of blood’ is not an expelling of some blood in your sweat, but that of death. I am in no way diminishing the suffering of Christ in the Garden, but it was not the place where He atoned for our sins.

The foreshadow of Christ throughout the Old Testament was of the death (shedding of blood) of a worthy substitute (e.g. the animals killed to ‘cover’ Adam and Eve’s nakedness, the ram in the thicket in place of Isaac on the alter, the blood of the lamb on the doorposts in Egypt, etc.). All of these required the death of an animal, not merely the loss of a little of its blood.

If this corrupt doctrine of LDS were true, then the Mormon “Jesus” could have essentially atoned for the sins of mankind the first time He scraped His knee playing as a child, or the first time He cut His hand while working as a carpenter.

Although nowhere in Scripture can even the idea be found that Christ paid for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, this doesn’t stop Mormonism from teaching this heresy.

But what saith the Scripture?

And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. – 1 Peter 2:24

crucifixion

But Mormonism is not content with diverting your attention away from the finished work of Christ on the cross; they also blasphemously attack the very efficacy of the sacrifice of our precious Savior!

Are you aware that there are certain sins that a man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does no avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon?

Joseph Fielding Smith

Doctrines of Salvation

Volume 1 Page 133

Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine and taught in all the standard works of the Church.

Joseph Fielding Smith

Doctrines of Salvation

Volume 1 Page 135

But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment.

Bruce R. McConkie

Mormon Doctrine

Page 92

1966 Edition

We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is for the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people; not but that the blood of Christ will cleanse from all sin, all who are disposed to act their part by repentance, and faith in his name. But the original sin was atoned for by the death of Christ, although its effects we still see in the diseases, tempers and every species of wickedness with which the human family is afflicted.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 13 Page 143

1869

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in [the] future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets.

Joseph Smith

History of the Church

Volume 4 Page 211

It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time?

Joseph Smith

History of the Church

Volume 4 Page 212

Christ did his part to atone for our sins. To make his atonement fully effective in our lives, we must strive to obey him and repent of our sins.

Gospel Principles

Page 75

1997

Christ’s atonement makes it possible to be saved from sin if we do our part.

Gospel Principles

Page 75

1997

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 4 Page 54

1856

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is a strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not destroy them.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 4 Page 53

1856

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did under the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

Brigham Young

Journal of Discourses

Volume 4 Pages 53-54

1856

No matter how current LDS apologists try to spin it, the fact is they do not believe that Christ’s sacrifice (in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross) was sufficient to cleanse you from all of your sins. They continue to believe the blasphemous doctrine that you must still do something on your behalf to merit God’s favor. Former LDS prophets have even gone so far as to teach that the shedding of your own blood is required for remission of sins. This is known as the Doctrine of Blood Atonement and is one of the many LDS doctrines that modern-day Mormons have tried desperately to distance themselves from (you can find out more about this utterly Satanic doctrine here and here).

However, one only needs to look as far as Holy Scripture to see the error and folly of this false gospel of Mormonism. The same God who can redeem Israel from all her iniquities (Psalm 130:8) can surely redeem sinners from all of their iniquities. In spite of Mormonism’s claim that there are “some sins” that men can commit that the blood of Christ cannot atone for, the inspired Word of God tells us the exact opposite:

But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. – 1 John 1:7

Jesus gave Himself to redeem us from every lawless deed (Titus 2:14) as we are justified and saved from the wrath of God by His blood (Romans 5:9). Reconciliation was accomplished by the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross (Colossians 1:20) and we are redeemed not by perishable things, but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19).

In spite of what the false teachers of LDS would have you believe, Christ’s sacrifice was not only sufficient to put away sin (Hebrews 9:26) and obtain eternal redemption through His blood (Hebrews 9:11-12), but it was done once and for all (Hebrews 7:26-27).

So when a Mormon comes to you bringing their long laundry list of things you must do to be saved, remember that Jesus paid the debt, it was sufficient, it is finished, and “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:10-18)!

Jesus came in order to take away sins (1 John 3:5) and yet Mormons say He did not accomplish this. Who are you going to believe? A false organization led by false prophets, rife with false prophecies all pointing to a false “Jesus” and a false “gospel,” or the holy and inspired Word of God that has stood the test of time?

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. – 1 Corinthians 1:18

See related: The preaching of the Gospel is foolishness . . . to Roman Catholics

by

Another example of Mormons “not attacking” another religion.

Anyone who tries sharing the true gospel of Jesus Christ with a Mormon will eventually (if they haven’t already) run into the tried and true LDS tactic of pulling the victim card. They’ll say, “We have never attacked anyone’s religion, why are you attacking us?”

Well, not only has this claim by Mormons been proven to be an outright lie (see the post What Mormons Really Believe About Christians), but here’s a video showing just how sensitive to other people’s faith some of them are, and with some questionable racial overtones too.


by

Quorum of the Twelve Apostates.

Sometimes you can find the truth about Mormonism in the most unlikeliest of places.

quorum-of-the-twelve-apostates

HT: What Mormons Don’t Tell

Continue reading →

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

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”