False Teachers

by

Pagan Christianity?

I was given the task of reading and reviewing this book as part of a project at my church. Frank Viola is aggressive in defending his perspective; if you want his view you can easily find one or more of his blogs. With that short introduction, here’s my lengthy review.

Pagan Christianty?

By Frank Viola and George Barna

Reviewed by Stuart L. Brogden

The thesis statement of this book is found in the Preface, written by Viola, on page xix: “we intend to show how that organism (the first century church) was devoid of so many things we embrace today” and on page xx: “We are seeking to remove a great deal of debris in order to make room for the Lord Jesus Christ to be the fully functioning head of His church.”

In the Preface, he repeatedly refers to “the contemporary church” as their foil – no doubt most reformed Christians would also take issue with many things done in that name. Reinforcing what I infer as a mystical view of God and Truth revealed in the thesis, Viola tells us, “the New Testament vision of church best represents the dream of God.” and “The normative practices of the first-century church were the natural and spontaneous expression of the divine life that indwelt the early Christians.” (page xix) Their mystical view of the body of Christ is fully spelled out later in the book. Also on page xix, the author’s beloved “organic church” is described thusly: “An organic church is simply a church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and nonhierarchical leadership.” We will see that “Spirit-led” means “everyone doing what seems right in their own eyes”. In the delving Deeper section on page xxxi we are told that their “goal is not to develop a full description of the organic church but only touch on it when necessary.” See – we get explicit wrong-doings by the contemporary and institutional church but only vague and partial descriptions of the proposed answer to those evils.

Viola shows his misunderstanding of the work of the Holy Spirit of God, ascribing (page xix) His actions as “the natural and spontaneous expression of the divine life that indwelt the early Christians”. The Bible is clear that God is a God of order, not chaos; He is not a natural expression of what is in man (Psalms 50:21). He is not “spontaneous” – acting on whimsy; He has planned and has ordered all things to the fulfillment of His plans (Psalms 135:6 and Ephesians 1:11).

In Barna’s Introduction, we discover the authors see themselves – and the Lord Jesus – as Revolutionaries, working to correct the centuries-long trial of errors foisted upon us by religious men. He rightly identifies legitimate problems in many churches (mega-churches, satellite campuses, affinity and age segregated groups, etc.) on page xxvii – and then reveals that this book is our trustworthy guide to find out God’s will for the church. He concludes by telling us that he wants the reader “to think carefully and biblically about how you practice your faith with other Christians.” Barna concludes with, “We pray that this book will help you to do your part in straightening out the crooked path of the contemporary church.” We shall see.

The “Jesus” of the OC is manifested by “open sharing” in all church meetings – this is the normative method that “is completely scriptural”, especially if the only scripture one reads is 1 Corinthians 14:26 – 29. They have an unbiblical view of Jesus Christ and an unbiblical view of the church – which they consider (page xxviii) to be “Himself in a different form. This is the meaning of the phrase “the body of Christ”.” Deep in the appendix, on page 268, we read, “When each member of His body shares his or her portion of Christ, then Christ is assembled.”

Wayne Grudem sheds a better light on this concept on page 858 of his Systematic Theology: “In 1 Corinthians 12 the whole body is taken as a metaphor for the church, because Paul speaks of the “ear” and the “eye” and the “sense of smell” (1 Cor 12:16 – 17). In this metaphor, Christ is not viewed as the head joined to the body, because the individual members are themselves the individual parts of the head. Christ is in the metaphor the Lord who is “outside” of that body that represents the church and is the one whom the church serves and worships.” There are, as Grudem goes to point out, different uses of the word “body” as a metaphor for the church – the context in which each metaphor is used reveals its meaning. Barna and Viola appear to hold to the Roman Catholic view of the church as the “continuing incarnation” of Christ rather than properly viewing Christ as reigning in heaven in addition to dwelling among us. As for the biblical view of the church, one cannot comprehend that unless one studies the Pastoral Epistles – and there’s no indication the authors have even read them.

Consistently in this book, the method of “proving” their case builds on setting up a straw man they call the “institutional church” (IC) – a seemingly equivalent term for the “contemporary church” – and presenting an ill-defined “organic church” (OC) as the only Christ-honoring alternative. This IC straw man is constructed from mostly undocumented sources of history, which reflect the main line record of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no evidence that the remnant of God which did not follow Rome (as in Andrew Miller’s Church History) was ever considered by the authors – for therein one would find local churches without many of the errors that have crept into most churches since ~ 400AD. Too many reformed churches have forgotten “Semper Reformda!”, stagnating in partial reform that still has a lot in common with Rome. These present day vestiges of Rome ought to be critiqued and Protestants should repent and reform to the Biblical model. Some of this book’s critique rightly applies to some churches, but does not warrant the radical, semi-biblical approach advocated.

Continue reading →

by

Quotes (923).

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that infants are forgiven of original sin when a priest pours water over the baby in the sacrament of baptism. There are two serious problems with this practice. First, there is no occurrence of infant baptism in the New Testament, and second, one must believe in Jesus in order to be forgiven. Clearly a baby cannot respond in faith to the Gospel and thus be forgiven.

–          Mike Gendron

by

Walter Martin vs Van Hale debate: “Is Mormonism Christian?”

walter-martin

vs

van-hale

Christian apologist Walter Martin takes on Mormon apologist Van Hale in a debate entitled Is Mormonism Christian? It is another fine job by Walter Martin in defending the faith from those who would seek to pervert it.

Years after this debate, Van Hale publicly announced (in 2005) that he cannot accept the Book of Mormon as real history about real people (see here). I’m not sure if his debate with Dr. Martin helped bring him to that point, but it is an interesting piece of history.

You can download all three parts of this debate here:

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part One)

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part Two)

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part Three)

______________________________________

Check out another great debate between Walter Martin and anti-theist Madalyn Murray O’Hair here.

by

BETH MOORE AND JOHN PIPER LEAD LECTIO DIVINA-LITE AT PASSION 2012

BETH MOORE AND JOHN PIPER LEAD LECTIO DIVINA-LITE AT PASSION 2012

By on Jan 6, 2012 in AM Missives, Current Issues, Features, Southern Baptist Convention Note: videos that should make you weep are on Ken’s web site at the link above.

Apprising Ministries has been warning for years concerning the evil effects of the neo-liberal in the Emerging Church aka the Emergent Church.

It’s an incontrovertible fact that right from its hatching in hell corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), such as that taught by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster along with his spiritual twin and Southern Baptist minister Dallas Willard, was a core doctrine.

Spreading as a spiritual cancer throughout apostatizing evangelicalism, we even see that it’s slithered all the way into the New Calvinst neo-reformed camp e.g. as in Acts 29 Network And Reformed Counter Reformation Spirituality? One of the fruits of CSM is a blurring of doctrinal lines, which is particularly dangerous in this time of postmodernism and growing spiritual blindness.

It’s also giving rise to a rebirth of Pietism; this isn’t surprising when you consider that CSM flowered in the antibiblical monastic traditions of apostate Roman Catholicism. As the evangelical fad of CSM expands there’s a decided charismania also developing, which is producing a syncretism where Word Faith heretics like Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes are essentially considered mainstream now. With all of this has come more and more people claiming to have direct experience with God.

The end result is making the climate more condusive for things like Beth Moore Recommending “Jesus Calling” Book Claiming Direct Divine Revelation. This is the backdrop upon which to better see what’s happening as you watch the video clips to follow below from the Passion 2012 Conference. This conference has been going on in Atlanta, and was largely aimed at young adults and students.

Hosted by Louis Giglio, pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta, Passion featured an interesting lineup of speakers such Francis Chan, Beth Moore and New Calvinist mentor John Piper. Not surpisingly the conference had a distinctive charismatic and even contemplative flair; e.g. prayer walking. After one session the crowd was urged to break into “love groups” and go out to pray and “take back the city of Atlanta.”

Years of emerging bombardment of pro-CSM propaganda aimed at younger sectors of the Christian community fired right out of evangelical publishing houses has also had much effect upon the broader culture of the more charismatic/emotion-driven side of the church visible as well. To serve as an illustration, below we have SBC Lifeway-sponsored Beth Moore praising an apostate (at best) Roman Catholic mystic and the crown jewel of CSM.

If you didn’t know, this is a form of meditation in an altered state of consciousness commonly known as Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP):

Moore’s admitted practice of some form of CCP, which is actually divination, has opened her up to even receive direct revelation and visions from God. Below from a 2002 series called Believing God, available right now at Lifeway’s website, Moore describes a vision God gave her concerning His Church.

Sounding not too unlike Word Faith wingnuts she tells us God took her into some kind of dimension where she was able to see the Body of Christ as Jesus sees it:

Apparently the Protestant Reformation was really some sort of horrible mistake because Moore’s Jesus sees the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. This becomes clear below as Moore demonstrates what she saw in her vision from God:

Yet despite this obviously false vision ten years ago, there was Beth Moore preaching to thousands alongside New Calvinists John Piper and Francis Chan. I guess we really should expect this because Piper has told us before: “I’m Happy To Learn From Beth Moore.”

Who knows, perhaps he even shares Moore’s view that men like John MacArthur are guilty of teaching extreme error in the Body of Christ:

By the way, the other extreme teaching in the Body of Christ that Beth Moore sees is what she calls “sensationalism.” Something I personally think she’s now become involved in. The CSM being dabbled with now in mainstream evangelicalism is producing a rebirth of Pietism; an emotional, sentimental, emotion-driven form of worship. What you saw at Passion 2012.

Christian apologist Bob DeWaay is dead-on-target as he explains:

Pietism is difficult to define because it can be taught and practiced in an unlimited number of ways. Some versions appear to be innocuous while others are so radical that most people would see that something is wrong. I now know that no version of pietism is actually innocuous. If a teaching is called pietism but teaches no more than what God has always used to sanctify Christians, then it is not really pietism. Real pietism always harms those who embrace it.

The essence of pietism is this: It is a practice designed to lead to an experience that purports to give one an elite or special status compared to ordinary Christians. The Bible addresses this error in the book of Colossians. The false teachers in Colossae claimed to have the secret to a superior Christian experience that would cause people to rise above the bad “fate” they feared. Paul went on to explain that they already had everything they needed through Christ and His work on the cross. Another way of stating this is: If after having fully trusted Christ’s finished work on the cross, you are told that you are still lacking something, you are being taught pietism.

Church history is littered with misguided pietistic movements. Many of them are linked with mysticism… Pietism can be practiced many ways including enforced solitude, asceticism of various forms, man made religious practices, legalism, submission to human authorities who claim special status, and many other practices and teachings.
(Online source)

In closing this, for now, I’ll show you something that gives us real cause for concern in the seeming dangerous drift of Beth Moore and John Piper. Following are clips from Session 5 of Passion 2012 where we were to enter into the silence to let God speak to us, not only through Scripture, but directly inside of us as well. However, this is language actually straight out of CSM and can also refer to the TM-lite of CCP.

Beth Moore, John Piper et al each took turns reading from the Book of Ephesians; then they each would ask for silence and say something along the lines of: “Be still and let Jesus speak to you.” This is Beth Moore:

Now John Piper:

Finally, here’s Louis Giglio closing out Session 5. Any doubt about what’s been going on in the silence is dispelled at :20 below. To all but the most naive it will become clear to you that, contra the proper Christian spirituality of sola Scriptura, Giglio is talking about direct encounters with God in addition to Holy Scriptura:

“How many of you heard the voice of God speak specifically, clearly, directly, and personally, to you? Can you just put a hand up? I’d like you to share it. Can you put a hand up for a minute?

Just want you to look around; that’s people saying, “God Almighty (pause) the Maker of heaven (pause) the one Who’s sitting on the only throne (pause) that’s not under threat (long pause, audience cheers)—He spoke to me. He spoke to me.”

“God spoke to me.” (long pause) Don’t let the voice of the darkness, tell you that you are not (pause) worth (pause) that God would not speak to you. (pause) Don’t let him tell you, you don’t matter. (pause) God spoke to you.

Perhaps this is why more and more in the charismatic camp have been embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination; like Rome, they now also have the Bible…plus…

 

See also:

THE PUSH FOR A ROMAN CATHOLIC DENOMINATION AND THE SBC’S RUSSELL MOORE

CHARLES SPURGEON: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE MASTERPIECE OF SATAN AND THE QUEEN OF INIQUITY

LET’S LOOK AT THE GOSPEL

by

“The more I studied the more evidence of a cover-up I discovered.”

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post (found here), and as a testament to the legacy of Joseph Smith (who was born 206 years ago today), I wanted to direct your attention to the resignation letter of former LDS stake bishop, Steve Bloor.

Here is an excerpt:

“I didn’t realise for instance that Joseph Smith practised polygamy, and was married to 33 women, most under the age of 20, one as young as 14. That some of Joseph’s wives were already married to other men when he married them; a practice called polyandry. All of these facts can be confirmed by a simple look at the church’s own website, familysearch.org. . . . There are many other issues, like; there are several accounts of the First Vision and Joseph Smith’s initial personal journal entry about the First Vision didn’t include seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ, but an angel. Then over the years the story got embellished till it changed to what we have today. Yet I was told it was the most momentous event to occur in this dispensation. Why didn’t Joseph initially record it correctly?  And there are so many other things that have just dissolved my faith to the point I can no longer bear a testimony of the truthfulness of this church or even God. Can you imagine how I now feel? It’s like my whole world is crumbling around me. I no longer know what I believe, or who I can trust. I don’t even know who I am, it is a most frightening experience. At the moment it feels like a death in the family. My death!”

by

“If the [Mormon] church is not true would I want to know?”

Steve Bloor penned a letter to his congregation after resigning from his position as Bishop in his LDS stake.

What he did took much courage and I commend him for not only being willing to investigate his organization’s history, but also for acting upon what he discovered and not putting the problems of Mormonism on the proverbial Mormon shelf.

Here’s an excerpt from his letter:

I realise this will shock you. It has truly shocked me how quickly a testimony of the Church can unravel when Joseph Smith’s divine calling as God’s prophet is undermined by learning the truth about him.

I have come to believe over the last month that there are so many inconsistencies and problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, as well as the divinity of Joseph Smith’s calling as prophet, that I can no longer, in good faith, fulfill my calling as Bishop of Helston Ward.

You can read his entire letter here.

by

Yet another ten quick questions for Mormons.

You’ve enjoyed Ten (very) quick questions for Mormons, Ten more (very) quick questions for Mormons, and Another ten (very) quick questions for Mormons. DefCon now brings you ten more questions from Keith Walker of Evidence Ministries.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

by

A Roman Catholic on Chuck Colson on Mitt Romney on Mormonism.

I just read an excellent article from NCR on Chuck Colson’s position on the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and its pertinence in American politics. Although the author of the article is Roman Catholic (which leads him to some erroneous conclusions like suggesting that Romanism is Christian), he does make some great points about this issue that Evangelical Christians should be cognizant of, while simultaneously pinpointing some of Chuck Colson’s poor misuse of Scripture.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Mormons are polytheists. They believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three different gods,that there are countless other gods besides, and that somewhere there is a “God the Mother” with whom the Father celestio-biologically reproduced Jesus.

Further, they believe that we are the same species as the gods and that by being a good Mormon you can grow up to be a divinity with your own planet of billions of people worshipping you.

Worse, they claim that actual Christianity is a false and degraded, apostate Christianity. That they are the true, restored Christianity.

They are therefore polytheists of a type that goes way beyond ancient paganism. Back then apotheosis was reserved for the emperor or the pharaoh, but more importantly polytheists did not claim to be Christians, much less to be the only true expression of Christianity with actual Christianity being a theological perversion.

Mormonism thus subverts the core doctrine of Christianity (the doctrine of God), passes off true Christianity as a counterfeit, and holds itself out to the public to be the genuine article.

You can read the entire article here, and as usual, the Mormons have flooded the comment section of the article.

______________________________________________

See also:

Should a Christian vote for Mitt Romney?

Should Christians vote for the lesser of two evils?

A shocking realization if a Mormon becomes president of the United States.

by

That’s where I’ve read that before!

The following is a great chart from 20 Truths About Mormonism showing the “similarities between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews as summarized by [Mormon] Elder B. H. Roberts.”

This is a followup to Where Have I Read that Before?

Book of Mormon View of the Hebrews
Gives an Israelitish origin of the American Indian. Pleads for an Israelitish origin of the American Indian on every page.
Deals with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel. Deals with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel.
Deals with the future gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes. Deals with the future gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes.
Emphasizes and uses much of the material from the prophecies of Isaiah, including whole chapters. Emphasizes and uses much of the material from the prophecies of Isaiah, including whole chapters.
Makes a special appeal to the Gentiles of the New World–esp. the people of the United States to become nursing fathers and mothers unto Israel in the New World, holding out great promises to the great Gentile nation that shall occupy America, if it acquiesces in the divine program. Makes a special appeal to the Gentiles of the New World–esp. the people of the United States to become nursing fathers and mothers unto Israel in the New World, holding out great promises to the great Gentile nation that shall occupy America, if it acquiesces in the divine program.
The peopling of the New World was by migrations from the Old World. The peopling of the New World was by migrations from the Old World.
Migrating Jaredites are taken into “that quarter where there never had man been”. Its migrating people are taken into a country where “never man dwelt”.
The colony enters into a valley of a great river. Peoples journeyed northward and encountered “seas” of “many waters” in the course of their long journey. The motive of their journey was religious. Ether is prominently connected with recording the matter. The colony enters into a valley of a great river. Peoples journeyed northward and encountered “seas of many waters” in the course of their long journey. The motive of their journey was religious. Ethan is prominently connected with recording the matter.
Nephites divide into two classes, the one civilized, the other followed a wild hunting and indolent lifestyle that ultimately led to barbarism. The lost tribes divide into two classes, the one fostering the arts that make for civilization, the other followed a wild hunting and indolent lifestyle that ultimately led to barbarism.
Long and dismal wars break out between the Nephites and Lamanites. Long and dismal wars break out between the civilized and barbarous divisions of people.
The Lamanites utterly exterminate the Nephites. (The same thing occurs with the Jaredite peoples in the exact place the Nephites would later be exterminated). The savage division utterly exterminates the civilized one.
Civilized people develop a culture of mechanic arts; of written language; of the knowledge and use of iron and other metals; and of navigation. Civilized people develop a culture of mechanic arts; of written language; of the knowledge and use of iron and other metals; and of navigation.
Unity of race–the Hebrew race and no other is assumed for the inhabitants of ancient America. Unity of race–the Hebrew race, and no other is assumed for the inhabitants of ancient America.
Book of Mormon peoples are assumed to occupy the whole extent of the American continents. With the possible exception of the Eskimos of the extreme north, this race of Hebrew peoples occupied the whole extent of the American continents.
The original language of the people was Hebrew. The Indian tongue had one source–the Hebrew.
Joseph Smith used an instrument in translating the Book of Mormon called Urim and Thummim which he described as two stones and a breastplate. View of the Hebrews describes an instrument among the mound finds comprising a breast plate with two white buckhorn buttons attached, “in imitation of the precious stones of the Urim.”
Admits the existence of idolatry and human sacrifice. Admits the existence of idolatry and human sacrifice.
Prophets extol generosity to the poor and denounce pride as a trait of the people. Polygamy is denounced under certain conditions as in the practices of David and Solomon. Generosity to the poor is extolled and pride is denounced as a trait of the American Indian. Polygamy is denounced
Lost sacred records would be restored to the Lamanites along with the return of their lost favor with God in the last days. Indian traditions of a “Lost Book of God” and the promise of its restoration to the Indians, with a return of their lost favor with the Great Spirit are quoted.
Sacred records were hidden or buried by Moroni, a character that corresponds to this Indian tradition in the Hill Cumorah. Ethan Smith’s sacred book was buried with some “high priest,” “keeper of the sacred tradition.”
Reports of extensive military fortifications erected throughout large areas with military “watch towers” here and there overlooking them. Reports of extensive military fortifications linking cities together over wide areas of Ohio and Mississippi valleys, with military “watch towers” overlooking them.
Reports of prayer or sacred towers. Describes sacred towers or “high places,” in some instances devoted to true worship, in other cases to idolatrous practices.
Some Book of Mormon people effect a change from monarchial governments to republican forms of government. Part of Ethan Smith’s ancient inhabitants effect a change from monarchial governments to republican forms of government.
Civil and ecclesiastical powers are united in the same person in Book of Mormon republican people. Civil and ecclesiastical powers are united in the same person in Ethan Smith’s republics.
Lehi, first of Nephite prophets taught the existence of a necessary opposition in all things–righteousness opposed to wickedness–good to bad; life to death, and so following. Some of Ethan Smith’s peoples believed in the constant struggle between the good and the bad principle by which the world is governed.
The gospel was clearly preached among the ancient inhabitants of Americas. Ethan Smith’s book speaks of the gospel having been preached in the ancient America.
The Book of Mormon brings the risen Messiah to the New World, gives him a ministry, disciples and a church Ethan Smith’s book gives, in considerable detail, the story of the Mexican culture-hero Quetzalcoatl–who in so many things is reminiscent of the Christ.

They conclude this list with the following quote from Mormon apologist, historian, and member of the LDS general authority, B.H. Roberts, from his work Studies of the Book of Mormon, (University of Illinois Press, 1985, p. 242):

“Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact be merely coincidence?”

And 20 Truths About Mormonism also reveals:

“Joseph even appears to have plagiarized his father. For many years his mother cherished the details of several of her husband’s dreams, and one of these was incorporated wholesale into the Book of Mormon as a vision by Lehi, the father of Nephi.”

The Vision of Lehi
(Book of Mormon (1830), pp. 18-20)		 Dream of Joseph Smith, Sr.
(Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 58-59)
…me thought I saw a dark and dreary wilderness… I thought I was traveling in an open and desolate field, which appeared very barren…
I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable, to make one happy…most sweet, above all that I ever had before tasted…I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also… …a tree, such as I had never seen before…I found it delicious beyond description. As I was eating, I said in my heart, “I cannot eat this alone, I must bring my wife and children.”…
And I beheld a rod of iron; and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree… I beheld a beautiful stream of water, which ran from the east to the west…I could see a rope running along the bank of it…
…a great and spacious building…filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceeding fine, and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those which had come at, and were partaking of the fruit. I beheld a spacious building…filled with people, who were very finely dressed. When these people observed us in the low valley, under the tree, they pointed the finger of scorn at us.
by

Where have I read that before?

The origin of the Book of Mormon is a fascinating subject as there is clear evidence that its source was not divine, but was actually conjured up in the imagination of Joseph Smith, inspired by similar stories circulating around his time.

It’s precisely because the Book of Mormon was drafted by Joseph Smith (a “poor farm boy” as Mormons like to refer to him) and not divinely inspired, that we’re not surprised to see the almost 4,000 changes, alterations, and corrections to the Book of Mormon since its first publication.

And it doesn’t shock us that many parts of the Book of Mormon are simply plagiarisms from the King James Version of the Bible, including the use of King James English long before there was King James English (just one of the many anachronisms found in the Book of Mormon).

And we’re not stunned that absolutely none of the huge cities and civilizations described in the Book of Mormon have ever been found.

And we’re not astounded that there’s no historical, archeological, or anthropological support for the claims of the Book of Mormon.

And we aren’t astonished that DNA science has actually proven the claims of the Book of Mormon to be false.

And we aren’t beside ourselves that there’s not even one ancient manuscript to support the validity of the Book of Mormon (like the over 25,000 ancient manuscripts that support the Bible). 

These are some of the many problems that we’d expect to see from a book created by finite man, not from an inspired work by an infinite God.

So where did this “poor farm boy” get his ideas and inspiration for the Book of Mormon?

Continue reading →

by

Nephi or Moroni?

The following is an interesting article from an unlikely source.


What most LDS have been taught in church and believe as truth.

The name of the angel that visited Joseph Smith three times on the night of Sept. 21, 1823 was named Moroni.  The name of the angel is mentioned several times in many LDS publications and he has always been referred to as Moroni.

Significant details & problems that most LDS are not aware of.

This angel is the one who told Joseph Smith where the gold plates were buried and can be seen on top of most LDS temples.  However, a close examination of early church history tells a different story.  Some early LDS sources which say that the angel’s name was actually Nephi are as follows:

Keep reading here.


by

Mormonism’s Bigfoot.

I recently published an article on one of Mormonism’s wild claims about big, black, hairy Cain still roaming the earth in the post Mormon Prophet Lends Credibility to a Wild Claim. And, of course, the first response that post received from a Mormon apologist was:

The real shame is that it is simply a waste of time as no self-respecting person would really care enough to take the time to right [sic] about such meaningless prattle. Such a pity.

This was an interesting response considering the fact that it was important enough to Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball to write about it in his book The Miracle of Forgiveness. Evidently it’s only prattle when a non-Mormon discusses the matter.

And apparently one Mormon didn’t get the memo because he’s still talking (and writing) about the Cain/Bigfoot (and racism) matter. Blogger Doug Gibson has risked not being self-respecting because he’s been wasting his time by writing about such prattle when he recently published the post Awareness of Racism Eased Mormon Folk Tales Regarding Cain, Bigfoot. According to Gibson’s article, President Kimball wasn’t the only one in Mormon history to report claims of Cain/Bigfoot sightings.

Although some Mormon apologists would have you ignore such “prattle,” I highly encourage you to read Gibson’s article. And be sure to read all the enlightening comments afterward, like this sample from a commenter named Mikeasell:

Here is the deal: the church likes to teach what they call unchanged, revealed doctrine. When said doctrine becomes unpopular and threatens the church financially, the doctrine gets downgraded quickly to a “teaching” or a “guideline”, then a further downgrade to a “practice”, it is then removed from manuals and books (hence why people of different generations heard or did not hear the stories). Then the practice can simply be “discontinued”. They begin with the Lord has said X because Y is a true principle, live by it or go to hell, then they begin saying well we have been taught in the past that X=Y, then they begin with the “we don’t understand, but we are sure there is a mysterious purpose as to X is somewhat related to Y, but it is not for us to question the Lord”, then the blatant downgrade: we no longer “practice X, X practice has been discontinued, it is not really tied with Y”.

The reality is that the LDS church had inclusion criteria based on race. When it became apparent that the NCAA would allow teams like Stanford to avoid playing BYU and therefore the Church was having their non-profit status reviewed by the IRS, then suddenly (within a month) God changed his mind. Same with polygamy, it went from we will die before we give it up, we will break the law cuz God is a higher law, to sending ppl to Mexico to practice it to eventually pretending it really did not happen for that long or that it was because it was just a trial, there were too many men, etc. . . . .It is amazing to me, shocking really, that people are gullible enough to believe that a never changing restored gospel needs changing all the time, and surprisingly to accommodate cultural pressures. I cannot believe that people that believe in prophets can also believe that those prophets can not agree on basic doctrine, to the point that Joseph Smith, if he were to come back, would be excommunicated from the church he founded because of his beliefs and practices.

by

If Mormonism were true.

An article from Mormon Coffee offers the following six things you’d expect to see if Mormonism were true. You can read the entire article here.

____________________________________

If Mormonism were true…

1. … Joseph Smith would have been able to consistently, accurately, remember his visit from two separate supernatural beings, God the Father and Jesus the Son. We now know that is not the case (for more info, see here, here, and here).

2. …the LDS “truth” that there are at least two gods, our Heavenly (spirit) Father, whose name is Elohim, and Jesus (Elohim’s son), whose spirit-name is Jehovah, would have been consistent since Mormonism’s beginnings. Instead, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s first work, preaches that there is only one (modal) God (see Alma 11:26-31, 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5 for example). Joseph Smith originally taught that Jesus’ father’s name was Jehovah, and Brigham Young, Mormonism’s second prophet, taught that Heavenly Father was actually Adam, the first man on earth. Joseph also originally taught that of the three members of the “Godhead,” only Jesus had a body. That of course is no longer Mormon belief.

3. …the Book of Mormon, a book that is supposed to contain the “fulness of the gospel,” would teach on the plurality of gods, man’s potential for godhood, eternal marriage in Mormon temples, baptism for the dead, three degrees of heaven, and the other beliefs that separate Mormonism from orthodox Christianity. Not only does the Book of Mormon not teach these things, it and the other LDS scriptures frequently contradict current Mormon truths, and each other.

4. …there would be evidence of a large battle on or around the Hill Cumorah in New York, and other archeological evidence to support the notion of Book of Mormon life on this continent. Instead, LDS apologists are still struggling to locate and identify possible Book of Mormon geography sites (see also here and here).

5. …the Book of Mormon would not contain Greek and French words like “adieu” and “Jesus” and “Alpha” and “Omega.” It would not speak of things that had not yet been invented. It would not contain quotes from the KJV Bible, including KJV mistakes. It would not abuse the phrase “it came to pass” in all of its books but two. It would not contain country-boy vernacular. But it does.

6. …when portions of the papyri used to create the Book of Abraham were recovered and translated, the text would be very similar to what Joseph had written. Instead, just as you would expect if Joseph Smith had bought merely a couple of random mummies that had been found in an ordinary catacomb from a man with many mummies and scraps to sell, the papyri has been discovered to be common Egyptian funerary documents.

by

Nope. Never.

You hear Mormons say it all the time whenever you challenge any of their doctrines: “We never attack other faiths.” Or, “We never disparage other religions.” Or, “We’re too busy sharing the gospel to be negative about other people’s beliefs.”

For those who know better, these words are usually uttered out of either a profound ignorance of their own religion or a desperate attempt to get you off topic and put you on the defensive.

It is a fact that Mormonism has attacked, disparaged, ridiculed, and spoken negatively about the Christian faith (anyone who knows Mormon history knows this; it’s not even debatable).

The very Mormon organization is founded on a preemptive attack of Christianity. Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that all of Christianity was apostate. Without his assault on the Christian faith, the impetus for Joseph Smith’s religion is removed and there would be no need for Mormonism.

Simply put, Mormonism’s very existence is predicated on the lie that Christianity is apostate, the Bible is mistranslated, Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient, and “The Christian God is the Mormon’s Devil.”

And other early Mormon leaders were not shy with divulging their disdain for our faith. See this article to read some of the mean, nasty and downright hateful things uttered about Christians by Mormon prophets, leaders, and apologists.

And inevitably there will be Mormons who claim, “We don’t teach that anymore” as if truth one day is a non-truth the next (and notice that they rarely ever say, “We don’t BELIEVE that anymore“). If they were honest they’d say, “We’re just more subtle about it now.”

The below video from the June 2011 Manti Pageant reveals that the well-hidden derogatory sentiment against Christians by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and some not so hidden) is still alive and well. 

Thanks to  Mormon Coffee for posting the video and astutely observing:

In this short clip, the Mormon Church pageant makes fun of the Christian doctrines pertaining to the nature of God and eternal punishment, portrays Christian pastors as being unwilling or unable to answer the most basic of life’s questions, and misrepresents the “fervor of religious revival” with “the exhortations of contending preachers, each proclaiming his own church the only avenue of escape from the horrors of a burning hell.” The narrator jeers, “Amen, Hallelujah”; one of three pontificating preachers drones, “It is only here that you will find salvation. Only here,” while churchgoers dismiss the play’s sincere truth-seekers, Mary and Robert, with an annoyed sweep of their arms.

by

A shocking realization if a Mormon becomes president of the United States.

“Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?”

– Brigham Young as recorded in Journal of Discourses Volume 4 Page 219

“If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity.”

– Brigham Young as recorded in Journal of Discourses Volume 1 Page 108

“Men, who have been warned and forewarned, but who will associate with the wicked and take a course to commit whoredom, and will strive to lead our daughters and our wives into the society of poor, wicked curses, with a view to gratify their cursed passions; we will take them and slay them before this people.”

– Heber C. Kimball as recorded in Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 173

As the debate among Christians continues on whether or not they would (or should) vote for a Mormon for president, and whether or not a Mormon president would be a good thing for our nation, there is a concern that has gone virtually unmentioned that I’d like to bring to your attention.

During the early years of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), a doctrine was taught (and practiced) that essentially gave Mormons the divine right to take another man’s life, believing not only that it was sanctioned by God, but that by doing so they were doing the victim a favor.

“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 as recorded in Journal of Discourses Volume 4 Page 53

This Mormon doctrine, known as Blood Atonement, calls for the murder of those who commit sins that the blood of the Mormon Jesus can’t cleanse.

“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 as recorded in Journal of Discourses Volume 4 Page 54

Mormons actually believed that they were doing what Christ could not do; namely, saving a sinner’s soul. In this upside down world of Mormon atonement—which is completely antithetical to God’s plan of redemption as revealed in the Bible—even King David was unable to be fully forgiven by God for his sins and had to pay for his own sins in Hell.

According to Mormonism, even the sin of adultery could not be atoned for by God’s Son, and was cause for men and women needing their own blood shed:

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. . . . There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.”

 – Brigham Young as recorded in Journal of Discourses Volume 3 Page 247

Not surprisingly, like many early Mormon teachings that later Mormon leaders felt were politically expedient to downplay, deny, or reverse (like racism, Adam was God, polygamy, the Mormon god’s sexual encounter with Mary, spiritual vegetables, people living on the moon, people living on the sun, etc.), their doctrine of Blood Atonement eventually just went away.

So, what bearing does this have on whether or not a Mormon is elected president? And how is the doctrine of Blood Atonement that’s no longer practiced (at least by the mainstream denomination of Mormonism) germane to American politics? And why should we be concerned about it now?

The answer lies in the reason they don’t practice it.

Mormon apologists claim they no longer practice Blood Atonement because it can only be practiced when the power of the government and the power of the church are in the same hands:

“This doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands. It was, for instance, practiced in the days of Moses, but it was not and could not be practiced in this dispensation . . . .”

– Bruce R. McConkie as recorded on page 93 of his book Mormon Doctrine (1966 edition)

If either Mormon presidential candidate Romney or Jon Huntsman is elected president of the United States, then the civil and ecclesiastical laws will be in the same hands of the LDS organization, thus, there would be nothing preventing them from lifting their moratorium on shedding the blood of sinners. And, after all, they would be doing a great service to those caught up in sins that the Mormon Jesus simply can’t redeem them from.

But there is one thing that will stop them from following through with the words of their own prophets concerning Blood Atonement: Their insatiable appetite to protect the façade that they’re actually Christians.

Should a Mormon be elected president, the largest obstacle to their reinstitution of Blood Atonement would be that it would gravely hurt their proselytizing efforts. And as anyone who’s studied Mormon history knows, modern mainstream Mormonism will sacrifice their former principles and doctrines anytime it becomes politically expedient to do so. When times change, so does the mind of Mormonism’s god.

Modern Mormons have worked too hard to distance themselves from the uncomfortable teachings of their past prophets, while simultaneously (and ironically I might add) tirelessly working to reinvent themselves to appear to the unsuspecting and undiscerning as Christians, (the very Christians—and Christian faith—they consider apostate).

If the LDS organization loses converts it loses money. I don’t believe that the current LDS propaganda machine would do anything to jeopardize their new mainstream image, but with the “civil and ecclesiastical laws” being “administered in the same hands” the ban from practicing Blood Atonement would be gone, and that is a more frightening prospect than a promised tax hike.

To learn more about Blood Atonement, see:

The Mormon doctrine of Blood Atonement as taught by Brigham Young 

The Doctrine of Blood Atonement as taught by the Mormon organization

“The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle’s [sic] being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This is loving your neighbour [sic] as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. This is the way to love mankind.”

– Brigham Young as recorded in Journal of Discourses Volume 4 Page 220

by

A restored priesthood?

4Mormon.org provides the following quick-reference chart and asks the question: “If Mormonism has ‘restored’ the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, why is its version different from the Biblical version?“


Mormon Priesthood
Biblical Priesthood
All LDS males are ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood
Must be of the Lineage of Aaron (Num. 3:6, 10; Heb. 7:5, 11-14)
Deacons are 12 year old boys
Deacons are husbands (I Tim. 3:8)
Males with Defects are Accepted (Joseph Smith had a leg defect)
Must Be Physically Blameless (Leviticus 21:1-23)
Priests do not perform blood sacrifices, nor follow biblical rites
Priests perform blood sacrifice and special rites (Leviticus 8)
Many “High Priest” Bishops
One legal “High Priest” at a time
Many LDS Males receive the Melchizedek Priesthood
Only Jesus qualified for office of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1-4, 23-28)
LDS Males transfer to others the Melchizedek Priesthood
Melchizedek Priesthood is non- transferable (Hebrews 7:23-24)
by

Mormonism: Making gods out of sinners since 1830.

The following quote comes from the blog Lehi’s Library:

“So in our view it doesn’t matter one bit that a person sinned at some point in their existence prior to becoming a god. It doesn’t preclude the possibility of being divine, because atonement can be made and the sin can be totally eradicated. In this sense I think we have a much more robust doctrine of atonement than mainstream Christianity. Our view of atonement is powerful enough to make gods out of sinners, theirs isn’t. . . . It doesn’t frustrate our sense of existence to speculate that God the Father was once like us.”

I wish all Mormons were that candid.

by

They just don’t get it.

For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:2-4

They just don’t get it.

The false religions and cults simply cannot grasp the simplicity of the gospel message. This is evidenced anytime you have a conversation with one of them about sin, grace, faith, and justification.

You can go round and round in debate with a member of one of these organizations and you often walk away with a headache because they can’t see the forest for the trees.

They have been so indoctrinated to believe their respective organization’s interpretations of biblical texts that when someone presents them with the proper interpretation of biblical texts (using Scripture to interpret Scripture) they simply reject it.

It is so sad to watch the deceived continue in their deception, especially when they are leading others down the same broad path.

It’s like trying to convince a fish that it’s wet; the fish has known nothing but wet, so it cannot even fathom what dry is.

Recently the Jehovah’s Witnesses stopped by my home and dropped off an advertisement with my wife for an upcoming event. They won’t stay to talk (our house has been flagged for almost five years now) but they will occasionally still drop off literature . . . and run.

In their latest dump-and-run literature drop they gave my wife a flier for their upcoming commemoration of the anniversary of Jesus’ death. Here’s the opening line from that advertisement:

“John the Baptizer stated that Jesus ‘takes away the sin of the world.’ (John 1:29) This drew attention to Jesus’ role in saving obedient mankind.”

Jesus saved the obedient? 

See how subtle their deception is?

The obedient don’t need a Savior. Jesus Himself said He came for the sinner, not the righteous (Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:17).

This declaration by the Jehovah’s Witnesses is predicated on the erroneous assumption that our obedience is a prerequisite for Christ to be able save us. This is classic Watchtower Organization rhetoric and is essentially the doctrine of all cults and false religions: Believing you must do your part and cooperate with God to help Him or enable Him to save you.

They just don’t get it.

If the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe obedience is required as a means or requirement of salvation (which anyone who knows Watchtower doctrine can attest that this is indeed their position) then they better be obedient to all the Law without ever sinning once from cradle to grave, otherwise they will be found guilty of breaking all the Law (James 2:10):

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

But what’s even more damning to those seeking salvation via the conduit of obedience is the fact that they are under a curse for doing the very thing they think will save them (Galatians 3:10):

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”

What Jehovah’s Witnesses (and Mormons, and Roman Catholics, and Muslims, etc.) fail to understand is that regeneration comes before obedience, not the other way around. Romans 8:6-8 makes our inability very clear:

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

It’s a classic case of putting of the cart before the horse.

They just don’t get it.

It’s only after we’ve been saved, regenerated, made alive in Christ, been born again, that our works and obedience are pleasing and acceptable to God 

Our obedience is borne out of a love and desire to please the One who purchased us with His own blood, not out of us trying to appease Him and merit His favor like the pagans try do for their idols.

Our obedience, and the good works we do after being saved, come from God and are prepared beforehand for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10). This is why our behavior should reflect our conversion (Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, Acts 26:20, Ephesians 4:1) and why the absence of which should cause us to question whether or not we’ve been genuinely converted.

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?  2 Corinthians 13:5

Simply put, regeneration precedes obedience (John 14:15, John 14:21-24, 1 John 3:24).

What obedience did Abraham offer to become righteous before God (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3)? What obedience did John the Baptist declare to those coming to be baptized (Matthew 3:2)? What obedience did Christ declare upon the start of His earthly ministry (Matthew 4:17) or later in His ministry (Luke 13:5)? What obedience did the thief on the cross exhibit to be with Jesus that very day in paradise (Luke 23:39-43)? What obedience did Paul tell the Philippian jailer he needed to perform to be saved (Acts 16:30-31)?

The false faiths that dot the landscape of Christianity like pock marks all invalidate the word of God for the sake of their traditions (Matthew 15:6), and their works-righteousness gospel is in complete contradiction to Jesus’ teaching of the means of the free gift of God’s grace and mercy as cited in His example of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. You cannot read those words of our Lord and still believe that your obedience (or anything for that matter) merits you any favor in God’s eyes. If you still believe otherwise, then you make Christ’s brutal, bloody, and barbaric sacrifice null and void because it was all done in vain. 

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. Galatians 2:21

See also: Why Don’t They Get it?

by

Well . . . is he or isn’t he?

Is Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney pro-life or pro-abortion? I often hear that Christians are willing to vote for him because he “shares their values,” and being pro-life is one of those values often cited. But is he really?

In the following video Mitt Romney makes his pro-abortion position very clear, so those expecting to vote for him because he’s pro-life may need to find another reason to do so.

And then there’s this whopper of a video in which for five minutes Romney defends his pro-abortion position, distancing himself from those nasty rumors that he might be pro-life.

At 4:22 seconds into the video Mitt Romney unequivocally decalres:

“I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate. I am in favor of preserving and protecting a woman’s right to choose”

But he’s changed, some may say. Has he? He’s now pro-life, some may say. Is he?

These final two videos reveal why it’s hard to determine Mitt Romney’s actual stance on the murder of unborn children because he flip-flops back and forth on the issue

I have to wonder if double-mindedness, pandering, and deception are just some of the character traits Christians voting for Romney consider to be their “shared values.”

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to vote for the lesser of two evils.