Utah

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

Dear Mormon: Which version of the first vision do you believe?

Here’s a quick time-line of how the conflicting accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision(s) overlapped.

1820 – 1838 The first vision consisted of angels only.

1842 The introduction of the “God the Father and Jesus the Son” version of the first vision.

1838 – 1890 The first account of “angels only” continued to linger on in spite of the new 1842 version.

1890 – Present The “God the Father and Jesus the Son” version is the only one accepted (and most Mormons today don’t even know about the whole “angels only” version).

To view a downloadable, easy to read, superbly detailed, full-color pamphlet on the various versions of the first vision click this link here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

joseph-smiths-vision


I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14 years old.

Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith’s Diary 1835-1836

An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith

Page 59

It commenced by an angel of God flying through the midst of heaven and visiting a young man named Joseph Smith, in the year 1827.

Wilford Woodruff

Journal of Discourses

Volume 13 Page 324

1869

He sought the Lord by day and by night, and was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel.When this personage appeared to him, one of his first inquiries was: “Which of the denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?”

George A. Smith

Journal of Discourses

Volume 13 Page 78

1869

Just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it.The answer was that none of them are right.What, none of them?No.We will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.

John Taylor

Journal of Discourses

Volume 20 Page 167

1879

Some one may say, “If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour [sic] come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?”Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else.

Orson Hyde

Journal of Discourses

Volume 6 Page 335

1854

How did this state of things called Mormonism originate?We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view.He was surrounded with light and glory while the heavenly messenger communicated these things unto him, after a series of visitations and communications from the Apostle Peter and others who held the authority of the holy Priesthood, not only on the earth formerly but in the heavens afterwards.

John Taylor

Journal of Discourses

Volume 10 Page 127

1863

Upon the reality and truth of this vision rests the validity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. – Gordon B. Hinckley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

first-vision

See also: This video on the first vision.

by

Utah’s dirty little secret.

xxx

Mormonism’s been playing the shell game; hiding many of their beliefs from the public eye since its very inception, including the sins of their prophets. And now there’s yet another secret sin permeating among the Mormon-saturated state of Utah.

You see, anytime we challenge Mormonism’s false doctrines, inevitably some adherent to LDS comes in and–ignoring the facts–repeats the mantra referring to how good of a people they are and thus, this “proves” they’re the only true church.

They love to misuse Jesus’ teaching that “you will know them by their fruit” when applying it to themselves because they don’t drink, smoke, or cuss. However, those who’ve studied Mormonism know very well that this false religion is replete with the evil sins of deception, lies, wickedness, adultery, polygamy, and murder. But these LDS apologists always fail/refuse to consider these wicked fruits of LDS: “Pay no attention to that, look only at the good things we do.”

So when I saw this article exposing Utah’s addiction to pornography, I realized this is just another decomposing, rotting, spot of mold festering just below the surface of the facade of “perfect” Mormon fruit.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest. The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. “The differences here are not so stark,” Edelman says.

by

Mormon blasphemy illustrated.

The following picture is found on page 126 of the 1972 LDS Family Home Evening Manual to describe to Mormon children “how Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.”

Utter blasphemy!

1972-family-home-eveningFor more information check out:

Mormon Blasphemy: God and Mary had “natural” relations to conceive Jesus

Redefining the Virgin Birth: Mormonism’s Teaching Concerning the Natural Conception of Jesus

Other LDS related posts:

What do Mormons really believe about Christians?

The top 5 Brigham Young teachings that Mormons desperately try to conceal from you

Mormonism on how spiritual veggies differ from earthly veggies

Thanks to Mormonism, discerning good from evil is as easy as a handshake or a hair color

Requirements for Mormon salvation

The Mormon doctrine of Blood Atonement as taught by Brigham Young

The doctrine of Blood Atonement as taught by the Mormon organization

The Mormon “Jesus” is Satan’s brother

Recognizing the 202nd birthday of Joseph Smith by posting some of his false prophecies

What Mormonism really teaches about the Bible

The Gordon B. Hinckley interview (video)

When is an “everlasting covenant” not an “everlasting covenant?” When polygamy becomes unpopular

On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the LDS church wishes to remind you that they’ve been racism-free since 1978

by

The smoldering ash heap of Ravi Zacharias Ministries.

ravi-zacharias DefCon has chronicled Ravi Zacharias’ downfall beginning with his first public compromise when he accepted an invitation to speak at the LDS temple in Salt Lake City but failed to make any distinction between the true Jesus Christ of the Bible and the demonically inspired false Christ of Mormonism. See Ravi Zacharias fails to preach the Gospel to the Mormons.

We then examined his further compromise in Ravi’s Descent where he accepted the condition to not pray in Jesus’ name at the National Day of Prayer coordinated by NDP chairwoman Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson of Focus on the Family which recently promoted the cult of Mormonism. Beginning to see the big picture yet?

Then we examined Ravi’s Crash and Burn as he not only accepted an invitation to speak at rank heretic Robert Schuller’s New Age ReThink conference, but that Ravi Zacharias also spoke favorably of Roman Catholic mystic Henri Nouwen, calling him “one of the greatest saints in recent memory.”

Now Slice of Laodicea and Apprising Ministries are reporting that not only will Ravi Zacharias not apologize or even back away from his endorsement of Henri Nouwen, but his ministry is defending his position. You can read the following letter from Ravi Zacharias Ministries in defense of Ravi’s endorsement of Nouwen by clicking here (PDF).

One of the most shocking parts of this letter written by Margaret Manning was her justification of Ravi’s compromise via the following statement:

“ . . . if it weren’t for the Catholic church you and I would not be here–nor would Christianity.”

Ravi Zacharias has become one of a long line of “public figure” Christians to compromise a little here and a little there until full blown apostasy is reached. What next Ravi, what next?

“Today I personally believe that while Jesus came to open the door to God’s house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her own way to God.”

Roman Catholic mystic Henri Nouwen

Sabbatical Journey

Page 51, 1998 Hardcover Edition


by

The epitome of a Mormon testimony.

This post is not intended to be insulting or demeaning, but is a glimpse into why it is so difficult to convince a Mormon to review the facts about Mormonism from a reasonable standpoint and apply logic to come to a conclusion.

As you will see from these two brief videos, a Mormon testimony usually requires no logic, evidence, or even cognitive reasoning; just feelings. This is why oftentimes the debate with a Mormon dissolves into, “I bear you my testimony . . . ” and “I know, because I know, because I know.”

Their regurgitating of this indoctrinated mantra “I bear you my testimony” is frequently employed when presented with the evidence that Mormonism is a false religion. This type of “testimony” reveals that their whole basis for belief is grounded on emotion and feelings at the exclusion of fact, reason, and logic.

by

The shelf.

For those who enjoyed the previous post on the ten reasons Runtu can’t be a Mormon anymore (see here), I’ve found another great post from him that I’ve entitled “The Shelf.“

The “shelf” is where Mormons who can’t help but notice the huge errors of Mormonism are told to put their “questions.” They are instructed to shelve it away until one day the Mormon god reveals it to them.

Runtu published a great post on this “shelf” that I wanted to share with you (and the comments left on the original post are worth reading too). He originally entitled his piece Why I don’t envy Mormon apologists:

When I was an “apologist” (read: rationalizer) for Mormonism, I used to talk about the “shelf.” You know, there were things that we couldn’t quite explain, so we put them on a shelf, figuring that eventually God would sort it all out, and we’d see how everything fit together.

Somewhere along the line, the shelf collapsed, and I’m happy to say I don’t have a shelf anymore. Once you acknowledge that Mormonism is not what it claims to be, there is nothing about the religion and its claims that is so difficult to explain that it must go on the shelf until God explains it. But for the apologists, [expletive deleted], what a shelf. To believe in Mormonism you have to believe that:

  • A young guy who made his living by finding buried treasure (of course, he never found any) by putting a special rock in a hat could miraculously translate ancient records using the same rock and the same hat.
  • Ancient golden plates really did exist, although only members of the young man’s immediate family and close friends ever said they saw them, and the plates weren’t actually used in the “translation” process.
  • This same young man was persecuted for saying he had seen God the Father and Jesus, whereas no one, not even his family, noted his First Vision, and when “persecution” came, it was for the aforementioned rock in hat thing.
  • The record he translated speaks of large numbers of pre-Christian Christians who lived in the Americas, writing in Hebrew and a form of Egyptian, building Jewish temples, making steel swords and metal chains, and riding horses–they did all of this and yet left no trace whatsoever of their culture.
  • This record parallels almost exactly early nineteenth-century beliefs about the Mound Builders (a white, possibly Hebraic Christian, race that was destroyed by the evil Indians) in its descriptions of warfare, religion, culture, and technology, yet these parallels are merely coincidental.
  • The young man was commanded by an angel with a drawn sword to take teenagers and married women as his polygamous wives, but he was extremely careful not to tell his lawful wife, Emma, (or the public, for that matter) about these “marriages.”
  • He translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus scrolls that not only have nothing to do with Abraham but are from the wrong time period. But that’s OK, because, despite the direct translations of three of the illustrations, we are told that the real scrolls are missing.
  • The young man, after founding a religion, never worked again, except to run his church, yet lived off the largesse of his followers and a lot of debt. But, we are told that he got no gain from his employment as prophet.
  • This man incorrectly translated a Greek psaltery and some bogus brass plates, yet we are to believe that he really could translate ancient languages through his rock in the hat.

There’s a lot more, but just these few things seem so patently obvious that I am glad I don’t have make excuses for them anymore. What did you have on your shelf?

Again, thanks for your candor, Runtu.

– Pilgrim

by

Why Runtu can’t be a Mormon anymore.

I wanted to share with you Runtu’s top ten list of reasons why he says he can no longer be a Mormon.

10. The Book of Abraham turns out to be a common Egyptian funeral text called the Breathing Permit of Horus.
9. Anachronisms and clear plagiarisms in the Book of Mormon.
8. Joseph Smith’s history of claiming to be able to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in a hat, the same method he would later use to “translate” the Book of Mormon.
7. The wholesale stealing of Masonic rites for Joseph’s inspired temple ceremony.
6. Joseph’s practice of sending men on missions and then “marrying” their wives as soon as they had left town; see, for example, the story of Marinda Johnson Hyde.
5. Joseph’s practice of “marrying” teenage girls behind his wife’s back and promising eternal life to parents of teenagers for their consent.
4. Widespread use of church funds to enrich church leaders, from the days of the Kirtland Safety Society to Brigham Young and beyond.
3. The Mountain Meadows Massacre.
2. Racism, sexism, and homophobia.
1. Most of all, the church’s pattern of hiding all of these things. If you grew up Mormon, you were never told any of these things.

They’re all true. And I won’t be a part of that anymore.

Thank you for sharing, Runtu.

Sincerely,

– The Pilgrim