Thursday, May 4, 2017

Did They Really Say That?!?

And after the flood we are told that the curse [black skin] that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed.  And why did it pass through the flood?  Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representative upon the earth as well as God. . . .

Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil?  Why did the Lord not kill him long ago?  Because he could not do without him.  He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence upon God, and trust in him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments.  When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth.

LDS President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 22:304, 23:336

Where oh where to begin!  

Firstly, we are not told in Genesis 4:15 exactly what was the mark that God gave Cain, but it certainly wouldn’t have been black skin color or it would have said God gave him more than a “mark.”  

Secondly, the mark wasn’t a curse — it was a mark of protection!!  Thirdly, there is no evidence from Scripture that Ham’s wife was a descendant of Cain—that is just a made up idea by the Mormons.

Thirdly, nowhere in Scripture does it say that Cain was representing the devil, or that his offspring were representatives of the devil.  This, again, is an idea totally made up by the Mormons.

Fourthly, the idea the God can’t do without the devil certainly puts limits on God and His sovereignty!  The Mormon god proves to be incompetent.

Fifthly, how is it that the devil can do God’s bidding “to keep men straight”?  Isn’t that the work of the Holy Spirit in believers?

Lastly, explain why the devil needed “to be properly represented upon the earth”?

All this unbiblical nonsense comes about in order to shore up the false teachings of Joseph Smith.  These teachings include the lie that Satan is a brother of Christ rather than a being created by Christ (as the Bible teaches), that spirits in the pre-existence were all brothers and sisters (the Bible teaches NO pre-existent spirits); that these spirits chose to follow Christ or Satan and those who remained neutral received the curse of dark skin when they come to earth (pure racist ideology), and that Cain was apparently the first earthbound soul to have this curse (which begs another question about when this so-called rebellion took place); and that those who followed Satan became demons (whereas the Bible teaches that the demons are fallen angels, which are a different created being than are humans).

Mormons, you’ve been fed a lot of science-fiction fairy tales which totally contradict the truth of the Bible.  Learn the truth and leave Mormonism.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

First Vision Contradictions

Over the past 2 1/2 years since starting this blog I have linked to articles about Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” as well as posting various information discussing the topic.  In this post I’m going to provide a synopsis of some of the various accounts, citing a section from Alvin J. Schmidt’s book, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” pages 56-57. 

There are different accounts of Smith’s first vision in which a divine personage(s) appeared to him.  One reportedly occurred in 1820, when he was only in his fifteenth year.  This one is recorded in Smith’s History of the Church, 1:5-8, but some scholars question whether this really was his first vision.  For three years later (1823), another report says he was visited by an angel that told him about some hidden gold plates.  And the Angel said he had to wait four years before he could obtain them.

In 1832, he wrote an autobiographical account of his first visionary experience, much of it in his own handwriting.  In this version he says, “there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraved by Maroni [the angel] & his fathers the servants of the living God. . . .”  As this citation shows, Smith spelled Moroni’s name as Maroni.

In still another version, written in 1838 by one of Smith’s scribes, but not published until 1842 (now the official LDS version), states that one evening in his bedroom an angel from heaven appeared to him in “a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness.”  He said this happened September 21, 1823.  The angel in this rendition is named Moroni who told him there was “a book deposited, written upon golden plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and source from whence they sprang.”  Although this account does not give the name of the place where these plates were deposited, it does state they were to be found near the village of Manchester in Ontario County, New York, in “a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood.”  This was Hill Cumorah.

Then on September 22, 1827, according to Smith, he was able to obtain the plates along with the Urim and Thummim, with which he began to transcribe the contents of the plates into English.  He did this by “reading” words illuminated on his seer stone.

While these examples are only a few of the many versions of the “First Vision,” they should be enough to demonstrate that the whole “First Vision” story was concocted long after any supposed vision took place, and the story is nothing more than a story of out the imagination of Joseph Smith.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Translation of a Translation!

Not even the LDS Church leaders can claim that their non-English Book of Mormon translations are taken from a first-generation source since the original gold plates are no longer available.  All of the dozens of foreign translations of the Book of Mormon have been derived from the admittedly second-generation English rendition (see Ensign [May 1995]:10), making these translations third-generation texts.  It would therefore appear that those who mistakenly claim that the Bible is nothing more than a translation of a translation or a translation would better apply their criticism to the Book of Mormon.

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 118, note 7.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Mormon “Unpaid” Paid Clergy

Mormons have a history or pridefully telling Christians that the LDS doesn’t have paid clergy and condemning Christian pastors who are paid.  

In regards to this claim, Bill McKeever had an editorial in the March-April 2017 edition of Mormonism Researched, the newsletter of Mormonism Research Ministry, exposing this lie.  The editorial, titled Paycheck stubs expose “unpaid ministry,” is as follows:

For much of its history, Mormon leaders have been very critical of Christian pastors ho receive compensation for their service to their congregations.  But when photographs of pay stubs from the year 2000 documenting payments to Henry B. Eyring (at the time a Mormon apostle) appeared on social media, along with a January 2, 2014 letter notifying Seventy Bruce D. Porter that he would be getting a raise from $116,400 to $120,000, Mormon apologists immediately went into damage control mode.  Ignoring the numerous denials made by LDS leaders who insisted that the LDS Church paid no ministry, they chose instead to defend what they felt was a rather modest amount, given what executives in the corporate world make.

Though the six-digit figure mentioned above does not include all of the other benefits LDS general authorities receive, haggling over the amount is really a red herring meant to deflect a person from the blatant deception that Mormon leaders have been practicing every time they proudly announce that the LDS Church had no “paid ministry.”  While that may be true for local leaders, full-time general authorities are most certainly compensated for their time and service.  And while it may be a modest amount compared to the corporate world, it is quite a bit when the public has been led to believe these leaders receive nothing.

With complete disregard to the fact that the “sons of Aaron” who served in the spiritual affairs of ancient Israel received compensation for their full-time service, and despite the fact that the apostle Paul cited Deuteronomy 25:4 in his robust defense of a paid clergy in 1 Corinthians 9, the Mormon Church likened this practice to being in the employ of Satan.  Members who experienced the temple ceremony prior to 1990 heard this dialogue between a character representing Lucifer, and another character representing a “trained” preacher:

LUCIFER: Good Morning sir!
PREACHER: Good Morning!
(The minister then turns and looks into the camera as if he is facing the Mormons participating in the ceremony.)
PREACHER: A fine congregation!
LUCIFER: Yes, they are a very good people.  They are concerned about religion.  Are you a preacher?
LUCIFER: Have you been to college and received training for the ministry?
PREACHER: Certainly!  A man cannot preach unless he has been trained for the ministry.
LUCIFER: Do you preach orthodox religion?
PREACHER: Yes, that is what I preach.
LUCIFER: If you will preach you orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.
PREACHER: I will do my best.

Certainly this dialogue was meant to paint Christian pastors in a negative light.  While I see nothing unbiblical about compensating ministers for their full, or part-time service to their congregations, it is both hypocritical and misleading when any member of the LDS Church knowingly insists that their church has no such thing as a paid ministry.

[For more on this topic, see Sharon Lindbloom’s excellent article at

Thursday, February 2, 2017

How Do We Know Anything Is True?

Before Latter-day Saints unduly criticize the accuracy of the Bible, perhaps they should first consider the following:

1.  How do we know if James 1:5, the verse that Joseph Smith used to draw him to the “Sacred Grove,” was indeed correct?  For that matter, how can anyone trust other biblical proof texts used to support Mormonism?  It would deem reasonable that whatever test for accuracy that could be applied to James 1:5 could also be applied to every other Bible verse as well.

2.  If the LDS Church has a prophet who has direct communication with God, then it would seem plausible for him to fix these alleged errors.  After all, D&C 107:92 states that one of the “gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church” is the role of translator.  If the God of Mormonism was able to help Smith translate the Book of Mormon from the golden plates, he could also be able to help the prophet with these alleged errors.  Although the LDS Church does not officially publish the Joseph Translation as a bound volume, Smith’s alterations are included as footnotes and endnotes in the LDS-published version of the King James Bible.  Many Mormons are unaware that Joseph Smith failed to “correct” many of the so-called problematic verses.

3.  If Mormons want to scrutinize the small percentage of questionable material in the Bible—none of which affects essential doctrine—shouldn’t they also have a problem with the many changes made to the Book of Mormon over the years?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, "Mormonism 101," pg.115-116

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

The Test of Antiquity

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient holy book.  But is it really ancient as the claim?

J.Warner Wallace wrote an excellent article about examining the claims for the antiquity of books.  Read the article, copied below, and you will learn that the BOM fails all tests of antiquity, proving it was just written by Joseph Smith (with a lot of plagiarism from the KJV Bible) in the early 19th century.

The First Question to Ask of an Ancient, Holy Book: Is It Ancient?
January 25, 2017/3, by J. Warner Wallace

Many of the world’s best-known religious texts are silent when it comes to claims about history. Many Eastern religious scriptures, for example, describe spiritual principles devoid of historical location or setting. Texts such as these are proverbial in nature, proclaiming ancient wisdom without any connection to historical context. The Abrahamic religions are very different, however. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism make claims about ancient history. For this reason, these religious worldviews are both verifiable and falsifiable. We ought to be able to corroborate the historical claims of ancient religious texts just as we could other historical documents. Such verification would certify their antiquity, if nothing else. On the other hand, if the claims of an ancient holy book are consistently incorrect related to the ancient world it allegedly describes, we ought to consider the text with suspicion.

It’s also important to remember that not every ancient text makes a claim about “divinity”; there are many texts from antiquity that are ancient, but not “holy”. If a text claims to be both ancient and holy, it needs to pass the first test related to antiquity before it can hope to qualify in the second category as holy. After all, a book cannot be holy or divine if it is lying about ancient history.

The test of antiquity was incredibly important to me as a skeptic examining the claims of scripture for the first time. As I became interested in Christianity, my Mormon family encouraged me to examine Mormonism as well. I read the entire Book of Mormon before I completed the Old and New Testament. I wanted to determine the “antiquity” of the Gospels and the Book of Mormon before I could examine the question of “divinity”. I needed to know if the New Testament gospels were written early enough to have been written by eyewitnesses who were actually present to observe what was recorded in these accounts. Similarly, I needed to know if the Book of Mormon was an accurate account of the history of the American continent from 600BC to 400AD (as it claims). My first investigation was centered on the foundational question: Are these ancient holy books truly ancient?

What kinds of questions can an investigator ask when trying to answer this important question related to antiquity? I considered the following:

Are historical events cited in (or omitted from) the text in a manner that is reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to language, proper names and titles reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to culture, government or civilizations reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to geography, native animals and plants reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the other corroborative documents that are reliably and accurately ancient?

Are there additional, successive historical references that are reliably and accurately ancient?

I asked these questions of the gospel accounts and the Book of Mormon and came away with two very different sets of answers. There are many good reasons to accept the early dating of the gospels and their reliability as eyewitness accounts. In each of the above listed criteria, the gospels pass the test. I’ve written an entire chapter in my book examining the evidence for early dating and the historical reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts. After examining the accounts using the tools that are employed by historians and detectives, I concluded that the gospels are reliable. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon doesn’t withstand evidential scrutiny nearly as well. Written in the first half of the 19th century, it fails to record anything about the ancient past that can be verified in any of the ways I’ve described. In fact, in each of the categories of inquiry I’ve offered to answer the issue of antiquity, the book of Mormon fails miserably.

I once asked a Mormon Scholar to tell me how she knew the book of Mormon was a true, reliable account of the ancient past. She told me that she had asked God about it and she believed that God had given her a “spiritual confirmation”. It struck me that this method for determining antiquity was misguided. While prayer might be one way to determine if and ancient holy book is holy, there are other, better established investigative approaches that ought to be employed to determine if an ancient holy book is ancient. We shouldn’t attempt to answer questions about divinity before we answer questions about antiquity. If a text is lying to us about events in the ancient past, it cannot be from God. For this reason, the first question we ought to ask any text that claims to be an ancient, holy book is simply this: Is the text truly a work from the ancient past?

So, Mormons — How do you explain the Book of Mormon failing the antiquity test?

Monday, January 2, 2017

If Not “Living” Prophets, Are They Valid?

Good questions from Mormonism Research Ministry when you use dead Mormon prophets for explaining LDS teachings and they dismiss the teachings because they are not “living.”

Were the prophets living when they said these words?

Were they supposed to be believed at the time they said them?

If the quotes of deceased presidents are no longer authoritative, why has so much energy been invested in producing the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series that features deceased prophets?

Excellent questions!

Saturday, December 24, 2016

For Mormons, it’s not Jesus’ birthday

This excellent article was posted at Mormonism Research Ministry.

By Sharon Lindbloom
23 December 2016

December Christmas celebrations notwithstanding, according to LDS leaders past and present, Jesus was born on 6 April 1 B.C. This fact was pointed out recently at LDS Daily in an article titled, “Was Jesus Christ Really Born in December?” Here journalist Aleah Ingram noted that James Talmage, a now-deceased apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “believed the Savior was born on April 6, referencing the first verse in the twentieth section of the Doctrine and Covenants.” In his book, Jesus the Christ, considered by Mormons to be “the definitive work on the life of Christ” (Deseret News, 1/25/03), James Talmage wrote,

“We believe April 6th to be the birthday of Jesus Christ as indicated in a revelation of the present dispensation already cited [D&C 2:1], in which that day is made without qualification the completion of the one thousand eight hundred and thirtieth year since the coming of the Lord in the flesh. This acceptance is admittedly based on faith in modern revelation, and is in no wise set forth as the result of chronological research or analysis. We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C. 1.” (104)

The LDS Daily article also cited past LDS prophets Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball stating unambiguously that Jesus was born on April 6, as well as a more recent comment from the April 2014 General Conference when LDS apostle David A. Bednar noted,

“Today is April 6. We know by revelation that today is the actual and accurate date of the Savior’s birth.” (Bear Up Their Burdens with Ease,Ensign, May 2014)

Not mentioned in the LDS Daily article but equally important to the topic, is this statement included in an LDS Church manual:

Jesus Was Born in Bethlehem, April 6, 1 B.C.” (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, 22)

In Christianity, the exact date of Jesus’ birth is unknown. The important fact is that Jesus was born in real time and in a real place. Therefore, Mormons believing Jesus’ birthday is on April 6 doesn’t really matter in the context of salvation.

But here’s what I find really interesting about this LDS Daily article. Though several Mormon leaders have clearly stated that the birth of Christ was on April 6, and though each of the leaders mentioned above are, according to the LDS Church, “prophets, seers, and revelators,” and though the April 6 date is included in an LDS teaching manual, and though a current apostle of the Church said in General Conference that the “actual and accurate” date of Christ’s birth is known by revelation, the LDS Daily article pointed out, “the Church has no official position” on the date of Jesus’ birth. After citing Mormon historians who disagree with LDS general authorities, the journalist wrote, “At the end of the day, there is no definitive way to prove the actual birth date of Jesus Christ.”

This leaves me scratching my head. While I do not believe LDS authorities receive their revelations directly from God, Mormons say they do. Mormonism plants its “true church” flag on the declaration that it is led by trustworthy latter-day prophets.

“By Christ’s authority, twelve Apostles were again called to lead that Church and receive direct revelation. This direct communication with the Savior continues today,… As with the early Church that we read about in the scriptures, [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] is led by a prophet who instructs God’s people under the Savior’s direction.” (“How can I know His true Church today?” at

“What many people do not realize is that there are again prophets on earth—speaking on behalf of God today! Through prophets, Heavenly Father continues to demonstrate His love and attention by sending us the messages we need right now. These men act as mouthpieces for God. Just as Moses spoke for God to all the Israelites, living prophets give instructions and counsel to all people today… These messages from God are available to all people: President Thomas S. Monson, his counselors, and the Twelve Apostles speak to the world twice a year during a meeting called general conference.” (Why do we have prophets?and How do prophets impact society? at

However, when Mormon prophets and apostles state at general conferences that it is known via revelation that Jesus was born on April 6, the Church “has no official position” on the matter and Mormons are left with the ambiguous bottom line: “there is no definitive way to prove the actual birth date of Jesus.”

Then LDS claims to the contrary, neither is there a definitive way to “prove” that Joseph Smith ever spoke with God, that the Book of Mormon came from God, or that the LDS Church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the earth.” If Latter-day Saints cannot or do not believe their prophets on inconsequential teachings like the birthday of Christ, why do they trust these men on doctrines related to salvation and exaltation? Or on the nature of God? Or on the Atonement? Indeed, what is to say that LDS prophets and apostles speak for – or hear from – God at all? The actual date of Christ’s birth doesn’t matter; but following a false prophet will matter for all of eternity.

As I wrote earlier, the important thing pertaining to Christ’s birth is not the specific date, but the fact.

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

Discussing the great biblical Christmas passage in Luke 2, Christian theologian John Piper summed up,

Christmas in Sum:

The Lord of never-ending, universal, sovereign governance. The Lord of all lords.

On a day— in real history. [“When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son…” -Galatians 4:4]

In a city— in a real world. [“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah…from you shall come forth…one who is to be ruler in Israel…” -Micah 5:2]

The Savior— to take away all our guilt. [“You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” -Matthew 1:21]

The Christ— to fulfill all our hopes. [“For all the promises of God find their Yes in Him.” -1 Corinthians 1:20]

The Lord— to defeat all our enemies and make us safe and satisfied for ever. [“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of peace…” -Isaiah 9:6-7]    (John Piper, “A Savior Is Born! God Gets the Glory, You Get the Peace,” The Dawning of Indestructible Joy)

No matter the date of His birth, Jesus – God made flesh – was born to die, to save us from our sins. For this, with all the host of heaven we rejoice, “Glory to God in the Highest! And on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!”

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Mormon History Matters!

I maintain that any Mormon who spent time actually studying the history of the Mormon Church rather than the LDS version of their history, will, like me, leave the Mormon Church behind.  There are just too many frauds/lies behind their history, too many contradictions as to what God and Jesus supposedly told Joseph Smith, too many changes in their holy books, etc, to ignore.  It was my research into their history which led me to leave the LDS church; I saw how fraudulent it was from the beginning!

Well, I read this article at Mormonism Research Ministry and felt it needs to be shared in as many places as possible.  Perhaps Mormons reading it will realize that they are in a false belief system, proven by their history, and will seek the truth with the true Christ and God of the Bible. (For convenience, I will not change the text to blue as I usually do for articles/quotes which aren’t mine.)

By Sharon Lindbloom
2 December 2016

Though the LDS Church claims disillusioned members are not “leaving [the Church] in droves,” talks and articles about stemming the exiting tide continue to appear in the news. This week, Mormon-themed Meridian Magazine published “8 Things That Can Pull You Away From the Churchby Gary and Joy Lundberg. In this article, the Lundbergs explain,

“All around us we hear of friends and loved ones who are falling away from the Church. It breaks our hearts because we know of the incredible blessings they will be missing. We love them. With all our hearts we want them to enjoy all the blessings of the gospel and be with us throughout all eternity.

“We may ask, how does it happen? Some who once were faithful are now doubting and leaving the Church. It rarely suddenly happens; it’s usually a gradual process. It’s a process we all must guard against. Here are 8 things that ever so carefully pull people away.”

The Lundbergs’ list reflects the typical old-school ideas on why people leave Mormonism: these people aren’t doing enough to maintain their faith. They leave the Church because: “They stop reading the Book of Mormon… They forget their covenants… They listen to those who have left the Church… They cease praying to stay strong and faithful… They stop going to Church… They don’t listen to General Conference… They listen to the philosophies of men above the teachings of the prophets… They fail to acknowledge the Lord’s blessings.” The list does not leave room for anyone who comes into contact with disparate facts that raise doubts or questions about the LDS Church. In fact, the Lundbergs seem to suggest that if one has doubts, it’s because that person has failed to fully live his faith with real intent.

It is no small thing, yet unfortunately all too easy, to drift away from spiritual moorings. And surely this happens in all religions, Mormonism included. But, as noted in the results of a 2012 survey of disbelieving Mormons/former Mormons, a high percentage of those who lost their faith “were active and highly involved with the Church before losing belief.” As one commenter on the “8 Things” article wrote,

“the kinds of reasons the Lundbergs list here have little, if any, to do with people leaving. The Lundbergs may have observed these behaviors in those who leave, but these kinds of behavior, from what I have observed, typically *follow after* a person’s faith crisis and do not necessarily *precede* it (although it may vary some in each person’s case).” (wv549, November 28, 2016)

In fact, the Understanding Mormon Disbelief survey revealed that 70% of respondents listed historical issues as a major factor leading to their loss of faith. A reader of the Lundbergs’ article expressed concern and confusion about her friends who left Mormonism over the Church’s history:

“I have several friends who have left the church because of ‘things in the history’ that they didn’t know before. I, too have read the [LDS] gospel [topic] essays. Yes, there are items in there I hadn’t heard. Also items I hadn’t considered before. I hope you can answer the question none of my friends have been able to…. how does learning a new historical fact change the doctrine? How does it make the BOM untrue? How are you able to throw out all of the good, and all of the truth, because something ugly/hard/uncomfortable (whatever word you want to use) came to light? This is what I don’t understand, and I’m hoping that maybe you can enlighten me how something newly uncovered in the history can change every single good thing. Thanks!!” (Debbie, November 28, 2016)

I’d like to address Debbie’s question. A past president of the LDS Church said,

“I am grateful for my membership in the Church, and my testimony of its divinity hinges upon the simple story of the lad under the trees kneeling and receiving heavenly visitors–not one God, but two separate individual personages, the Father and the Son, revealing again to the earth the personages of the Godhead. My faith and testimony hinges upon this simple story, for if it is not true, Mormonism fails. If it is true–and I bear witness that it is– it’s one of the greatest single events in all history” (Howard W. Hunter, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Howard W. Hunter, 2015, 96-97).

President Hunter’s testimony – the testimony of a Mormon prophet – hinged on historical fact. If the specific historical facts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision didn’t actually happen – and happen in the detailed way that the official version tells the story – President Hunter said “Mormonism fails.” Therefore, when a Mormon learns the uncomfortable truth that there are many versions of Joseph Smith’s First Vision story, and that the Father and the Son aren’t even in some of them, this is a big deal. This uncomfortable historical fact changes the Church’s doctrine in several ways. Christian authors Eric Johnson and Bill McKeever note,

“This [official version of the First] vision is significant to a Mormon for a number of reasons. First, it has been used to support the notion that God the Father and Jesus Christ, as two separate and distinct personages, are also two distinct and separate gods. And two, it gives the Mormon justification to believe Christianity had fallen into a complete apostasy and needed to be restored to earth.”

A fundamental belief of Mormonism — its doctrine on the very nature of God and Christ – has its roots in the official version of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. If the story is not true history, this important LDS doctrine has lost its foundation. Likewise, the historical truth of the alleged complete apostasy of Christianity is of great importance to Mormonism. An LDS Apostle once explained,

“The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of the great apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in modern times, is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church was not a reality, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims.” (James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy, iii)

Historical evidence speaks against the LDS doctrine of the complete apostasy of the Christian church. The historical facts confirm that the apostasy as taught by LDS leaders never happened; this uncomfortable truth undermines the whole reason for the Restoration and the LDS Church’s existence, and demonstrates it “is not the divine institution its name proclaims.”

Marlin K. Jensen, then an LDS Seventy serving as the official Church Historian and Recorder, once instructed his Mormon audience,

“It is important that we become familiar with our Church’s history, especially with its founding stories. These stories—Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, angelic visitations by John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Elijah, Elias, and others—contain the foundational truths upon which the Restoration is based.” (“Stand in the Sacred Grove,” Ensign, December 2014)

These things are all understood within Mormonism to be historical events. The Church teaches that they really happened; and because they really happened, the LDS Church is true. But every one of these founding stories have historical problems – problems of fact, not of faith. According to LDS leaders themselves, if the history isn’t true, the Church isn’t true.

“If Joseph Smith did not have that interview with God and Jesus Christ the whole Mormon fabric is a failure and a fraud. It is not worth anything on earth.” (LDS President Heber J. Grant, Conference Reports, April 1940, 128)

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud… upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this church.” (LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of our Faith,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2002, 80. Ellipsis mine.)

President Hinckley elsewhere explained,

“I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph talked with the Father and the Son, or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in blasphemy.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Reports, October 1961, 116)

Debbie asked, “enlighten me how something newly uncovered in the history can change every single good thing.” Remember the words of LDS prophets. Historical facts that controvert the teachings of Mormonism prove that the Church is “a failure and a fraud,” “a sham and a delusion…blasphemy”; a church wherein, spiritually speaking, there is no “good thing.” As President Grant said, such a church “is not worth anything on earth.”

An official newspaper published by the LDS Church said this:

“In the Latter-day Saint faith, doctrine and history are so intertwined as to be inseparable; one sustains and gives meaning to the other.” (R. Scott Lloyd, “‘Good as old’: Conservators’ gentle handiwork preserves Church history in documentary artifacts,” Church News, July 5, 2008, 9)

I have used the LDS assertions of the First Vision and the Great Apostasy as examples of how this inseparable intertwining of history and doctrine works in Mormonism, but there are many other examples that could be discussed. My goal here is to help Mormons understand why their friends leave the Church over “things in the history.”

It takes a strong person to face hard truths like these and choose the path that releases them from being “engaged in blasphemy,” comfortable though that may be. My hope is that these once-believing Mormons who have shown that they care about truth, will not discard faith altogether. I hope they will fully investigate Christianity and, upon finding it trustworthy, will turn to the One Who Himself is the truth (John 14:6).

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Mormonism Is Still Heretical!

Thus we see that the LDS Church still teaches the following:

1. God has not always been God, but achieved this position after years of self-effort.

2.  Heavenly Father and his wife, Heavenly Mother, were once mortals on another world, ruled by yet a different “god.”

3.  Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are resurrected mortals who have achieved godhood.

4.  The goal of the LDS couple is to achieve godhood and become a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother to their posterity.

5.  God, men and angels are the same species, just in different levels of achievement.

In other words, Mormonism is still a heretical offshoot of Christianity.

Cited from the article, “Is There a Mother God?” in the Salt Lake City Messenger, May 2016, Issue 126, pg.14