Great Example in Evangelism (Witnessing to Mormons Means Knowing Your Bible) -- Josh Williamson

Jamin McKeever (A Friend) Interviewed by Berean Beacon

Mormon Cult Leader Killed by Drug Cartel

(Rubicon_Cube h/t)

MEXICO (July 07. 2009) Actual CCTV footage of drug cartel hitmen passing a toll booth after assassinating Mormon leader Julian Le Baron. 20 drug cartel hitmen armed with Ak-47's and M-16's in 3 SUV's were dispatched to kill the religious leader.

MEXICO CITY (Map, News) - Authorities in northern Mexico will give arms and training to members of an anti-crime group in a Mormon community after two local residents were killed by hitmen with ties to organized crime, residents said Friday.

In a step similar to deputizing local residents, members of the hamlet of Colonia LeBaron say authorities in northern Chihuahua state are helping them create a community police force.

"There are 77 residents of Colonia Lebaron who are willing to participate as community police," Chihuahua state Attorney General Patricia Gonzalez said. "We are taking the necessary steps to make them community police."

"They can work on serious crimes that occur in communities like these and coordinate with the appropriate authorities to investigate," Gonzalez said.

Julian LeBaron, whose brother Benjamin was shot to death Tuesday by gunmen believed to work for the Juarez drug cartel, said the local force is needed because of extortion and kidnapping threats by gangs, and a lack of confidence in local police.

Strict gun-control regulations in Mexico restrict the use of most weapons mainly to police and soldiers, although powerful weapons have proliferated the country through the drug trafficking business.

"We told the government that we don't trust our local police, because they're always on the payroll of the drug runners," LeBaron said. "They tell us that they'd be willing to train us to train people from our own community so that our cops could be people we could confide in."

No date has been set for creating the force, and state police and soldiers have been dispatched to provide security following the killing of LeBaron and his brother-in-law, Luis Widmar, who helped organize protests against the kidnapping of a community member in May.

"The governor is telling us that he can make it happen if we give him people that know how to use weapons. ... that if they already have a knowledge of how to use weapons that he could train them and give us at least a couple of guys in 30 days," LeBaron said.

Neither Chihuahua state authorities nor the community group has said what kind of weapons the patrols would be given. The killings this week in Colonia LeBaron were carried out by men armed with assault rifles.

Mexico's community police forces exist mainly in rural, isolated Indian towns, and are typically armed with single-shot rifles.

The U.S. Embassy said the FBI has offered to assist Mexican authorities in the investigation. Both victims held U.S. and Mexican citizenship.

Benjamin LeBaron has been described as the first anti-crime activist in Mexico killed by hit men in retaliation for his work. His killers left a banner saying his slaying was revenge for the arrests of suspected cartel gunmen.

(This version CORRECTS name to Widmar sted Withman)

Mormon Discussions 101

Mormon Atheism

Re: Hitler and Occultism

Someone quoted me as saying:

(Originally posted by seang200)

The swastika as used by the Third Reich was adopted from the Thule Society who was into Tantric Hinduism (a form thereof) as well as the Germanic gods who represented many things that surely were not Christian -- the point of the post. While forms of the Swastika both reversed and not have surely been used or displayed throughout history, as the Third Reich used it is connected strongly to the atheistic occultism found in Madam Blavatsky's writings as well as the non-god philosophy of nuts like Nietzsche. This is why the rant against atheistic relativism. Nothing in the Aryan cults is different than any other non-religious "religion."

Atheistic occultism? Occultism has a supernatural aspect to it, while atheism does not.

I respond:

Buddhism is atheistic. Some forms of Hinduism are atheistic. There is even a for of Christianity that is atheistic (Liberation Theology). Secular Humanism is atheism and it is considered a religious view, there are even tax exempt humanist "churches" and "counselors" in the military for secular humanists. Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, just to name a few more. Do you think a Satanist admits to believing in a deity? I have talked to many and they reject such a notion. In fact, evolution could account for the many "gods" in Mormonism... there is ultimately no difference between it and dialectical materialism... this philosophy of Marxism says that atoms (or smaller elements) are eternal but continually change, just like their thesis/anti-thesis idea. The Mormon god is made up of atoms (quarks, DNA) just like you or me... and matter is eternal in Mormon theology/philosophy, just like Leninist-Marxist philosophy. So I could argue that Mormonism is atheistic as well.

I am putting this here to further my thinking on Mormonism, see my previous posts on the matter by clicking on the “Mormonism” tag below.

Moroni Visits Mitt

Is that the Door Bell?

Mormons at my Door,

or,

All and all, a good day!

I had Saturday off and was watching my nephews and my boys (not watching as much as making sure death did not occur with four boys being crazy – five including me), my wife was shopping at Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart. Just prior to her getting back my nephews were picked up (not by the police) and I came out to help unload the car. As I was doing so she asked what the guys with name tags on their shirts were that go door to door. Wondering why after almost twenty years of discussing such matters and having hundreds of books on both Mormon’s and Jehovah's Witnesses lining our walls she would be asking such a question I responded, “Mormon.”

She said, well, they just walked around the corner of our condo. Elated I started gathering my thoughts just in case they came to our door. Sure enough, as I was carrying in a heavier item I could see through our kitchen window two clean cut guys come to the door. I directed their attention through the screen of the opened kitchen window by telling them I would be with them in a moment . I gave the wife a glance and she gave me that “go get’em Tiger” look that Spidey gets from M.J.

So I went to the security door (Newhall) and opened it up and invited them in. They seemed happy about that since not too many people are so inviting. This glee was short-lived as they entered into my three-foot-by-three-foot foyer that has maybe eight tiles before opening up to our modest living/dining area. I say short-lived because in front of them, almost on every wall are bookcases with thousands of books. As their eyes adjusted and I ushered them onto a couch they asked if I had read all these books. I mentioned that I have read quite a few of them; some were for reference and others yet for future reading. As they sat and their eyes adjusted more they had on the opposite wall in front of where they were seated my shelf full of comparative religious books, articles, and encyclopedias of religion. Two shelves full of Mormon and Jehovah's Witness books, counter Mormon and Jehovah's Witness books, and first editions of many of their own literature. This is when the “glee” turned mainly into survival mode.

Click to Clear

Typically there is an elder “missionary” who has been in the field for some time and is very dedicated. The other elder (really boys) is typically new to the canvassing deal. He is being trained. I could tell right away who was old and who was new. The newbie was trying to take in all the titles, glancing around, seated forward on the coach. The oldie was relaxed and more comfortable in his position. I offered to fetch water – stressing that they were in water bottles – but to no avail (J-Dubs and Latts will never take food or drink from you, but I always ask as a friendly gesture). As I settled in the more experienced elder asked if he could pray. So we did. Afterwards they gave a quick speech about what they were doing and they asked if I had any questions. Mistake. Before I dug in I pointed to the copy of an old Weekly Standard issue sitting on my coffee table in front of them with Mitt on the cover trying to allay any anti-Mormon fears they may have after seeing my books. I mentioned that while I may not agree with Romney’s theology, I still will vote for him for President, so its not like I have a hatred or disdain for Mormons by any means, “I love and pray for you missionaries often” finishing my point off.

I said I do in fact have a question, and the question – I said – stems from this election year and the exchange a few months back between Huckabee and Romney. They were quick to say that the church does not support any one candidate, that they are politically neutral. After their disclaimer, I continued. I said in this exchange Huckabee mentioned that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and Mitt’s response was that this is a canard used by people against the church (rough quote). So I asked them a question… before I continue, let me say that I have dealt with LDS for years, my friend and I would call the 1-800 number here and there to get the free copy of the Book of Mormon, brought by elders personally to the door of course, in order to discuss these weighty issues of theology with them. So I am familiar with most of the tactics they use. However, with Mitt in the race and the church taking advantage of this higher profile, I was “chomping at the bit” to hear what was going to come out of their mouths. Okay, back to my question. I asked this, “So, my question is this, and maybe you can answer it, are Lucifer and Jesus brothers?”

I got a decidedly more open answer than I expected, but they fell short of getting to the point of Heavenly Father (whom they consider God) and one of his wives having celestial sex in order to produce children whom relate to each other as siblings, making us all at least half-brothers and sisters (as there are many wives/goddesses in the Mormon heaven). So I got into it for them, but before I did, I thanked them for the answer I had already received… trying to be low in voice and mannerism while also being polite. I started to explain that most Mormon theologians and philosophers go further and tell us that Heavenly Father was himself birthed by a father and mother on a planet somewhat similar to ours, but even prior to that he was born in a heaven not too different than the one they mentioned in their answer, and that that “God” that gave birth to their “God” also had parents, and so on… ad infinitum.

I explained a bit how an actual regress of infinite events is impossible, giving the example of our universe, saying, that if the universe or cosmos was eternal, the useable energy in the universe would have been used up an infinite time ago… explaining that the sun is burning off energy and that at some point the entire cosmos will die a “heat death.” This shows that we live in a finite cosmos and that whatever got it started is outside even the space/time continuum. Which is – I pointed out – much different than what Mormon theology states about their God. They disagreed with me but I politely asked if I could explain more. (The newbie was enthrawled… I could tell, he said yes… that’s an “ooops” that the more experienced guy will discuss with him later. So I did.)

I mentioned the contradistinction between LDS “creation” and historic Christian “creation” theology. I said in Mormon theology Heavenly Father didn’t create the first eye, or kidney, or coccyx and make sure that this information would continue on in the production of offspring with that information encoded in DNA and RNA. I stressed that in Mormon theology when Heavenly Father was born to his parents they had eyes already, because even his parents parents parents had the genetic code physically for eyes, thus passing on (not creating ex nihilo) genetic information from previous generations. The Mormon “God” didn’t create the eye, he merely performed a sexual act which continued his lineage. The historic Christian belief is that God not only created the first eye, liver, toe, and the like, but even spoke time into being as well as the environment and all the genetic machines to make sure this newly developed/created code would continue.

I then brought up something else that crossed my mind a few months back in a discussion on this blog about almost the same issue (really, a debate of sorts... the person finding my blog via comments I left at the Washington Times blog), and that is that matter and gods predated the Heavenly Father of this world. I asked them why they think that whenever an atheist debates the issue of God they never debate against the Mormon concept of God? The newbie was quick (“ooops” number two) to say he didn’t know, I then said, I will tell you. “It is because he would be arguing against himself.”

This time I got an inquisitive look from both of them. “Let me explain why this is,” and so I continued. I mentioned that when a person is born here on earth matter (atoms, quarks, dirt, water, air, etc) doesn’t begin to exist at the same time they are conceived, matter, in fact predated them. The earth, the stars, and the like were here long before the hypothetical 45-year old atheist. Not only that, but natural laws such as the law of gravity, the laws of motion – right then the new guy chimes in with a law (for the life of me I cannot remember what it was, but at this point he is helping me make my case… Classic!) – were also before this person being born and so, this person is subject to them. In the same way when Heavenly Father was birthed in his heaven first by his “Godley” parents he was born into an environment that worked with laws in place, even granting he was born with a spiritual body. I granted that in this heaven the laws may be a bit different -- hypothetically speaking -- but that laws had to be in place nonetheless, even genetic parameters (DNA, amino acids, etc) were in place and that this God was subject to them, much like the “gods” of Grecian lore, even being controlled by wild emotions.

Heavenly Father

Born into an environment that imposes forces on him that are both older than him and because of their (these laws) imposing forces on him (gravity, causality, entropy, etc) while he has to live in a body that can only take up that space where he is, is, well, more powerful than he.

Atheist

Born into an environment that imposes forces on him that are both older than him and because of their (these laws) imposing on him (gravity, causality, entropy, etc) while he has to live in a body that can only take up that space where he is, is, well, more powerful than he.

Again I pointed out that in classical Judeo-Christian theistic thinking, God created even the laws of the weak and strong nuclear force and the like. Material, energy, even time was brought into existence at some point by my God. I then mentioned that “I was going to use a phrase by someone smarter than I and say that ‘there God is too small’.” At that point the seasoned young man chimed in and said that the church doesn’t teach officially that Heavenly Father was born to parents like us. at which point I got up, walked over to my bookshelf and pulled my copy of “Achieving Celestial Marriage (Student Manual)” off the shelf and brought it over to where I was seated and sat. I turned it over to the back cover and asked them who published the book I was holding. They of course did not what this book was, all they know knew was upon looking at the familiar “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” emblem that the book was published by their church – officially. The sinking feeling was tangible.

I turned it over to reveal that this was a manual for couples to read prior to being married in the Temple, an official student manual to be exact. I opened up to page 129 and read the second emboldened title down the page aloud, “GOD WAS ONCE A MORTAL MAN” (capitals in the original), and then I read the next line underneath that that reads as follows, “He Lived on an Earth like Our Own.” The seasoned guy squirmed, the new guy almost right then went to his testimony, where I cut him off quite forcibly by saying I have a testimony of my own, and I gave what I could remember of my paragraph response when they give their testimony:

• I too have a testimony… I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus is the Christ and Savior of the world… that He died for my sins and was resurrected. I know that I am saved by grace and not by works and will inherit heaven upon that principle. I also know that God hears and answers prayer. I know all this not only by the feeling I have from the inner witness of the Holy Ghost but by the reliability of God's Word, the Bible, which declares it to be so. And, I also know that because of my relationship with Christ, Jesus has changed my life and continues to bless me!

… thus, beating him to the punch not allowing him to close the discussion (one) and two not letting him feel secure in this all too often used psychology of shabby belief.

I then asked the seasoned guy if this book published by his church was wrong. He then went to the line about a person (referencing me) coming into a story near the end when the plot, foreshadowing, actors, etc, were already well developed. I asked again. He acquiesced and said that this is what is taught. I quickly moved on. I mentioned again that because of this that their “God” is too small, and is not all-powerful or all-knowing like the Judeo-Christian God (again, I knew this would hook them into at least another short round of discussion). The new guy said “Heavenly Father is all-knowing and all-powerful,” to which the seasoned guy affirmed. I pointed out that this is impossible because if Heavenly Father were truly born to parents on a planet similar to ours that much like people here he could have been an atheist for the first half of his life, or worse. Bringing up Moses being a murderer as well as King David, so too could have Heavenly Father killed and even done time in jail only then finding the similar path to exultation via a similar Mormon doctrine.

Following this hypothetical, I said he grew in knowledge and understanding, and Mormon theologians say he is still earning new things. I asked them to affirm with me as well as the Book of Abraham that God lives on a planet near the planet Kolob. They did. I asked them to affirm that he has a physical flesh-and-blood body, they affirmed that. I said then his all-knowing status is diminished merely because he is confined to what he see’s and hears where he is at at that time. Making him finite. I did grant that he may know more than them, but surely not what the future brings. This also is different than classical theism. I got up again and grabbed another book entitled "The New Mormon Challenge" and read the reviews off the back by Mormon professors and apologists stating that this book was the most respectful, well thought attempt to discuss these important matters with their fellow Mormons. I said if they were to leave here with any new challenges to their faith at all that they should in the least - when they get home - get a copy of this book and read it... again I stressed the Mormon scholars who wrote positively of the book.

The seasoned guy went to his testimony and right when he was going to tell me about the burning in his bosom - I cut him off and asked who in the Bible shoots fiery arrows? He said, “Satan.” I then said, until you can substantiate a feeling in your chest by something other than the feeling itself, I cannot accept that this burning sensation is Godly. Almost forcibly I said (beating them to the “we have to go” speech… controlling even their exit like the conversation), “before you two leave my house, I want to read a Scripture to you,” I reached for my worn King James version of the Bible and opened up to Ephesians 1:8-9:

• “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not by yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Man I tell you the Spirit leaped at those gospel words! I stressed that I had touched on many philosophical ideas and challenges to their faith, but that if they wish to come back and discuss this verse and others, I will always be here" (looking at the new guy as I said it).

As they got up I mentioned that my prayer for them was to come to realize that there is rest in Jesus, that salvation is already waiting for their affirmative response and not because of whom they please at their church. And off they went.

I went back to the end of my garage after shelving my books to grab the rest of the heavy items for my wife who so graciously allowed me to interact with lost souls. As I walked out the back to the car, they were getting in their truck (yes, no bicycles), and I hollered after them, “have a good day guys, and remember, I am always here for discussion.” As the wife came in from the back as well after a conversation with a neighbor, she said “Their leaving?” I responded, “Yup, no more door-to-door today, they definitely had more condo’s to go, but after this condo they have to go back and deprogram all this new information they just got…. I scared them away honey.” “You did baby, you did,” was her reply.

What a great Saturday. Got to see my nephews, my wife brought home food, and I got to plant the seed of both doubt about the Mormon worldview as well as planting the a seed of the gospel message.

Kimba, I had to throw this cartoon in for you... thought you would enjoy it. The cartoonist is of course of a more moderate descent than I... but I still enjoy his wit and style.

Here is his front page

and, this is the page I retrieved the above cartoon. Enjoy

Romney vs. LDS Theology

To be (a Mormon) or not to be (a Mormon)

Hot Air (props)

This is the question… does he really not understand Mormon Theology? Or is he trying to sound as “Christian” as possible?

Joseph Smith's First, Second, Third Vision?

(above) Joseph Smith's Handwritten Account of His Vision in His Diary

How Many “First” Visions?

Ronald Said (an old debate many yearn ago):

“And about what Joseph Smith believed, he SAW the Father and Jesus Christ, at the same time. He saw that they had bodies like ours, except glorified….To say that Joseph Smith believed that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost were the same is laughable, at best.”

Well, I will quote quickly on the latter part of your comment, “To say that Joseph Smith believed that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost were the same is laughable, at best.”, unfortunately you are laughing at the Book of Mormon? I added nothing to this book, or took anything out. So when you laugh, you’re laughing at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Secondly, the “vision” that defines for you who God (and his subsequent nature) is, commonly referred to as the First Vision, is very important to LDS theology. And separates it from historical Christianity. The First Vision sets up the following, and thus Smith’s

1. Prophetic authority,

2. Teaching concerning the nature of God, and

3. Condemnation of historical Christian beliefs is all dependant upon the credibility of this first vision account.

At this point I would invite anyone who can examine evidence and delineate between what is truth and what is false. However, this invitation excludes Ronald because he already knows it to be true due to a feeling he received in his chest when he prayed over the book of Mormon. His only criterion is a sensation, which, if allowed or caused by a fallen angel, Ronald would have no recourse in testing this phenomenon.

Keep in mind that the Mormon Church believes in a form of tri-theism. In other words, the Father has a body of flesh and is a completely separate being than from Christ. Christ has his own body and was in fact born (by sexual union) by heavenly mother in heaven (the Planet Kolob)[could you imagine Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard teaming up!?]. If Christ was not born, Heavenly Father would still be God, they are separate – corporeal – beings. And the Holy Ghost is a God as well, but has a spirit body, still quite discernable, much like Casper the Friendly Ghost’s body. [For more info, see my 4 Trinity Posts on page 3]

The First Vision

Smith’s official account of this pivotal event was published in Times and Seasons in 1842, twenty-two years after the episode allegedly took place. This account is now published in the Pearle of Great Price, and is accepted as Scripture by Mormons. However, Mormon authorities suppressed at least three additional earlier accounts of the first vision, all by Smith, because they contradicted the “official” story. And the official first vision was not published until 1840.

For example, the earliest account we now posses, from 1832, varies in key details from the official 1842 version. There are discrepancies in Smith’s age, in the message given and the number of divine personages in the vision. There are also details added, such as the presence of an evil power, Smith’s reason for seeking the Lord, and the existence of a revival. All this lends serious doubt to the credibility of the official account.

Consider for instance, the divine persons in the revelation. In this version (1832) only “Jesus” appears. What happened to God the Father? The first handwritten account of Joseph Smith does not even mention the existence of the Father – who plays so crucial a role in the official version:

It is absolutely impossible for us to believe that Joseph Smith would not have mentioned the Father if he had actually appeared…. We feel that the only reasonable explanation for the Father not being mentioned in the account that was suppressed is that Joseph Smith did not see God the Father, and that he made up this part of the story after the writing of the first manuscript. This, of course, throws a shadow of doubt upon the whole story.

Consider yet another of Smith’s accounts written between 1835 and 1836. In this case there is no mention of God or Christ at all – only many spirits who “testified” of Jesus. But here again, the authority of the account – and of Mormonism’s “divine origin” – is called into question. No longer is it God and Jesus telling Joseph Smith to begin a new church because all the others are abominations; it is now only a group of nebulous “spirits.” why should anyone accept the word of a fifteen-year-old boy claimed he talked with some unidentified spirits? Even if he did, why should anyone trust such spirits in the first place? If my fifteen-year-old boy claimed he saw a vision of God or Jesus giving him divine authority, why should Mormons believe him?

So what do we have?

We now have three different handwritten manuscripts of the first vision. They are all written by Joseph Smith or his scribes and yet every one of them is different. The first vision account says there was only one personage. The second account says there were many, and the third says there were two.

The LDS Church accepts the one with two personages. If I were to accept one, it would be the first account. It was written six or seven years closer to the event. Also, this account, which mentions only one personage (Jesus), is the only account in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting (his diary).

In fact, as Fawn Brodie explains:

The description of the vision was first published by Orson Pratt in his Remarkable Visions in 1840, twenty years after it was supposed to have occurred. Between 1820 and 1840 Joseph’s friends were writing long panegyrics; his enemies were defaming him in an unceasing stream of affidavits and pamphlets, and Joseph himself was dictating several volumes of Bible-flavored prose. But no one in this long period even intimidated that he had heard the story of the two gods. At least, no such intimidation has survived in print or manuscript…. The first published Mormon history, begun with Joseph’s collaboration in 1834 by Oliver Cowdery, ignored it altogether… Joseph’s own description of the first vision was not published until 1842, twenty-two years after the memorable event….

If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph’s hometown, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family. The awesome vision he described in later years may have been the elaboration of some half-remembered dream [keep in mind his first account in his diary] stimulated by the early revival excitement and reinforced by the rich folklore of visions circulating in his neighborhood. Or it may have been sheer invention, created some time after 1834 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money-digging.

So no one besides Joseph Smith in his diary even mentioned this vision for twenty years!? Unlike the resurrection report of Jesus, we have papyri dating to A.D. 55, Dead Sea scroll illusion dating to A.D. 49, and early creeds and catacomb writings dating to A.D. 44. These all describe the resurrection (as well as the belief that Jesus was God almighty). These are all based on earlier beliefs, so we can get the date even closer. But the point is this; such an event is well remembered and talked about. For the most important foundation for the origin of the Mormon Church to not even be mentioned in the throes of massive copying and writing seems to be the most serious objection to the vision being valid.

And, like I have shown, the Mormon Church has made sweeping changes to the Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants, as well as other important Church writings. So it wouldn’t surprise me if they massively tampered with the official account of the first vision as well. This all shows that the foundation for the existence of the Mormon Church is called into question. But that’s okay Ronald, you can grasp onto that “burning in the bosom,” cause it’s all you got buddy.

Are Mormons Just Another "Denomination?"

Are They (LDS) Christians?

(With thanks to Bill McKeever's work)

The twelfth Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball said:

Latter-day Saints are true Christians. We cannot understand how anyone could question our being Christians. It would certainly be a reflection upon anyone who would say such a thing, because if they attended even one session of any meeting of this church, they would come to realize that every prayer and every song and every sermon is centered in the Lord Jesus Christ. We are the true followers of Jesus Christ; and we hope the world will finally come to the conclusion that we are Christians, if there are any in the world. (Edward L. Kimball, ed., The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 434).

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie stated:

Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail…. Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 513)

Rex Lee, the president of LDS-owned Brigham Young University, felt that it was “ridiculous” to not consider Mormons as Christians. He added:

I assume that qualification as a Christian turns mainly on belief in Christ. Mormons not only qualify as Christians under that definition, but they have also given broader meaning to the definition itself. (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe?, p. 19)

The LDS Church has been striving in recent years to gain acceptance as a Christian religion. Although the LDS Church has been very successful at polishing its image, it has never backed off from its many heretical doctrines, which distinguish it from Biblical Christianity. While many Mormons claim that they should also be entitled to the name “Christian,” many of these same Mormons would be equally offended in Bible-believing Christians insisted on being called “Mormons.”

>>>> Imagine the Mormons’ reaction to the following statement:

I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe that God was once a man or that men can become gods. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe the Mormon Church is the only true church or that we need human prophets to guide the church. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe temples are necessary or that couples can be married for eternity.

A knowledgeable Latter-day Saint would defy that such a person was, in fact, a true Mormon. why? Because this person who claims to be Mormon denies the very doctrines that make Mormons what they are. At the same time, however, a Mormon who claims to be Christian denies the very doctrines that make Christians what they are. <<<<

Indeed, Mormonism denies or distorts the basic tenants of Biblical Christianity. The two religions are incompatible. The areas of difference include the doctrine of God, the basis for authority, and the idea of salvation for mankind.

Brigham Young University professors Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks ask “anti-Mormons” to refrain from calling Mormonism a cult. They ask that “more neutral terminology [be used], such as ‘religious movement,’ ‘religious group,’ or ‘church.’” I would do this, but in return I would ask the Mormon Church to quit attempting to use the name “Christian” to describe its “religious movement.”

Unlike many contemporary Mormons who desire to have equal status within Christianity, many LDS leaders have gone out of their way to deride these same Christian churches. Throughout the history of the LDS Church, its leaders have continually taught that Mormonism is far superior to the Christian denominations.

Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, made the first attack on Christianity when he claimed to have asked God, in 1820, which of all the churches was correct. He was answered that “I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt…” (Joseph Smith’s Testimony, 1:13).

According to Smith, Christianity was not in need of reformation. Rather, its corruption was so severe that a complete restoration was necessary. Drs. Peterson and Ricks attempted to downplay the severity of Christianity’s “depravity” by claiming that Smith merely referred to the local churches at the time of his youth. They write:

What the Lord told Joseph Smith in the grove was that the churches and creeds of 1820 were defective and distorted by error. He did not say that they were entirely and utterly wrong (since they preserved much truth), nor did he say that each and every Christian church would always be wrong…. He did not say that Christianity, as such, is false. There is nothing logically wrong with saying that the churches of 1820 were incorrect on many important issues (“corrupt”), and then saying that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (organized in 1830) is true (Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word, pp. 170-171).

Was Smith really referring only to the churches of 1820? To draw such a conclusion undermines the very existence of the LDS Church as well as goes against the pronounced statements of many Mormon leaders. Contrary to what these professors claim, Bruce McConkie seems to be more consistent with Mormonism’s overall attack on Christianity. Following a quotation of the Athanasian Creed, he concluded:

Is it any wonder that the Lord of heaven, as He stood by His Father’s side on that glorious day in 1820, speaking of all the churches in all Christendom, told young Joseph “that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight”? (McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p. 117, [emphasis mine])

What Smith supposedly was told by God – that there could only be one true church upon the earth – is supported by the Book of Mormon itself. It reads:

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth ( Nephi 14:10).

McConkie described the “church of the devil” when he wrote:

What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power?…. It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel…. It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all it parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini (McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55, [emphasis mine]).

Doctrines and Covenants 1:30 confirms this idea of exclusivity when it says that smith’s restored church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased….” Expounding on the idea that only two churches exist – the Church of the Lamb and the Church of Babylon – George Q. Cannon, a former member of the LDS First Presidency, said:

The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon. God is not the founder of them, yet there are many sincere people who belong to them. These Elders of the Church are commanded to warn, and they commanded to gather out. The Spirit of the Lord moves upon the people who will listen to His servants to leave Babylon and join the Church of the Lamb (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p. 324, [emphasis mine]).

As indicated by the pretense of his statement, Cannon believed any non-LDS Church is part of Babylon or, as the Book of Mormon puts it, “the church of the devil.”

Christians and Mormons may believe in Christ’s literal resurrection, >>>> but Christians do not believe that Jesus went to Americas after His resurrection, nor that His resurrection merely paves the way for men to be resurrected (earlier post on salvation); they do not hold that Christ’s birth was a result of God the Father having sexual relations with Mary; nor do Christians believe that Jesus is a created being who was the spirit-brother of Lucifer.

Christians have never worshipped a God who, as the offspring of another God, became a mortal man and eventually attained godhood. Thay have also never worshipped a being who resides near a planet called Kolob. <<<<

Peterson and Ricks write:

At least until recently, Mormons have thought of conservative Christians as, in many ways, their allies…. Most Latter-day Saints can only shake their heads, therefore, at the claim that Mormonism is not Christian (Offenders for a Word, p. 57)

Despite the arguments made by these writers, Gordon B. Hinkly, first counselor to LDS President Ezra Taft Benson, disagreed that the differences are minor. Speaking of the uniqueness of his church while classifying it as Christian, he wrote the following in an LDS Church tract:

They [Mormons] are generally classed as Protestants, since they are not Catholics. Actually they are no closer to Protestantism than they are to Catholicism. Neither historically nor on the basis of modern association, theology, or practice, can they be grouped with either…. Suffice it to say that its theology, it organization, and its practices are in many respects entirely unique among today’s Christian denominations (What of the Mormons?, p. 2)

Mormon leaders since Joseph Smith’s day have continually emphasized the differences, not the similarities, between Mormonism and Christianity. A Christian who is approached by a Mormon who says Mormonism is “just the same” as the historical Biblical Christianity needs to realize that this Mormon either does not know Mormonism or does not know the tenants of the Christian faith.

Mitt Romney Denies Church Doctrine

Mitt Responds to Huckabee’s Apology:

Voters will reject attacks on his Mormon faith, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Wednesday in response to a question raised about his beliefs by rival Mike Huckabee.

"I think attacking someone's religion is really going too far. It's just not the American way and I think people will reject that," Romney told NBC's "Today Show" about Huckabee's asking whether Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers.

"That's been something that's leveled at our church over many, many years,"…

~ Mitt Romney

So, is this a canard? Or is it official Mormon doctrine? At a debate going on elsewhere on the WWW, Bill McKeever brought up an article by a Momron that calls for those persons (Mormons) to be truthful in all cases:

In an article that has been posted on mrm.org for quite some time (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness), I mention an article written by BYU professor Robert J. Matthews for the October 1994 issue of Ensign. In that piece Dr. Matthews wrote that the ninth commandment is a “strong declaration against … gross understatements, fabrication, or the willful giving of any explanation not supported by the facts.” He went on to say, “Even sharing the truth can have the effect of lying when we tell only half-truths that do not give the full picture. We can also be guilty of bearing false witness and lying if we say nothing, particularly if we allow another to reach a wrong conclusion while we hold back information that would have led to a more accurate perception. In this case it is as though an actual lie were uttered” (pg.54).

A short while latter in the text Bill McKeever again asks this poignant question:

So Ralph and Dj, I take your responses to mean Mormons do believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. So the answer is simply, yes.

What was the answer… after lots of twists and turns, this finally came down the written turnpike:

…And Bill, the answer is Yes, they are brothers. I have no reservations about saying that on this site as most of you already know the answer and know about the other doctrine that goes with it.

So. The question remains… although I know the answer to it via Mormon sources, not anti-Mormon sources, for example:

"By definition exaltation includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity. This our Father in heaven has power to do. His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of celestial marriage" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, LDS Church manual, p.129).

Recommended Reading (free videos to view at the bottom)

Stocking Stuffers

Since Mormonism is all the “rave” today, at least in the blogosphere, I will recommend a few books that will assist the researcher to better understand what Mormonism is all about. If one were to read these five books listed, you would have quite a grasp on Mormon history, theology, as well as a reasoned theological and philosophical response to it. Click on the books for the Amazon.com link.

Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints

One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church

Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (this book is a sequel to the historical survey above and deals more with what modern Mormonism teaches)

The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Studies in American Religion Series) – Library Edition

The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement

Free Videos!!

(Click on the images below to start watching the videos)

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

DNA vs. the Book of Mormon

Lifting the Veil of Polygamy

UPDATE: 12-16-07, in response to comment section:

Starting to Learn,

All you need to do is open up your “quad” and the Bible that is in that conglomeration of adding and taking away authority from it is what I accept.

This "Continuing Revelation" is key to Mormon theology. Scripture can be changed. For instance, in the 1835 edition of Doctrines and Covenants we find this in Section 101:4:

4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religous faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that all person who exercise control over their fellow.

Polygamy was practiced from 1832 to after 1890 while the 1835 D&C 101:4 (which was Scripture until 1876), originally condemned the practice of polygamy. The Book of Mormon likewise condemned it:

Mosiah 11:2

For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.

Jacob 1:15

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2:24

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Jacob 3:5

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Now, this "Continuing Revelation" is one aspect (of quite a few) of what makes Mormonism a theological cult (not a harmful cult that interprets scripture that end up killing people, like Jehovah's Witnesses), but the mere fact that whomever is in control can change the Scriptures to suit there needs, and all the previous “editions” of “revelation” are now obsolete. For instance, from the 1833 edition to the 1835 edition of Doctrines and Covenants there were 65,000 changes. But I am only dealing with one aspect of those changes here, polygamy. IN later editions of Doctrines and Covenants we find this, and the previous section I quoted was removed:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:1

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

Section 132:37-39

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Section 132:61

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

This weighs heavily on me in regards to a politician who is “wishy washy” already in what they typically promise and bring to fruition. Except in Mitt’s case, he has a theological premise to change, cover-up religious truths because he feels only those who have been sealed in the Temple are worthy to know the real meanings behind LDS theology, etc.

I am sure others reading here who were not aware that changes to “Holy Scripture” could be made so easily is somewhat eye raising, to say the least And the 150-year long history of half-truths to what Mormons believe should likewise concern those who take religious convictions mixed with political serious as well.

Cult break-offs of the Mormon Church happen because as the Main church changes their “revelations,” others stick to the belief being X-ed out or “white-washed.” Take the "Black Issue" and the changing of Mormon Scripture to cover up the fact that Mormonism taught racist ideology.