Ten (very) quick questions for Mormons.











28 thoughts on “Ten (very) quick questions for Mormons.

  1. I can’t believe no one answered these. Just to prove these aren’t hard…

    1) Same reason an evangelical Protestant church would quick you out if you didn’t believe in Paul. Churches are defined by more than just their god but also by their canon.

    2) Because 132 talks about the conditions under which marriage is made eternal not the conditions under which is made polygamous. 132 is about exaltation.

    3) See 2 above.

    4) Jesus saves from ungodliness not from sin. Come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

    5) Same reasons Jews flip flop on whether they want to be called “Hebrews”, “Jews”, “Jewish persons or blacks flip flop on “african American”, “black” or “colored”. Persecuted minorities sometimes try to change names to remove negative emotional connotations from the dominant culture.

    6) No the Mormon church believes they unique possess the keys and the restored rites. Mormons believe that all churches are in some measure true.

    7) Exaltation, further progression requires absolute spiritual perfection of everything from the lower levels.

    8) Put maximum effort into fulfilling all the commands and when you fail repent and try again. Never wallow in any sin. The Cleansing Process.

    9) The church is the body of Christ. 1Cor 12:12-31

    10) Because the creeds lead one to worshipping a false god, “Those who believe the creeds of Christendom profess to worship an incomprehensible, unknowable, immaterial essence that fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present. Heathen and pagan peoples in all ages have worshiped idols;”


  2. CD-Host,

    1) Not true. No one would be kicked out for not believing in Paul. Belief in Paul does not affect Christian doctrine. What he writes affects the doctrine, but even then what Paul writes doesn’t affect the essential message that Christ died for our sins and was buried and raised from the dead. Faith is in Christ, not Paul.

    So, you are saying the O.T. polygamy wasn’t eternal, but LDS polygamy is?

    3) Your answer was not responsive. It is NOW considered old and temporary – which is why it is no longer practiced. Why is it no longer practiced if it was to be “everlasting”?

    4) Your response in unbiblical. The Bible says Jesus saved us from our sins.

    5) Tu quoque response. Mormons want to be called Christians, and yet would not want Christians to be called Mormons. Mormons are not Christians, and they don’t want to be called Mormons because that emphasizes the difference.

    6) You do not cite the Official Mormon stance. Read Smith’s 1st vision testimony which says all others are corrupt.

    7) Non-responsive to the question.

    8) Why is this completely opposite of what Scripture says? Scripture says there is NOTHING we can do to be saved; that we are saved ONLY by the work of Christ.

    9) The church being Christ’s body is figurative. Christ is the head of the church. These are not literal terms, which should be obvious from the context. The LDS, as a false belief system, doesn’t even meet the definition of the figurative body – the Church.

    10) False. The true church does not even NEED those creeds; true Christian doctrine is found in the Bible, and the creeds just help explain them. The false god is the god of the LDS which does not conform to any biblical description. The biblical is an eternal spirit while the LDS god at one time did not exist and is now an exalted man.


  3. Glenn —

    I’m not sure how tolerant this blog would be of me actually defending these doctrines (if any mod wants this to stop or move let me know) nor am I sure I’m the right person.

    1) There is no question that denying Paul would get you kicked out of most conservative churches. All protestant churches include 13 of his books in the canon for example. Luther’s entire theology is based upon Romans.

    2-3) Glenn reading your response I’m not sure you are following the original question about D&C 132. What I was saying is that 132 was not making a claim about a doctrine but rather about actual eternal marriages. Why for example Mitt and Ann Romney are eternal married not temporally married. I think you need to read 132 and more Mormon doctrine to engage here. I’m not trying to be rude here, but if you don’t know what exaltation is then you can’t really debate this.

    4) I understand your church believes in propitiation, which I consider to be unbiblical. I think expiation, that is to cleanse is far more biblical than the view that God views us with inputted favor. But this argument is one that ceases to be a quick question and moves on to a complex question.

    5) I’m not sure what this or my response has to do with the “are Mormons Christian” question. The issue is
    a) Whether one can calls the LDS church the “Mormon church” which many Mormons object to.
    b) Whether members of the LDS church can be called “Mormons” which many Mormons are OK with.

    6) He doesn’t say that all other churches are corrupt, “I 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.

    7) The question was “what condition do you need to be saved” I was pointing out that this was a binary view, saved vs. lost rather than eternal progression and exaltation.

    8) Obviously Mormons reject sola fide, as do the mast majority of other Christians on the planet. There is nothing unique about that viewpoint.

    9) I understand many Protestants believe in the Lutheran / Calvinist invisible church. Mormons along with most of the rest of the world’s Christians don’t. They read those verses as applying to an actual church. The biblical argument on visible vs. invisible church is the same one you would have with a Catholic.

    10) Your response here is all over the map and doesn’t address the question or response.

    As for the claim that Elohim at one point in your frame was mortal that is rejected. Elohim is eternal relative to you, there is no time as you know it, in which he did not exist nor that he was not God. Again you don’t really understand exaltation.


  4. CD-Host,

    1) My point is that the Christian faith doesn’t stand on Paul’s teachings, rather it stands on Christ’s teachings. The LDS faith stands on Smith’s teachings, and without Smith there is no LDS.

    2) The question is why 132 new and everlasting if the O.T. people practiced it. Your answer was because it talks about the conditions making it eternal. So my question was as to whether O.T. polygamy was eternal.

    3) The question is why polygamy is now considered “old and temporary” rather than “new and everlasting.” Your response didn’t answer the question. The answer really is that although D&C says it is new and everlasting, it has now been relegated to old and temporary because of a manifesto developed to push polygamy out of the church so Utah could become a state. There are two specific prophecies in this item.  1) If this was an “everlasting” covenant, why was it officially discontinued in 1890?  According to this prophecy, those who reject this command and are not living in plural marriage are damned.  2) Emma never agreed with this prophecy, and even later claimed it was a product of Brigham Young and Hiram Smith.  Was she destroyed?  No, she lived to be almost 75 years old, 36 years after this prophecy was given.

    I am very familiar with D&C 132 and how much false prophecy is in it, and I am very familiar with the doctrine of exaltation.

    4) What you believe and what Scripture says are two different things.

    5) My point was the logic behind your response. It was non-responsive other than to say, “Everyone else does.” But the real reason Mormons are more and more wanting to do away with the “Mormon” label is because they want to be seen as mainstream Christians, which they never will be.

    6) Okay, he says all churches are “wrong” and the preachers “corrupt.” The point remains the same. In order for churches to all be wrong, their doctrine would have to be corrupt.

    7) But your point is invalid, because the question was what condition you had to be in to be saved. LDS say can’t be saved in their sin, and the point is that the opposite of “in” is “out” so the logic would be that LDS can be saved only after they were out of their sin. Your response did not address the question.

    8) Where you get the idea that the “majority” of Christians reject sola fide is beyond me, unless you are talking about Romanists, who are considered by apologists to be a corrupted faith by adding works to salvation, as well as adding lots of other unbiblical ideas via “tradition.” Nevertheless, truth isn’t dictated by beliefs, rather by facts, and the fact is that Scripture says we are saved by faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 1:9-10; Tit. 3:5)
    9) You are still in error. The passage is discussing a figurative relation of the church with Christ – Christ is the head and the Church is the body of Christ. It doesn’t matter what denomination you discuss, no one believes that the Church is “the way, the truth and the life” – Jesus was talking about his literal person being the way.

    10) The question was addressing LDS claims of not attacking the church compared to what Joseph Smith claimed about the church. It was YOUR response which did not answer the question – you did not explain how Smith’s words were NOT an attack on the church, rather you attacked the creeds, claiming they lead one to worshiping a false God. My response was directed at YOUR response, correcting your assumptions and pointing out where the REAL false god is – the LDS.

    Yes, I really do understand “exaltation” and the doctrine of eternal progression. But you redefine what “eternal” is by making it comparative, while the biblical God is eternal by absolute fact, not “relative” to anything else. The biblical God created time. The LDS god had a father god and was exalted to his position.

    By the way, rather than your continued claims against my understanding of LDS doctrines, I will tell you I am an ex-Mormon and have been studying the LDS for close to 40 years since I left that false belief system.


  5. 1) I don’t see any evidence that the Protestant faith, your faith could exist without Paul’s teachings. Machen addresses this point in Christianity and Liberalism if you want someone from your team. Conversely the idea of Christian restoration pre-existed Joseph Smith. I’ll agree the specifics of the restoration came from Joseph Smith.

    2) Polygamy as a specific marital practice among earthly people is temporal. The doctrine in 132 is exaltation and that is eternal. If you are asking whether people in old testament times may have been fully exalted, yes that is why baptism for the dead is effectual.

    3) The question is why polygamy is now considered “old and temporary” rather than “new and everlasting.” There is an assumption in the question that polygamy is being called new and everlasting. I’m disagreeing with that premise.

    a) Rejecting the doctrine of polygamy in the 19th century is rejecting the authority of Joseph or Brigham, that is knowing the church and rejecting it. So yes apostasy prevents exaltation.

    b) Emma went on to found her own church with her son. That church rejected wholesale almost all the doctrine of the late 1830s through mid 1840s. In particular she rejected exaltation, the RLDS/CoC believes in what is essentially a Protestant notion of salvation. Nothing specific about polygamy in that rejection.

    4) Not really. I just don’t see any reason to start from scratch in arguing for expiation. There are plenty of Arminian Protestants that you can argue about expiation with, the arguments are well known and well documented. I don’t have anything to add on expiation vs. propitiation and the LDS church’s contribution to this field depends crucially upon revelations you reject.
    I see a scale (using Protestant language):
    a) Hyper calvinism
    b) Calvinism
    c) Arminianism
    d) Semi-Pelagianism
    e) Pelagianism

    You most likely are at (b) and consider (b) to be biblical. Most Mormons are at (d). There is an interesting argument to be had about (c) vs. (d). There isn’t much to say about (b) vs. (d), you have to have the (b) vs. (c) argument first.

    But mostly the issue is this. The point of the original questions was to present questions that Mormons supposedly couldn’t answer. The fact that they have an easy answer, even if it is one your sect disagrees with, disproves the original claim.

    5) I agree with you that the LDS church is never going to be happily adopted into the evangelical mainstream. I look at the Seventh Day Adventists and their struggle for acceptance and they had to cover about 1/10th the distance. As for being seen as mainstream Christians, the majority of the population already does see Mormons that way.
    However, the reason Mormons want to be seen as Christian in America are cultural not doctrinal.

    6) Right but there is a huge difference between claiming all other churches are partially true and partially false and thus one can learn from them and rejecting all other churches. In fact Mormonism goes further and applies this to other religions. Your faith, conservative reformed Protestantism, far more than Mormonism makes these sorts of absolute claims that other faiths are worthless and having nothing or almost nothing to teach.

    7) Salvation in Mormonism is not binary. There isn’t some point in time in which you go from saved to unsaved. Rather salvation is a process, that generally happens partially in life and partially after. Once salvation is seen as a process the question of opposites makes no sense. The opposite of 14 is not 26, .

    8) Yes I’m talking about “Romanists” and the Orthodox. The majority of Christians, are Catholics. I’m not going to conflate “the bible” with “the bible as understood by Calvin”. If you say “Christians don’t believe X” then you include several hundred major sects. If you want to exclude them all then say “my sect believes X”.

    9) So let me get this straight. The key analogy repeated multiple times in the context of a lecture on theology from which Paul draws theological principles we shouldn’t draw doctrine from. And I’m the one who isn’t being biblical?

    But I’d like you to look carefully at the very chapter you are talking about where John 14-15 at 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7 where Jesus promises a paraclete (παράκλητος), a human intercessor and counselor. In 14:26 we see this paraclete is a teacher (preaching) that reenacts (ordinances) i.e. a Church.

    14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    So in context what Jesus is preaching is that the Holy Spirit works in coordination with the fully human paraclete to create a spirit of truth and that this is the truth, the way and the life. Paul’s statements are fully supported by Jesus in John. Reread those chapters they are all about what’s going to happen after the earthly ministry of Jesus is over.

    10) Where in the bible does God say his eternal aspects are absolute in relation to all other possible Gods, and that he is eternal in relation to all possible generations of time? I don’t see anything like that in the bible. Every time I see the bible discuss time it discusses it as an absolute and speaks of God relative to that single time. You are making some rather strong claims here.


  6. CD-Host

    1) While Paul’s teachings certainly flesh out the faith and provide more understanding, we still have the remaining books of the N.T. The Christian faith is very simple; place one’s faith in the atoning work of Christ and you are saved. Although I don’t need Paul to say it, he does sum it up quite nicely: “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved.” Much simpler than the LDS works-salvation gospel.

    2) You are reading D&C 132 out of context. The entire context is polygamy here and in the eternal state. Polygamy was to be an eternal practice here on earth – context, context, context! Do I have to publish the entire D&C 132 here? And baptism for the dead is NOT effectual, nor is it a biblical practice. LDS take out of context Paul’s statement when he said “THEY” baptize the dead – not “we.” He was making a point about the belief of those people who practiced the ritual. Mormons tend to forget that there is no second chance – Hebrews 9:27

    3) You disagree this was a “new and everlasting covenant”?!?! D&C 132:4: “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” 132:6: “ And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.” Section 132 heading: “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives.” That it was a false prophecy is demonstrated by what I said earlier – it was discontinued by the Manifesto and Emma was never destroyed for rejecting it.

    a)You are relegating this to the 19th century, but it says “everlasting.”
    b) I know all about Emma and the RLDS. And, no, the RLDS isn’t “essentially a Protestant notion of salvation,” as I demonstrate here:
    http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/search/label/RLDS You say, “Salvation is a progression, beginning with baptism into the church and confirmation by the priesthood.” Protestant salvation does not include baptism nor priesthood, nor is it progressive.

    4) I’m not at ANY of your ideas of Christianity I’m a straight biblical Christian, which your scale leaves out. You claim that propitiation is unbiblical, yet it is found in several places in Scripture. I think this page has a good explanation of the word, and shows its usage in the Bible: http://www.oldpaths.com/archive/davison/roy/allen/1940/redemption.html The LDS “contribution” is based of false products of a false prophtet. I reject Smith’s revelations because he was a false prophet and the “revelations” were a product of his imagination – as I have proven on my site. The point of the question was that Jesus is the Savior, and if you have to earn your forgiveness, then what are you saved from? Scripture says over and over that we are saved from our sins – not from “ungodliness.” You don’t have an “easy answer,” you have one that obfuscates the issue.

    5) SDA are still not accepted into the mainstream evangelical Church because of their cultic teachings and their false prophet, let alone their additions to Scripture and works-salvation. Only the ignorant – mostly non-Christians – see Mormons as mainstream Christianity.

    6) Unlike the owners of this blog, I am NOT reformed in my theology, and as has been discussed by me and the owners, I consider Reformed theology (as simplified in TULIP) to be unbiblical, yet I would not say they are corrupt – just that they have a bad understanding of Scriptural doctrine – and they say the same about me and others who are not Reformed. Yet, in my experience, I have never heard Reformed Christians say all the other sects are wrong (except in a few areas) and their preachers corrupt. Smith claimed that he was told this by God. Smith did NOT say other sects were only “partially” wrong or “partially” corrupt – he said they were TOTALLY wrong and TOTALLY corrupt. Other faiths which worship false gods are certainly corrupt and no Christian should sanction them in any form by claiming they have something to teach. Christianity IS the only ONE true religious faith, and Mormonism is not Christian by any means of the word.

    7) The point of the video was that LDS say you can’t be saved “in” your sin; logic dictates if not “in” it must be “out.” Certainly you aren’t suggesting that there is an alternative state between in and out? No where in Scripture do we see salvation being a process; sanctification is, but salvation isn’t – your are either saved or you are not saved. It certainly is “binary.” As for salvation taking place “partly after” life, then you must explain Hebrews 9:27 where it says we die and face immediate judgment.

    8) Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been rejected as unbiblical for centuries; they are considered cultic. And I beg to differ with you that the “majority of Christians are Catholics” – I think if you add all the denominations and non-denominational Christians, you will find they are much more in population. Catholics, be they Romanists or Orthodox, do not represent the Biblical faith.

    9) You misunderstand. You are trying to make Paul’s teachings to be absurdly literal, that the Church is the literal body of Christ, yet I have never met anyone – nor have I read any teaching – which says this. The Church cannot be the literal body of Christ because Christ has his own literal body. It is a figurative analogy of our relationship to Christ. Even you just said it was an analogy! Christ was stating that HE PERSONALLY is the “way, the truth and the life” – He never intimated that His Church was. The Church didn’t die for salvation of man – it didn’t exist yet!

    Never in all of Scripture, never in any teaching of the Church since its founding has the Holy Spirit been called “a Church.” The Holy Spirit IS the “paraclete” – Jesus did NOT promise a human intercessor. And if that is what you believe, then you have to identify who this “paraclete” was if it is NOT the Holy Spirit. I am not the one who needs to re-read those passages.

    10) God is eternal (eternal means ETERNAL – no beginning and no ending). Ps. 90:2 (“everlasting to everlasting” means eternal); Ps. 93:2 God is “from all eternity” (KJV “everlasting”); Hab. 1:12 “everlasting.” God says there are NO other gods. Is. 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5a,6b,21-22; 46:9. Deut. 4:35; 32:39. 1 Kings 8:60. James 2:19, 1 Cor. 8:5-6. All other so-called “gods” are false. You want to redefine the word “eternal” as being a subset of “all possible generations of time.” Eternal has a definition, and God created time. You say the Bible discusses time as an “absolute,” which it is, but then you say God is relative to time. Time is not absolute – time was created by God, who is outside of time. Time is linear. “In the beginning” – the beginning of time.


  7. 1) You certainly reject sects that have faith in Jesus. So far you’ve rejected: Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon and SDA. So evidentially the faith is not so simple.

    2-3) I think we are at a dead end here. I’m asserting exaltation you are focused on one minor part of exaltation, polygamy. I think given the frequent use of the word exaltation (11 times) throughout the entire doctrine I’d say that’s the focus. plurality of wives is not even mentioned for over 50 paragraphs.

    4) Yep my scale leaves out “me and my bible” Christianity, since it generally boils down to a fully personal and often contradictory faith.

    5) The question of the SDA is their struggle for acceptance.

    6) I’ve quoted Smith already in what he said, word for word. You are just fabricating.

    7) There is no “immediate” anywhere in Hebrews 9:27. Check the Greek: Once to-die after and this[comes] judgement. As for the process of salvation, Joseph Smith preached on this.

    8) There are about 1.2b Roman Catholics, about 600m Protestants and about 250m Orthodox. Given that a huge chunk of the 600m are liberals who you are likely to also write off, no the Catholics are much larger.

    9) ” yet I have never met anyone – nor have I read any teaching – which says this.”

    10) eternal means without beginning or end. My definition fulfills that. As for no other gods, Jesus has a father yet is fully god. How is that possible? Then apply that more broadly.


  8. CD-Host,

    Firstly, no one has said that the Mormons don’t have answers for these questions; they are what I call “thought-provokers” to test your answers against the Scripture, logic and common sense. I think if Mormons tested their faith that way, and responded to these questions that way, that they would soon see that the LDS religion is a fraud, developed by a man who was well-known as a necromancer and money-digger, who was using the BOM as just another way of making money, and got carried away and made a religion instead.

    1) Faith IS simple, but like the LDS, Romanists, the Orthodox and SDA all claim to have a leader who is in direct contact with God – and in the case of LDS and SDA the founder was a false prophet; add other “authoritative” teachings to the Bible (the “Magisterium”, BOM/POGP/D&C, and E.G.White’s teachings), the LDS and SDA have their own Bible versions which have added texts to support their belief system, etc. While Romanists, Orthodox and even SDA have a “truth line” which is crossed by their false teachings, the LDS doesn’t even have a truth line! But you have gotten away from the original question: IF the LDS is the Church of Jesus Christ, why is it necessary to accept Smith? The real Church is built on the foundation of Christ, while the LDS is built on the foundation of Joseph Smith and collapses without his BOM and his prophecies.

    2) Back to the original question: If the O.T. saints were supposed to practice polygamy, why is D&C 132 called “new and everlasting”? Why is it new? Are you saying that exaltation didn’t exist for the O.T. saints?

    3) Back to the original question: If polygamy is “new and everlasting,” why is it considered “old and temporary”? You continue to act as if exaltation is the subject of the questions. The question is about the polygamy aspect. Whether or not you consider polygamy to be a “minor part” of the “revelation” isn’t the point – the two questions were referencing the aspect of polygamy, and it is THAT aspect for which we seek an answer. Your responses about exaltation are red herrings.

    4) You initially responded that Jesus saves from ungodliness, then digressed into expiation vs. propitiation, including in your next response what you considered a “scale” of various theological perspectives – as if those were the only ones. Then instead of responding to the original question as I repeated it, you decided to mock my belief as “me and my Bible.” Well, I don’t think anyone with common sense sticks to a “me and my Bible” mentality. Firstly, I don’t know the original languages and so I depend on many scholars for explanations. Secondly, no one should ignore the teachings of the 1st and 2nd century Christian writings since they were the early church (although even some of them didn’t have correct understanding – some were still holding on to baggage from pre-Christian philosophies), and there have been brilliant theologians throughout the past 2000 years who help us to learn beyond the bare essentials.

    Now, back to the original question: If you have to EARN your forgiveness through repentance, then from what did Jesus save you? What are you saved from? You claimed first that Jesus saves from ungodliness and not sin – is ungodliness therefore NOT sin?

    5) Original question is why are Mormons upset when you call them Mormons. A point in the video was the name of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. You first gave an “everyone else does.” You then gave as a reason that Mormons want to be called Christians for cultural vs. doctrinal reasons, and likened them to the struggle for acceptance by SDA. I agreed that the SDA is not orthodox Christianity because they have their own false prophet, their own extra-biblical doctrine and their own corrupted version of the Bible. But the experience of the SDA wasn’t the question. But the red herring about SDA wasn’t the question. The question is why do MORMONS not want to be called Mormon?

    6) You originally stated that “Mormons believe that all churches are in some measure true.” I made an error when I said Smith stated all other churches were “corrupt” and you corrected me that it was the professors of those churches who were corrupt, and that the churches were just all “wrong” and their creeds were “abominations.” So I made the point that the result of the statement was the same – that all churches other than the LDS would have to be corrupt. Ignoring my logical response, you went back to claiming that the LDS see other churches as partially true and partially false, which certainly was not the meaning behind Smith’s claim. And you resorted to another tu quoque response that other denominations do the same thing, and then misrepresented what Reformed theology states about other denominations, while accusing me of being Reformed in my theology. I corrected your assumption as to my theology and also corrected your assumption about what Reformed theology teaches. Your final response is that you cited Smith word-for-word and that I am “just fabricating.” I have no idea what it is about Smith’s citation that I am fabricating. I agreed with you that I misquoted but I then showed that by extension Smith’s claim still works out to be the same thing – that all churches other than the LDS are false. “they were all wrong” and “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight” and “those professors [of these churches] were all corrupt.” So all the churches were wrong, all the creeds of all the churches are an abomination to God, and all those who profess the faith of these churches are corrupt, and yet you maintain that the LDS sees the other churches as having SOME truth?!? The fact is that the LDS proclaims that they are the one true church, which logically results in the LDS seeing all other churches as false. The answer to the question posed is “YES”! The proof of this is that LDS missionaries attempt to proselytize members of these other churches to the LDS. If they didn’t believe these people were in false belief systems, they why try to convert them to LDS?

    7) So you decide that because the word “immediate” isn’t in the text it therefore isn’t implied and in fact there is a period of time between death and judgment. We call that eisegesis – make it say what you want it to say. There is not even a hint that the time between death and judgment is anything but virtually immediate. The believer goes to be immediately with the Lord (Lk.23:43; Philippians 1:23-24; 2 Cor. 5:8) and the unbeliever to eternal suffering. THAT is a judgment.

    Back to the original question: If you can’t be saved “in” your sin, then the opposite – as noted in the video – would be that you could only be saved “out of” your sin. You claim salvation is a process, and we agree that with Mormonism salvation is indeed a process, which is works-oriented vs. the Bible’s “faith only” salvation. However, in answer to the question posed by the video, what condition must you be in to be saved “out of” your sin since you can’t be saved “in” your sin? What is this particular condition if it isn’t in or out?

    8) Back to the original question: What is “all you can do”? LDS claim is that one is saved by grace “after all we can do.” Your initial response was a perfect LDS answer to the question, and I responded it was unbiblical because according to Scripture there is NOTHING we can do to be saved, that it is all by grace with no merit given to anything we can do. Your response was another to quoque fallacy, as if truth was what other denominations (majority of Christians) believed vs. what the Bible teaches, and the plain reading of the texts show that faith is all that is required, and Paul makes this point at Rom.11:6 (also Rom. 3:38, 4:5; 9:32; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16; Lk. 17:7-10). Whether you want to believe stats about how many Romanists are in the world is irrelevant to the question, since, again, numbers do not determine truth. The Bible in no uncertain terms demonstrates that nothing about our works will give us salvation or even put us on the road to it. And in the LDS system, how do you know that you’ve DONE all that you can do in order to merit salvation?

    9) Okay, so you give false teachings of Roman Catholicism as your support, and yet even they say it is “mystical” – not literal! Not even Rome claims to be “the way, the truth and the life,” as a church. They DO claim that only the Roman Church is the true church in which salvation can be found – which is another reason apologists say they are cultic. The claim in the video is that the LDS church is the way, the truth and the life yet the Bible says that Christ is the way, the truth and the life. When confronted with this, you claim the church is the body of Christ and therefore can make the claim Christ did for himself. Christ’s claim was part of his deity, by the way. Your defense proves MY point – the Church is a mystical, figurative body of Christ – not literal.

    10) Your definition of eternal is relative to a particular time continuum, as if there were multiple time continuums in the universe. But eternal has no relative time – it means timeless, before time and after time, no beginning or end. LDS gods all have beginnings. Christ is part of the one triune God. You can’t apply the Trinity “more broadly.”


  9. 1) You’ve cited books written by Paul about 25x so far. You’ve cited books written by Jesus 0x so far. Both Protestantism and Mormonism use scriptures written by people other than Jesus about Jesus and explicating the faith. If the use of Paul is legitimate the use of Joseph Smith is as well. I think you forgot which side of the question you were debating, you were arguing before someone could still be a good Protestant Christian and reject Paul… that is have an entirely different bible. I argued you wouldn’t accept them. In this post you’ve flipped.

    And that Paul analogy is why Joseph Smith is fine.

    2-3) Polygamy isn’t called new and everlasting. Your questions are of the form “If gummy bears are made out of steal then why don’t children break their teeth on them”. The problem is that the assumption is wrong, gummy bears are not made out of steal and 132 is not about polygamy. Polygamy is not called “new and everlasting”.

    4) While you try to earn your forgiveness you make mistakes. For example when quitting smoking a person might slip and smoke. That is what salvation covers, you are saved from all sins after everything you can do.

    Luther taught that faith yielded justification and works
    The Catholic church taught that faith and good works yield justification. That’s essentially the same position as the Mormon one. As for it not being biblical, google “Infused righteousness” (Catholic) vs. “Imputed righteousness” (Calvinist).

    5) Again I disagree with the premise that Mormons are upset. Disagreeing with the premise is answering the question. There are some Mormons who want to avoid cultural baggage, and that’s the the answer.

    6) You can’t say “Joseph Smith said X” because Joseph Smith said A, B and C and you believe X follows from A, B and C. You can say that “I GC think that X follows from A, B and C” and that’s it. Joseph Smith didn’t call all other churches wrong you did. His views are his views, not conclusions you draw from his views. Joseph Smith said that all churches were in some measure true and all in some measure false and has a lifetime of sermons, where the explicated that theme. I understand that you don’t believe he could have had that view while holding to the first vision, but that’s your conclusion not his.

    The question 6 was does believing the LDS to be the only true church imply that all other churches are false churches. I answered no, explained what they do believe. Now I get you don’t think the Mormon church should believe that, but that’s an entirely different question that what they do believe.

    7) You said the text says “immediate”. It doesn’t again. You are conflating your interpretation with the bible. The text says what is says and that is it.
    Luke 23:43 says that immediate being raised to the celestial kingdom is possible. Something like that happened to Enoch. You need verses that show that there is a final irreformable judgement leading to everlasting torment after death and God ceases to have any mercy or interest in all persons damned.
    Phil 1:23-4 doesn’t address the point
    2 Cor 5:8 same

    As for the condition you need to be in to be fully exalted the answer is full perfection. You have permanently given up any desire to commit any sin what-so-ever. 100% obedience, full sanctification. The question you likely really mean is what condition do you need to be in to be offered this at death, and that is during life to have desired to achieve this state and to have worked towards it.

    8) Mormons don’t believe in assurance, I can’t know if I’ve done all I can. As far as the rest, and what is biblical, I just dont think you know the counter arguments well enough. The point about the majority is that Mormons believe what lots of other Christians believe. There is nothing unique or interesting to discuss there.

    I understand the biblical arguments for your position. I also understand the counter arguments.
    But frankly, ultimately a God who runs a bingo contest damning the losers to eternal torment strikes me as not even remotely meeting the criteria for a righteous or good God deserving praise. The bible speaks often and frequently of the goodness of God, the Reformed God doesn’t strike me as good, ergo I would reject the Reformed view without substantial evidence for it.

    9) Not even Rome claims to be “the way, the truth and the life,” as a church.
    You sure about that? CCC – 779-780: 779 The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can accept.

    780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

    10) Your argument was that an eternal being cannot have a father. So if that is true is Jesus non-eternal or does he not have a father? That’s the point of the analogy.

    As for eternal, your other points about time are simply things you want to add to the text. This material time that I exist in is created by Elohim, he exists outside it and is eternal relative to it. The time that Heavenly Father exists in is created by Heavenly Grandfather…. and so an in infinite progression.

    Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God — that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, “Away with him! Crucify him! Crucify him!”

    Mankind verily say that the Scriptures are with them. Search the Scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is and end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.

    (Joseph Smith, June 16, 1844).


  10. CD-Host

    Here we go for another round!

    1) You either misunderstood me or you misrepresent me. I never said Paul’s writings weren’t essential; I said even without Paul’s writings we still have the Christian faith. I stated that the Christian faith doesn’t fall without Paul’s writings, that the Christian faith is based on Christ and not on Paul. Contrary to that, the LDS faith is built on Joseph Smith and without Smith there would be no LDS. I don’t think anyone would be kicked out of the Church for saying they didn’t believe in Paul but they believed all other parts of the Bible, yet in the LDS you can’t have a faith without Smith. THAT is the difference.

    2-3) You have a major problem with D&C 132. Polygamy is part and parcel of that revelation. You can’t remove it and claim it isn’t there and that the revelation isn’t about polygamy. “New and everlasting” refers to the complete D&C 132 – not just parts of it. You will find nothing in the text which says, “Oh, this doesn’t include the polygamy aspect.” The prophecy BEGINS with the subject of polygamy! Do I really need to cut and past the entire thing here so everyone reading these comments can see for themselves what it says? There are really only two issues discussed in 132, and that is eternal marriage and polygamy, and polygamy is a vital part of exaltation; Your denial of this must be the new Mormon apologetic to cover for 132 being a completely false prophecy.

    4) You didn’t answer my question: you claimed that Jesus saves you from “ungodliness” and not sin – so the question remains: Is “ungodliness” therefore not sin?
    True salvation covers all sins, period. THAT is the biblical position. Whether the Catholic church says works are required for salvation isn’t the point – the point is, what does the Bible say? I gave Scriptural references in my previous answer to your response here, and in my response to item 8 (by the way – I see I made a typo and cited “Rom. 3:38- should be vs 28). I don’t care what you find on google reference RCC vs Calvinist doctrine; the issue is what does the Bible say! You obviously didn’t bother reading the passages I cited if you still think you have to work for salvation. Salvation is a gift – and a gift is not earned (Rom. 11:6). Faith is indeed what yields works because of justification. Our works show the reality of our faith and salvation.

    5) Let’s just say that until fairly recently, Mormons I have met (and I have met hundreds) usually didn’t like the term – they want to be called “Christian.” But I find it amusing that the advertising campaign, with people talking about who they are and their wonderful lives and ending with, “and I’m a Mormon.”

    6) YOU cited Smith’s claim about what God said, which was, and I quote from the POGP: “I asked the Personages [God and Jesus] who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) – and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me [Christ] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach the for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’ He again forbade me to join any of them.” Joseph Smith said that Jesus Christ told him that “they” (meaning all the sects of Christendom) “were all wrong.” And yet you tell me that “Joseph Smith didn’t call all other churches wrong.” So which do I believe – you or the record in the Pearl of Great Price (and elsewhere in LDS documents)? The citation I just gave has Smith claiming he was told not only that all the sects of Christendom were wrong but that all their creeds were an abomination and all who professed them were corrupt. ERGO, only the LDS is the true church! And LDS does indeed teach, by way of Joseph Smith, that all others are wrong – i.e. – false! The LDS doesn’t want that to be well-known, of course, so they downplay it. But Smith is supposed to be a prophet of God and this was supposed to be his “First Vision” which led him to eventually establish the one true “restored” church – the LDS!

    7) Again, either you can’t understand what I have said or you intentionally misrepresent me. I NEVER said the word “immediate” was in Hebrews 9:27. I stated that YOU said the word wasn’t there, and therefore it couldn’t mean that. My point was that it certainly is implied by all other scripture which says what happens at the point of death. Hebrews 9:27 is very plain that after death comes judgment. It doesn’t say “after death there will be some time going by when you sit in a spirit prison learning the gospel and being baptized by someone in the LDS church.” The passages I cited certainly DO say that “to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Jesus told the thief that on that very day he’d be with Jesus in paradise – he didn’t say sometime later.

    The original question was about salvation – that if you can’t be saved “in” your sin, the opposite would be save “out of” your sin. And if isn’t “in” you sin, is the condition “out of” you sin? You responded with an answer as to the condition for exaltation. That wasn’t the question. The question was about salvation – not exaltation. The LDS does not teach that all will be exalted, but it does teach that virtually all will be saved to one of the degrees of glory.

    8) You keep bringing up a “Reformed God” – and yet I have stated that I do not agree with Reformed theology, so why must you keep bringing in this straw man? If one of the owners of this blog wants to debate Reformed theology with you, that is their option and prerogative. I am discussing what Scripture says about God and salvation. I gave passages which specifically state there is nothing we can do to earn salvation by our works. If you are not relying on salvation only “after all we can do,” then you can be assured of salvation only by grace. 1 John 5:10-13 describes how one can know if they are or are not saved and ends with “so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.”

    9) Your citations still have Rome claiming to be the “mystical” body vs a literal body as you claimed. Your citations still do not have Rome claiming to be “the way, the truth and the life.” Yes, a lot of their rhetoric can sound that way, and they claim only through the RCC can salvation be had because Christ only operates through them, but they do not claim that phrase for themselves; i.e. they do not claim to be the physical body of Christ.

    10) Christ does not have a “father” in the since of the LDS Jesus with a father via procreation. Christ as part of the trinity has existed for eternity with the Father as one of three persons in the one God. You have a progression of time zones which are not existent in the Bible. It takes LDS eisegesis to fit them in. God is outside of time and therefore eternal – but he is not in another time created by another God. There are no other gods. Paul was referring to false gods – things that are looked to as gods but aren’t, mythological gods which don’t exist, etc. You have to make your argument from the Bible, not from Joseph Smith.

    You end with a citation from Joseph Smith as if that is anywhere close to truth. Joseph Smith has been proven to be a false prophet. Your link to LDS teachings based on Smith’s false teachings does no better. You have to prove that Smith was called by God, really visited in a vision by God, and that his prophecies were true. I have demonstrated on my own blog almost 50 prophecies by Smith which were proven to be false. To be a false prophet one only has to make one false prophecy. You are trusty your eternal soul to a man who has been demonstrated to be a false prophet, and without him the entire LDS system collapses.


  11. 1) From where do we have this Christian faith. There are no books by Jesus, there are books about Jesus. Joseph Smith did not write books about Joseph Smith but about Jesus and God. His relationship to Jesus is precisely the same as Paul’s.

    And of course people would be kicked out for denying huge sections of the canon. The entire fundamentalist movement which gave birth to the neo-evangelical / evangelical movement we have today was in reaction to people reject far far less than the Pauline corpus, like the virgin birth or a bodily resurrection.

    2-3) “New and everlasting” appears 2 times in 132 once in verse 4 and once in verse 6 neither connected to polygamy. Polygamy is neither new nor everlasting nor is it ever called that in 132.

    4) I gave the distinction between ungodliness and sin in my previous answer. No they are not the same thing. As for what the bible says… again you are conflating what your sect takes the bible to mean and what it says. Catholics do in fact read the bible.

    I don’t see any reason to argue sola fide. It is had been discussed for five hundred years and rejected by most of the planet. The verses you posted are the regular ones to defend it. You can lookup the counter arguments for yourself.

    5) OK

    6) “The citation I just gave has Smith claiming he was told not only that all the sects of Christendom were wrong”. No it didn’t the word wrong never appears. I think this been addressed. The LDS church has explicit teachings which contradict your claim. Joseph Smith has explicit teachings that contradict your claim. The quote says what is says. Anything beyond is your interpretation, and you not Joseph Smith would be making that interpretation. Joseph Smith’s interpretation is the one he gave not the one you think he should have given.

    7) “My point was that it certainly is implied by all other scripture which says what happens at the point of death” Actually you were using Hebrews 9:27 to prove immediate. In terms of salvation and exaltation they are absolutely connected in Mormon doctrine. Mormons have 3 types of salvation:

    1) Unconditional or general salvation, that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists in the mere fact of being resurrected / immortality. This is just a property of the connection between body and spirit.

    2) Conditional or individual salvation which is grace plus obedience which is to gain eventual entry into the Celestial Kingdom though usually as a ministering servent.

    3) Full salvation which is grace plus obedience plus the restored gospel, the priesthood, and the sealing power, the ministering of angels, the working of miracles, the prevalence of gifts of the spirit; which is exaltation.

    So in sense (1) you are saved by grace, in sense (2) you are saved by faith plus work (like a Catholic) and in sense (3) you are saved by Jesus through his instrument the church (again not too different from the Catholic view).

    This is basic stuff in discussing Mormon doctrine. You shouldn’t use the term “salvation” unqualified by an adjective to describe what the church teaches.

    8) Doesn’t have a question.

    9) First off there is no “physical body” in the John verse about way truth and life. You are adding that. The verse itself says nothing about what aspect of Jesus creates that path.

    Your original claim was that salvation came from Jesus and the Mormon interpretation of the church as the instrument of salvation was totally unlike any other church. Now that we have the basics out of the way the Catholic claim that the church is the “universal sacrament of salvation” is precisely the claim that through the church people are saved. Yes they do claim to be the way the truth and the life.

    In terms of the way, the Catholic church refers to herself as the universal sacrament of salvation. In terms of truth, they apply “pillar of truth” from 1Tim 3:15 to themselves. And in terms of life, eternal life the church defines the 8 beatitudes (works in your terminology) by which Catholics move into blessedness.

    I think I’ve done more than enough on this quick question. I think I’ve shown the viewpoints that Mormons show in taking Paul’s repeated references to the church as Christ’s body and that these verses apply has a long history which predates Joseph Smith. I understand your sect choose to reject it.

    10) Christ defines himself as being a son and God as the father. That is what the bible says. You are suddenly so found of teachings of man. As for the plurality of God’s I agree that the doctrine isn’t developed in the bible. Mormons make no claims to believe in sola scriptura. Your argument was that it was excluded from the bible. The doctrine of eternal progression comes from Joseph Smith. Now that doctrine, not polygamy is a legitimate example of what D&C 132 is talking about.


  12. CD-Host

    1) The Christian faith does NOT depend on the writings of Paul: we have the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, James, 1,2, Peter, 1,2,3 John, Jude, Rev. All talking about Christ and the Christian faith. The LDS faith absolutely depends on the writings of Joseph Smith. WIthout Smith’s BOM, D&C, POGP there is no LDS church. To say that Smith and Paul had a similar relationship with Christ is absurd. You can certainly be a Christian without accepting Paul’s teachings, yet you cannot be a Mormon unless you accept Joseph Smith’s teachings. The two are NOT comparable.

    2,3) “New and everlasting” is about the entire D&C 132 which INCLUDES polygamy. In fact, the whole story of exaltation was developed to bring polygamy into the open. Without polygamy there is no exaltation. You can’t say that “new and everlasting” applies to the prophecy but not about the part dealing with polygamy. Polygamy is an integral part.

    4) How can something be “ungodly” and not be sin? Again, I do not have a “sect” – do you have a problem with understanding the written word or do you just ignore what you don’t like? I cited specific biblical passages that should be easy enough for a 6th grader to comprehend the meaning of, yet you find some difficulty in them.

    However, all your ranting about what “sect” preaches what, and whether the Bible teaches what we want it to say, have nothing to do with the question and are all red herrings. The original question is from what did Jesus save you, and you respond that he saves from ungodliness. I’m still trying to figure out how something can be ungodly and yet not be a sin!

    6) Okay, this is really, really getting weird. I cited straight from my POGP in the section of Joseph Smith’s history where he talks about his “First Vision.” I cited his exact words and he said, “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all WRONG.” (my caps for emphasis). Now you tell me “the word wrong never appears.” Again I must question your reading comprehension! You can’t say it never appears when the word is right there in the text!!!!!! The LDS claim to be the one true church, which by extension means they believe all other churches are wrong. I have never seen such obfuscation from a Mormon apologist before. I will say plainly that the LDS is a totally false belief system.

    7) I never said the word “immediate” was in the text. I stated it was implied. The point is that Biblically speaking there is no time after death for salvation to take place. Your choice is before death and after that you face judgment. On death you are either with the Lord or not, with no chance of changing venue.

    I fully understand the LDS types of salvation, but with all other words of Christian doctrine, the LDS redefines the meaning. There is no biblical support for your definitions. But your explanation of salvation levels still does not answer the question postulated.

    8) I guess the question was previously given – how can you know you’ve done enough for salvation? You CAN’T as a Mormon. Yet as a Christian we know there is NOTHING we can do and yet 1 John 5:10-13 explains how we can still KNOW that we are saved.

    9) As a Mormon apologist your logic is getting more and more flawed and absurd. John 14:6 Jesus tells his disciples, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He was a physical person standing there talking to other physical people, pointing to himself as the person as the only way to the Father. And yet you say “there is no ‘physical body’ in the John verse” and that I am adding that. You know, if I was to tell you, “I am the one you have to go through to buy my house,” would you say no physical person was in that statement?

    The original question had to do with the claim that the LDS church was “the way and the truth and the life” and that John 14:6 pointed to Christ making that claim. YOU stated that the church is the body of Christ, and therefore the claim is legitimate. My point was that when Paul teaches the church is the body of Christ it is only in the figurative sense and not literal, and that I have never heard anyone claim otherwise. Then you bring forth Roman Catholicism to buttress your claim, and yet I demonstrated that even ROME calls it a “mystical” body. You then grab for straw man arguments about Rome’s claim to be the instrument of salvation, yet Rome’s claim is still based on Jesus’ being personally “the way and the truth and the life” – they just claim He only works through Rome. That is a whole different argument than the claim examined in the video vs your trying to fix it by claiming because the Church is the body the passage applies to it. You change the terms of the argument, knock down a straw man and declare yourself the winner. The charge I made is still true – NO ONE, not even Rome, has claimed to be a literal body of Christ in order for that verse to apply to them.

    10) I have no idea where you get the idea that I am “suddenly found [sic] of teachings of man” I have no idea what teachings of man I presented. Christ as Son and God as Father are two roles, as the Holy Spirit being the Comforter is another role. They are three persons in the one God, and that isn’t the teaching of man – it is direct from Scripture as I demonstrate here: http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/trinity-proven-by-logic.html

    The plurality of gods isn’t developed in the Bible because it doesn’t exist. It wasn’t developed in the BOM either. It was a much later development of Smith’s in the Nauvoo period.

    Mormons make no claim to believe solely in the Bible because if they used just the Bible their religion collapses. What is even more amusing to me is that you won’t find any LDS doctrine in the BOM either, and in fact the BOM contradicts much of later LDS doctrine found in the D&C.

    Again, your whole religion depends on Joseph Smith. If Smith is a fraud and a false prophet, which he has been proven to be, then the entire LDS faith collapses.


  13. In regards to number six and whether the LDS considers all other churches wrong, try this one:
    “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls.”- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, see pp. 45-46


  14. Again context. 2 paragraphs earlier he defines what he means by damnation:

    There is a “greater damnation” (Matt. 23:14) and, obviously, a lesser damnation. Literally, to be damned is to be condemned, and the scriptures speak of the damned as: 1. Those who are thrust down to hell to await the day of the resurrection of damnation; 2. Those who fail to gain an inheritance in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of God; 3. Those who become sons of perdition; and 4. Those who fail to gain exaltation in the highest heaven within the celestial world, even though they do gain a celestial mansion in one of the lower heavens of that world.

    Obviously (4) applies to other churches. Which is what the church has always taught.


  15. CD-Host,

    And this is supposed to be a defense? This is supposed to rebut the idea that the LDS sees all other churches wrong? If they aren’t wrong, then whatever view of “damnation” you propose can not be applied – only if they are wrong can they “reap damnation.”


  16. This is supposed to rebut the idea that the LDS sees all other churches wrong?

    No it is supposed to rebut the idea that the LDS teaches that all other churches are wrong. The LDS teaches what they teach, not what they think you they should teach based on your theories derived from their doctrines.

    What the LDS teaches, for about 50th time, is that all churches are in some measure true. And being in some measure true warrants a lower level salvation which is precisely what McConkie said in this passage in context.


  17. So, you are still claiming then, that Smith never claimed that Jesus in the “First Vision” stated that all other churches were “wrong”?

    If Smith said this came from Jesus, then it would be something the LDS could not deny without thereby calling Jesus a liar, or that Smith lied when he said Jesus told him that. So if the LDS now claims that all other churches AREN’T wrong, then they are going against Smith.

    And I think your hyperbole/exaggeration “about 50th time” is unwarranted.


  18. So, you are still claiming then, that Smith never claimed that Jesus in the “First Vision” stated that all other churches were “wrong”?

    Yes he claimed their creeds were wrong.

    And the 50th time hyperbole is warranted. We already beat the first issue to death in this very thread.


  19. For the “50th time” you obfuscate like a really good Mormon, and deny the very facts under your nose. I quote:
    “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me [Christ] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;”

    He was to join NO church “for they were all wrong.” THEY – the churches – were “WRONG”. THEN he also stated that all of the creeds of the churches were an abomination, and that the “professors” of the churches “were all corrupt.”

    Call it beating to death, but you are denying the very words of the prophet, and pretending they meant something different so that you can thereby claim that the LDS does NOT see all other Churches as being wrong, and further obfuscate the issue by saying that all churches have “some truth.”


  20. CD-Host,

    1 Nephi 14:10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save atwo churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother is the church of the cdevil; wherefore, dwhoso 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 ewhore of all the earth.

    So is the LDS “the church of the Lamb of God”? Or does that include all who claim to be Christians?


    Sorry, I forgot a couple other citations proving that the LDS believes all other Churches are wrong:
    “Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…” LDS Seventy B.H. Roberts, History of the Church, p.XL

    Notice he said “complete apostasy” – meaning there is a complete separation from truth.

    “After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. 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.” LDS First Presidency George Q. Cannon, “Gospel Truth”, p. 324.

    So all except LDS belong to “Babylon.”


  21. Glenn —

    This is taken from the Church manual that covers 1Nephi 14:

    What did Nephi see formed “among the nations of the Gentiles”? (See 1 Nephi 13:4–5.) Who is the founder of the great and abominable church? (See 1 Nephi 13:6.)
    Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, “The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 137–38).

    Emphasize that the great and abominable church is a symbol of apostasy in all its forms. It is a representation of all false doctrine, false worship, and irreligious attitudes. It does not represent any specific church in the world today.

    •What are some of the characteristics of the “great and abominable church”? (See 1 Nephi 13:5–9. Answers may include that it weakens faith, desires worldly riches and sins, and seeks the praise of the world.) What symbol from the vision of the tree of life corresponds to the great and abominable church? (Compare 1 Nephi 13:5–9 with 1 Nephi 11:35–36.)
    •What evidence do you see of the great and abominable church working to destroy the Saints today? How can we ensure that we are not deceived by people or organizations that lead people away from God and His laws?

    Notice he said “complete apostasy” – meaning there is a complete separation from truth.

    Actually that is not what Mormons mean by the term “complete apostasy”. Mormons use the term apostasy primarily to mean the loss of the keys, that is what Protestants call sacramental efficiency. It is secondarily used for perversion and alternation of doctrine. There is no doctrine that of a complete separation from truth.


  22. CD-Host,

    I see what this is, more revisionist Mormonism to make themselves more acceptable as “Christians.” Interesting how current stuff disagrees with the two citations I gave.

    “Complete apostasy” is redefined so as not to be offensive (“I guess that depends on what the definition of ‘complete’ is,” and “that depends on what the definition of ‘apostasy’ is,” to parody a certain President)

    Cannons says ALL churches not LDS are part of Babylon. McConkie’s statement certainly fits all churches other than LDS according to LDS view.

    And I see you still cannot refute Smith’s claim that ALL churches are wrong.

    The changing doctrine of the LDS is so hard to keep up with!!!!


  23. OK revisionism then explain how in 1859 Brigham Young was asked what distinguished the Mormon church and he answered: We hold that there can be no true Christian Church without a priesthood directly commissioned by and in immediate communication with the Son of God and Savior of mankind. Such a church is that of the Latter-Day Saints, called by their enemies Mormons; we know no other that even pretends to have present and direct revelations of God’s will.

    In other words the apostasy for Brigham was: a commissioned priesthood (the keys) and prophetic leadership.


  24. Manfred my goal in this thread was to show that 10 quick questions have answers.

    You are asking a not so quick question about the Book of Mormon. What I would point though is that translation variants are generally not used as a reason to disqualify canonical books, otherwise the differences between the KJV, NKJV, NIV2011, NIV1984, ESV, NLT, GNB… would disqualify your scriptures. Even in the original languages you can find thousands of variants between manuscripts Metzger’s Textual Commentary being the best known list.

    So I don’t think you are using a standard for the BoM that you would want applied to your scriptures, that variants disprove the originals.

    There are all kinds of problems with the BoM historically. There are all kinds of problems with the Old Testament, for example the belief that Joshua destroyed Ai. You probably want someone of a more fundamentalist bent for this argument.


  25. CD- Host,
    Your defense of BOM changes won’t wash. We have ancient manuscripts for the Bible to which we can refer for translation.

    The BOM was supposedly translated by supernatural power using a seer stone in a hat covering Smith’s face, while the actual plates were not necessarily even close by. There should be no inaccuracies in the BOM considering the description of how it was translated. Not only that, but there is no way one can refer to the original plates to check translational errors. None of the 4,000+ changes to the BOM were made by referring back to the original. They were changes to fix errors, as well as fixing problems that shouldn’t have been there.

    The same is true with the D&C compared to the original Book of Commandments – much revision has been done to “prophecies” which should not be changed without God giving new ones. History of the Church has also been changed to revise historical problems to clean them up.

    Your claims agains the Bible are old canards which have been rebutted long, long ago – which shows you don’t do your homework.

    As for the original post, I have never seen or heard anyone say that the LDS couldn’t come up with answers to the “quick questions.” The problem is that you can’t come up with GOOD, rational and logical responses.

    Manfred – I LOVE the link!!!


Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s