Tuesday, August 8, 2017

A Conundrum for Mormons

Mormons often make an issue that the written standard works are to be the measuring rod for truth and that revelation cannot contradict them.  President Harold B. Lee stated, “If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true.”  Given the fact that Abraham 1:26 in the Pearl of Great Price was used as a proof text to ban blacks from the priesthood, the 1978 reversal appears to violate Lee’s admonition.

All of this raises other questions.  If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the physical mark?  If the sole purpose of the black skin was merely to identify those who should not receive priesthood blessings, and the no longer applies, why are people still being born with this mark?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg.275

Friday, August 4, 2017

False Prophecy!

At a Honolulu stake conference in 1961, Joseph Fielding Smith said

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

Granted that this was before he was the LDS President, but for the LDS to say this isn’t a prophecy because he wasn’t President yet flies in the face of that last sentence! 

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Joseph Smith is needed if the atonement is to be “fully efficacious”

In the first volume of Doctrines of Salvation, tenth Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith made it very clear that there is “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith” (1:188).  While some might think that Mormonism has matured and moved away from such a heretical notion, Mormon Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland assures us that this is not the case.

The April 2017 edition of New Era magazine, a publication geared for Mormon youth, reprinted a talk that Holland gave back on June 27, 2002 (the 158th anniversary of the death of Joseph Smith).  Delivered to a group of new mission presidents, the talk was titled “Testify of the Restoration” and stressed the importance of Joseph Smith’s role in the salvation of not only Mormons but all mankind.  After stating that the most important event in all of human history was the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Holland said,

“The next greatest accomplishment in making that atonement fully efficacious in the great plan of salvation was the appearance of the Father and the Son to the boy prophet Joseph Smith in the New York springtime of 1820. Had we never had what we have come to call ‘the Restoration,’ the great plan of salvation would have been forever thwarted, and the full blessings of the Atonement would not have reached most of God’s children, past, present, and future. . .  Take away Joseph Smith and the First Vision, take away the events which followed, take away a direct restoration from heaven, and what do we have?  We don’t have much—at least not enough to distinguish us from a thousand other good groups of people” (3-4).

Despite the fact that many Latter-day Saints continue to insist how they are Christians just like us, Holland does not hide the fact that in order to receive the full benefits of the atonement, it is necessary to add Joseph Smith to the mix.  Regarding their claim to be Christian, Holland cautioned the members to be “careful and sensitive and kind as we must be in how we say it, we declare that we are dramatically different in quite a few particulars(4).

Whereas Christians look to the New Testament as being completely sufficient regarding the way of salvation, Holland says it is not enough.

“The rock upon which the latter-day Church of Jesus Christ rests is not solely the revelation of Christ to Peter or to Adam or to Enoch or Moses or Abraham.  It is the revelation of Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith coupled with the revelation of Christ to Joseph Smith’s successor prophets and apostles, and indeed the revelation of Christ in the heart of each individual member of this Church” (5).

You can see why Mormons are so protective of the image of their founding prophet.  Once Smith’s veneer of authority and virtue is stripped away, there is no reason to be loyal to the Mormon system. The task ahead is convincing Mormons who have come to this point (and there are many) that the New Testament demonstrates how Joseph Smith is not needed to make the atonement of Christ fully efficacious in the lives of Christian believers.

Bill McKeever, Mormonism Researched, May-June 2017

Friday, June 23, 2017

Don’t Pray About the Book of Mormon!

A [Mormon] missionary resource explains, “In order to know that the Book of Mormon is true, a person must read, ponder, and pray about it.  The honest seeker of truth will soon come to feel that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” . . .

Yet there are problems with this challenge.  First of all, the test is skewed.  A person who “prays” but doesn’t get the same answer as the missionary is viewed as not getting it correct.  If prayer is the correct means of testing the book’s authenticity, why is a negative outcome immediately rejected as a plausible response? . . .  However, Jeremiah 17:9 says a feeling that one has can be disastrously wrong because “the heart is desperately wicked.” Praying about a religious book, especially if it is fictional and not historical, is hardly an objective test.

If the Book of Mormon is just one of four LDS scriptures, why should it be prayed over and not the other three scriptures? For that matter, why shouldn’t a seeker after truth pray about the Qu’ran (Islam), the Vedas (Hinduism), or the Tripitaka (Buddhism)?  Where does praying about a particular religion’s scripture stop?  If praying about a book is a way to determine truth, then why have many Mormons never even thought about expanding their prayers to more than just one religion’s scripture?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 135

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Mormons, I’m Waiting for an Answer

A garden atonement seems odd for a couple of reasons.  One, Paul always points to the cross where this event happened; never does he give any indication that the atonement was divided over two locations.  In addition, the Bible only refers to the garden twice—never once in association with the atonement.  Two, if Christ actually atoned for all of the sins of mankind in the garden, what would be left for Him to atone for on the cross?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 158-159

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Some Random Stuff Proving Mormonism False

What about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon? Something is “rotten in Denmark”!

Is salvation only “after all we can do”?

The deception by the LDS continues in regards to Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Book of Mormon.  The LDS was conceived in deception, so I’m not surprised at this.

Additional perspectives and insights on Joseph Smith’s “First Vision.

Mormonism’s “priesthood power” is how even God can do everything!

The origins of the Mormon Endowment Ceremony.

Mormon space program launches first manned mission to Kolob.  I saw it on the Internet.

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