Gods and Goddesses, Kings and Queens

In November 2004 Dr. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, spoke in front of a packed house at the Mormon Tabernacle on Temple Square. Dr. Mouw apologized for the way evangelicals had borne “false witness” about the teachings of Mormonism. Later, when asked to clarify his statement, Dr. Mouw wrote,

“I have received emails in the past few days where evangelicals have said that Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being like us, and we can become gods just like God now is. Mormon leaders have specifically stated that such a teaching, while stated by past leaders, is something they don’t understand and has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine.”

A few years later (2007), in the thick of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, FOXNews.com asked the LDS Church to comment on 21 questions regarding some controversial beliefs allegedly promoted by Mormonism. Two questions and answers of interest were:

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become “gods and goddesses” after death?

A: We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being ‘joint heirs with Christ’ reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will “rule” after their death and ascension?

A: No.

The June 2009 issue of Ensign magazine sheds some light on LDS teachings related to the above statements. In “Our Refined Heavenly Home” by Seventy Douglas L. Callister we learn,

“I imagine that our heavenly parents are exquisitely refined. In this great gospel of emulation, one of the purposes of our earthly probation is to become like them in every conceivable way…” (page 55)

“Your Father in Heaven has sent you away from His presence to have experiences you would not have had in your heavenly home–all in preparation for the conferral of a kingdom. He doesn’t want you to lose your vision. You are children of an exalted being. You are foreordained to preside as kings and queens.” (page 58)

“…may we become worthy to enjoy the refined society of heavenly parentage, for we are of the race of the Gods, being ‘children of the most High’ (Psalm 82:6).” (page 58)

To summarize, the LDS gospel is one of “emulation” of God the Father and His heavenly partner. Human beings are of the “race of the Gods,” and as such, each person’s goal is to become like his or her heavenly parents “in every conceivable way.” Once a person is prepared for “the conferral of a kingdom,” he or she will fulfill the foreordained plan to “preside” therein as a king or queen and enjoy the “refined society of heavenly parentage.”

Mr. Callister’s comments are refreshingly straightforward. I hope readers benefit from his teaching and gain expanded insight into a few Mormon doctrines.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Nature of Man and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Gods and Goddesses, Kings and Queens

  1. Ralph says:

    JackG,

    I never said tha I find that claim unpalatable. I was merely showing how I can say that He was without sin. I specified that we do not know nor do we teach what He did and was like on His earth.

    The comparison is true – I have been given a promise from God and Jesus that if I have faith in Jesus and repent, my sins will be forgiven and will be remembered no more. This will ultimately make me sinless in the sight of God and thus through Jesus Atonement I can and will become perfect and without sin.

  2. Provide just one statement from LDS scriptures or LDS prophet that suggests God was a sinner

    “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.” Now consider that in the traditional Mormon worldview of the “eternal round” of things.

    I have watched you make every attempt to stir up controversy and make the most possible uproar from the most benign and inconsequential perceived inconsistencies

    Whether God was once perhaps a sinner is “benign and inconsequential”?

    You simply outline a debate within the LDS leadership 120 years ago over God’s knowledge.

    Then you read the article in the spirit of selective-listening. I explained a Christian view of eternal progression and if you didn’t catch it you didn’t read closely enough. I guess people see what they want to see.

    it is not our doctrine that we must practice plural marriage in order to be exalted

    “Doctrine” being the weasel word here. Of course it’s not actively taught, but it once was authoritatively taught and was never repudiated with the same degree of authoritativeness. Mormons to whom I expose the relevant qutoes on this subject often will tell me, “I don’t know, we’ll just leave that issue up to God.” The Church doesn’t have an official “doctrine” (however you want to define that word) that a person doesn’t have to be polygamous to be exalted, etc., either.

    You spent your life’s energy stereotyping our religion.

    Now you just sound grumpy and angry.

    Olsen, if you want to adhere to the idea of a special strain of sinless savior gods, then go for it. But when you attempt to generalize that as the Mormon belief, or imply that it is the institutional or general traditional understanding, you sound like you’re in denial. Come to Manti with me next year and observe as I talk to Mormons about this issue. I even had Mormons explicitly tell me they believed God could have been an addict to pornography and a practicing homosexual (who then repented and was exalted unto godhood). You have to hear it with your own ears. Yes, there are few people in the world like me asking Mormons crazy and out-of-this-world notorious questions like that, but the answers I get are astounding, even to Mormon ears who haven’t thought much about the issue.

    To say that the LDS God was a sinner would be like an LDS saying that the Traditional Christian God cannot forgive sins and make men perfect.

    Olsen, are you hearing this from Ralph? You might want to talk to him about these things first instead of grilling me on them.

    Ralph, I deal with this in the Q&A of GodNeverSinned.com. I answer the question, “Shouldn’t we respect the power of the atonement by overlooking God’s putative sins?”, with, “The whole beauty and power and value of the atonement is based on the fact that it was accomplished by a God who never, ever sinned.” I’ve heard this from a lot of Mormons: that if God the Father was a sinner he has had his sins cleansed by another atonement, so now it is “as though he never sinned.” I have even talked to one Mormon who said that God (and his own God above him) had a (if you’ll let me use my own crass language for a moment) cosmic brain-fart, literally and actually and non-figuratively forgetting that a sin was even ever committed. As a theist who doesn’t believe God literally “forgets” anything, I believe the language of not remembering my sins means that he will never hold my sins against me, even though he can, in a manner of speaking, recall in his memory that I did sin. I find that very important, because I believe I will be, in a manner of speaking, singing Amazing Grace for all eternity. It’s hard to eternally thank God for his grace if both he and I literally forget that I ever sinned.

    God, however, doesn’t sing Amazing Grace to his own God. He never was a wretch like me.

    Ralph, if I could put all my cards on the table face-up: You need to repent of believing that God the Father could have been a wretch like you, and stop justifying it by saying that an atonement would have rendered it as though he never sinned. God the Father never needed an atonement, ever. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.

    Grace and peace in Christ for those who freely receive eternal life,

    Aaron

  3. Megan commented on an LDS friend’s statement; She said, “If God just explained [the doctrine of plural marriage in the afterlife] to me, then I could understand and it would be easier to accept.”

    Back to the start of the thread…

    …Isn’t that the job of the current LDS leadership, its prophets and its “continuing” revelation? Shouldn’t they be acting as the “mouthpiece of God” and explain it in ways that make sense to folks like Megan’s friend. If they “don’t understand” the doctrine, who can?

    If the head-honcho can’t do his job, then sack him and get someone who can.

    P.S. Megan, the only way to really understand the doctrine is that it attempts to justify Joseph Smith’s adulteries, but I doubt that your friend would like it. It’s also why you’ll never get a satisfactory explanation out of the LDS leadership.

  4. Andy Watson says:

    Olsen,

    You said: “Provide just one statement from LDS scriptures or LDS prophet that suggests God was a sinner.”

    Okay, I’ll make this simple. Provide me just one statement from LDS scriptures or an LDS prophet that states that your heavenly father was the savior of another planet somewhere and was without sin. When you complete that then I would like for you to explain to us here the difference between your heavenly father being a savior and your “jesus” being a savior. Your “jesus” was “a god” before he came here. Your heavenly father, if he was a savior, eternally progressed and became a god after his death. He also got his own planet near Kolob and procreates. Is the same of your “jesus” as well?

    LDS advertisements all ove the web state that they have the answers to man’s questions. I’ve got at least 100 right now. This is the first I’ll ask of you. I asked Crispin last week one and he said he’d back the next day with the answers and have the LDS baptismal tank ready for my baptism. He hasn’t been back here since.

    Again, back it up with LDS authoritative sources from the First Presidency, the other GA’s or church manuals. I’m anxiously awaiting to expand my LDS education and I thank you in advance for enlightening me.

  5. falcon says:

    Martin,
    To answer your question about why the current Mormon prophet doesn’t just clear all of this messy business up; it’s because he’s not a prophet, plain and simple. These guys rise to the office because they’re good church politians. That’s why they speak as they do. The early guys like Smith and Young had tremendous egos and would go into a free flow stream of consciousness and emit all sorts of incredibly stupid statements which current Mormons are trying to either defend or run away from. When they defend them they look like idiots and when they run away from them they damage their own credibility.
    So the current “prophet” travels the country side saying nothing while saying a lot and getting treated as the oracle of god. All that’s really important is to keep the faithful in tow and paying into an organization that’s more interested in buying cattle ranches in Nebraska, retail malls in Utah or vast tracks of land in the UK. Today money is the mother’s milk of the Utah based LDS church. Why mess all of that up by actually saying something to clear-up all of these nasty controversies?
    The bottom line is that the “prophets” of the Mormon church can hide because there isn’t anyone that will ever hold them to account.

  6. Olsen Jim says:

    Andy Watson,

    That is a great debate strategy- insist the opponent produce proof from LDS leaders that we don’t believe a certain doctrine that is never taught. Show me where in the Bible it says that Pluto is not inhabited by green donkeys.

    Andy and Aaron- if you insist we believe and teach such things- show it. You simply cannot do this. And there are a couple of scriptures in our canon that allude to all of this. Given your access to the library of all things LDS, I will let you find them. But I suppose that would require you to actually read our canon.

    Andy- about your 100 questions- does the inability to answer every single possible question reveal the absence of truth or authority? If so, evangelicals have a serious problem.

    Aaron- I did read your link on evangelical progression. Am I mistaken or did you say absolutely nothing about your view, rather you rant again about Young vs. Pratt.

    And “doctrine” was not a weasel word. It is not taught nor believed nor written that we must be polygamist to be exalted. You are simply wrong.

    You critics live on the fringe. As a result, your fascination and focus on far out doctrines and possibilities gives you a very skewed view of our religion. Hence, you really do not understand our religion. You expect an answer for everything. That is simply unrealistic and childish. When in the past did prophets give an answer for every possible detractor and complaint?

  7. Olsen, read it again. I promote the idea that we will ever-increasingly grow in the knowledge and power of God forever. I agree with Pratt that God doesn’t progress in knowledge and power, and I agree with Young that we will forever increase in knowledge and power, but I reject Pratt’s idea that I can become equal with God in knowledge and power (because God is infinite) and I reject Young’s idea that God is still progressing in knowledge in power. Surely you have heard before someone explain their beliefs in terms of contrast?

    Olsen, I’m not sure how to reason with you as it seems you are in denial, even turning a blind eye on this very discussion thread to a fellow Mormon (Ralph) who has essentially articulated that he believes God the Father could have been a sinner. If that isn’t sufficient for you, read a discussion between Mormons that is only days old, particularly this part of it. When you read fresh arguments from Mormons like that, who explicitly open the door for the historical possibility that God was a sinner, what do you do? Do you imagine that they are evangelical spies pretending to be Mormons?

    “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)

    Grace and peace in Christ for those who freely receive eternal life,

    Aaron

  8. jackg says:

    Ralph,

    I would like to point out a red flag for you: the fact that you don’t find that statement unpalatable. It ought to make you sick to your stomach even to consider such a heretical statement and thought that God just might have needed a Savior because He was full of sin and filthy just as WE are. God is HOLY, Ralph. He never had sin because He never lived on an earth as you and I. To believe that He did is the same as saying that God was a created being rather than the CREATOR. He created out of nothing, Ralph. He didn’t just organize matter that was already in existence. He breathed life into nothingness, Ralph, because He IS LIFE ITSELF. His breath generates existence, Ralph. You have been believing a lie, Ralph, regarding God. You need to repent of that felonious thinking, Ralph, and let the Holy Spirit do His work in you. I had to repent of the same heretical thinking myself, Ralph, and I know that with God all things are possible. He has cleansed me from the heresies of Mormonism, and now I proclaim His grace to you, Ralph. Praying for you, Ralph.

    Peace and blessings to you and yours.

  9. jackg says:

    Olsen,

    You can’t dismiss what I say because I WAS IN YOUR SHOES AND IN YOUR SENSE OF ARROGANCE. God had to humble me before I could accept His beautiful truth. The same needs to happen to you. We don’t live on the fringe, Olsen, despite your weak attempts to make it sound that way. You accuse us of ranting and raving, yet do the same thing. Your father, JS, has left you as an orphan to defend his heretical teachings, Olsen. You have no answers. I know because I had no answers, either. But, Olsen, the biblical text is filled with TRUTH, if you would but read it without the lense of your 8th AOF. The words of your leaders imply that God was a sinner because WE are sinners. But, you choose to ignore what is presented to you, and you choose to ignore the sick and heretical implications of the words of me you call prophets but are merely doing Satan’s bidding. That’s the plain truth of it, Olsen, and I am speaking harshly to you because you want to speak as one who has authority, but you don’t. Our authority comes from the living God through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, Olsen, and I for one cannot sit idly by while you preach a heretical doctrine that will only lead men to eternal death, because you definitely don’t preach the Word of God that brings life through the power of the blood of Jesus Christ ALONE!.

    Peace and Grace to all who will hear the True Word of God!

  10. jackg, AMEN. You have given me “gospel bumps” on my skin reading your comment this morning.

  11. shematwater says:

    Let me say a few things to all the ignorant and idiotic people who want to claim the LDS church teaches what it doesn’t.

    First, what I said about the Snow quote is perfectly true. What was said by Bruce McKonkie does not contradict it. What people were believing was that the Father acted as a savior for another planet that he had created. They were holding to the view that after he had become a God and had created planets and peopled them that he acted as a savior for them. This was in part due to what Joseph Smith said, and also in part to the fact that they could not comprehend (or had not yet been taught) that our Father in Heaven has his own Father, and so on through the generations of Gods. They believed that our Father was the first, thus if he acted as a savior it must have been for another planet that he had created. This is what Brother McKonkie was rejecting, not that he was the savior of his generation.

    Now, the argument that what Snow said must mean God sinned is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, and all the explanations given just keep making it worse. “He was as man, and as all men sin he must have sinned.” Well Christ was also man, and yet he was without sin. In fact, I have heard many Christians teach that Christ was all man (even though he was also all God). If he was all man than, as all men sin, he must have sinned, right? I have even heard Christians who believe this for this very reason.

    Please try to apply the same logic to LDS doctrine that you apply to your own. If what our leaders have taught implied that God sinned, than what the Christians teach implies that Christ sinned.

  12. shematwater says:

    Now, let me touch on poligamy.

    The prophets do not clarify it at this time because we do not practice it at this time, and thus it is not needed for us to understand it right now. When the time comes for us to live it again, that will be the time for us to have it explained.

    Even with this, reading the words of the early prophets can help. I do know that Brigham Young taught quite plainly that it was your attitude towards the doctrine that would condemn or save you. He condemned those who accepted it openly, but in their hearts rejected it. As Olsen says, it is required that we accept the practice, that in our hearts we support those who choose to live it. It is not required that we live it.

    It is also true, from all the reading that I have done, that in the 1800’s it was the woman who accepted it gladly, and the men who had to be constantly chastised for not “doing their duty” towards the women.

    Let me explain a few things that I understand about doctrine.
    It is required of to be married or they cannot enter exaltation and become gods. It is also understood by many that there will be more woman who meet all other requirements than men. So, if you have 100 men, but 120 women, for all of them to receive exaultation some men are going to have to have multiple wives.
    In this way it is justice that requires this law to be lived. (But notice that not all men will be able to have more than one wife.)

    Also, as our children are our glory, both in this life and the eternal life, the more wives a man has the more children will be born to the family thus increasing the glory of the family (all parents).

  13. shematwater says:

    Just a few more small details.

    As to being Gods over our own worlds, the Church has never said anything on this subject. In all truth, they have remain wisely silent as to the condition in which we will live as gods in the Celestial kingdom (or as angels in any of the kingdoms). We know many of the things that will happen to effect the transition from this existance to that, but once there nothing has been said.
    So, allow me to descibe the two main ideas that exist. For the most part members see this existance as a man and his wife (or wives) going off and created their own little world (or worlds) which they will rule. Their family will be the gods to their spirit children.
    However, the second, and much less known or even understood, is the idea that we will all rule together. This is the one I personally agree with, and for many reasons. We are taught that there was a great counsel of the gods in Heaven. Thus, there must be a similar counsel with our generation, as we are going to be like our heavenly parents. Also, Joseph Smith has taught that all those who lived on this earth who inherit the Celestial Kingdom will remain on this earth. Thus we will not be separated to our own little worlds, but will be as a large family (with Adam at our head)ruling from this earth.

    Now, I know that neither of these view points has ever been expressly stated by the church leaders. However, the second is supported by other things they have said, while the first is simply a more comfortable belief. In all truth it really does not matter which an individual believes in, as long as they are willing to accept either one when the time comes.

    I explain this for a simple reason. Many things that spoken of against the church are only supported if you accept the first concept but are easily explained if you accept the second. So, when you start to speak on beliefs that have not been confirmed by divine revelation, consider all possible beliefs, as some fit better.

  14. “… it is required that we accept the practice [of polygamy], that in our hearts we support those who choose to live it. It is not required that we live it.”

    “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them and they refused to accept them” (Brigham Young, 19 August 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:269).

    “As to being Gods over our own worlds, the Church has never said anything on this subject. In all truth, they have remain wisely silent as to the condition in which we will live as gods in the Celestial kingdom (or as angels in any of the kingdoms). We know many of the things that will happen to effect the transition from this existance to that, but once there nothing has been said.”

    “Of those whose marriage endures in eternity, the Lord says, ‘Then shall they be gods’ (D&C 132:20); that is, each of them, the man and the woman, will be a god. As such they will rule over their dominions forever” … “We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring” (Achieving a Celestial Marriage Manual, 132).

    See also The Mormon Doctrine of Materiality for a related excerpt from B.H. Roberts’ Mormon Doctrine of Deity (pages 255-258). Here is a portion of that excerpt:

    Thus perfected, the whole family will possess the material universe, that is, the earth, and all other planets, and worlds, as “an inheritance incorruptible undefiled and that fadeth not away.” They will also continue to organize, people, redeem, and perfect other systems which are now in the womb of Chaos, and thus go on increasing their several dominions, till the weakest child of God which now exists upon the earth will possess more dominion, more property, more subjects, and more power and glory than is possessed by Jesus Christ or by his Father; while at the same time Jesus Christ and his Father, will have dominion, kingdoms, and subjects increased in proportion.

  15. shematwater says:

    A few personal notes

    JACK

    You are still full of arrogance, you have simply added hatred to your being now. You are not humble, and your words prove it to anyone who actually listens or reads them.
    The Bible is full of truth, but two-thousand years of evil and designing men have tainted it, twisted it. Thus one must read with the spirit of prophecy in them or they will be lead atray. I have the spirit of prophecy, do you? I have it because I believe in Christ, and that is the spirit of prophecy (revelation 19: 10).
    I know you do not have this spirit, for you deny this spirit. Most of the Christian world denies that there are prophets in our day, and yet it has been told to us that all those who have a testimony of Christ have this spirit. As you cannot have what you deny, it must therefore also follow that your faith is not in the Christ of the Bible, but in the creation of those evil men who have altered the words of God. Thus you are lead atray. But through this spirit I know the truths taught in the Bible, and they are the truths of Gospel, and the only church that teaches these truths is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints.

    AARON

    As Olsen says, you are a hypocrite. You claim to sipply observe and to share your observations. But you put a twist on those observations, and then you ridicule anyone who tries to correct what you have twisted. You take the words of men inspired by God “in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures” unto your own destruction, as do most of the people on these threads.

    To all faithful saints who are on this thread. I appologyse for any harshness in my words that you may find unwise in useing. However, I am tired of being accused of the worst of crimes and simply taking it. I am tired of the sumbissive approach.

  16. FIGJAM says:

    @ JIM – “The standard you hold LDS and their prophets to is ridiculous.” Absolutely comical. Shouldn’t you hold them to the highest of standards, as they are supposedly capable of receiving revelation from your “GOD”.

    We don’t have to “practice” polygamy, we just have to “accept” it. :) If Broseph wasn’t using “accept” in terms of “practice”, then 6.7 billion people on this earth would’ve had to come from one “Heavenly Mother”. Impressive. I’ll call Guinness.

    Look, for all the Mormons posting on this topic. I resigned my name from the “church” less than 1 year ago. I sit here and see who I once was. You must understand that there is no comparison between the divinity of the GOSPEL of our ONE TRUE GOD and what you believe. Don’t lie to yourself and take information at face value, not through a “seer stone” or a megalomaniac’s faulty interpretation. The “Occam’s Razor” principle can be used with Mormonism quite effectively. I suggest your try it, especially linguistically, archaeologically, and historically when researching your “church”.

    In any case, keep posting LDS church members. I always need a good chuckle and reaffirmation to why I left a brain-washing henotheistic cult. Mormons, you may want to look up “MONOLATRY”, as well.

    BTW – I just picked up “Reformed Eyptian for Dummies” at Amazon. What a wonderful read!

  17. shematwater, you have just lost a lot of credibility, and Sharon has more than adequately shut you down.

    I invite you to do a civil, reasonable public audible podcast with me. You can grill me all you want, but I think people will see how silly your claims are when you are asked to substantiate them. I for one would be happy to substantiate my claims on the air.

    E-mail me at [email protected] with either your phone number or a Skype username, and propose a time that works for you. If you’re willing.

    Usually, people like you here do the standard grandstanding but then shrink back when asked to do on-the-air Q&A.

  18. jackg says:

    Sorry, Shem, but you’re attempts to attack my character are not going to be able to stifle my voice regarding the heresies of Mormonism. I have pity for the victims of Mormonism, which is what you are. If I am angry, I am angry at the lies of JS et al. Now, since you brought up polygamy…let’s take a little look at the first person to practice it. We read in Genesis four, about six generations into the lineage of Cain about a man named Lamech. It states that he took for himself two wives. Before we continue, we need to understand what has been happening historically in the biblical text. We read about the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and then the disobedience of Cain, which is followed by the disobedience of Lamech. Not only does Lamech take two wives for himself, but he kills a younger man in an act of revenge. So, he is not a God-fearing man at all. What the biblical text so adroitly does is present our Adamic DNA, if you will, which is sin nature. Adam and Eve: disobedience that leads to a self-sovereign decision and then blame-shifting; Cain: offering God his leftovers, killing his brother and lying about it; Lamech: polygamy and murder out of revenge. So, polygamy was initiated by man and runs incongruent to what God established in the Garden of Eden. There is so much to talk about here that totally destroys Mormon theology, especially with regard to the fact that the condition of the world is NOT as God intended. You see, Shem, the only evil men who have twisted the Word of God have been JS, BY, and all the other leaders that JS spawned. Follow Jesus, Shem. Follow Jesus.

    Still praying deliverance for you and yours…

  19. falcon says:

    I guess it’s time for me to step in, which I normally do when this topic gets to this point, and remind everyone that Mormonism isn’t Christianity. If the Mormons want to have a god that was a sinful man who needed to be redeemed and prove himself through works of righteousness so that he could become a god, I guess that’s their perogative. But please Mormon friends, don’t even begin to suggest that this is original first century Christianity.
    If you want to piddle around with your Mormon mythology (not theology), I could care less. Much the same way I feel about Hindus or Buddists or whatever world religion is floating around out there. But if you’re claiming to be the restored gospel, you’ve got more problems than you can even began to cover with a burning in your bossom.
    Happily, we have several exMos making the case for traditional orthodox Christianity. They’ve been there and experienced the mind bending it takes to keep the Mormon myth going. All I can say to you exMos is that I am really proud of the way you’ve done the hard work of research and study. You present your case clearly and with reasoned passion.

  20. Andy Watson says:

    Olsen said: “Andy- about your 100 questions- does the inability to answer every single possible question reveal the absence of truth or authority? If so, evangelicals have a serious problem.”

    No, Olsen, it’s the inability of the LDS Church to answer even the simplest of questions or even one question that I have that is the problem. I asked Crispin, the former LDS resident scholar here at MC, three questions last week that were very simple and he disappeared despite promising to return the next day with the answers. I said if he could answer those three easy questions I would join the Mormon Church and let him baptize me. He boasted of his LDS education which included being an LDS teacher for 30 years. It’s now Monday night and Crispin is AWOL. This should be a serious “red flag” to anyone! When it gets right down to it our Mormon friends cannot produce the answers from what they teach and believe.

    I can’t go to Yahoo or to the Fox News website without seeing constant advertising by the LDS Church with “warm-fuzzy” adds of little children running around advertising free Bibles (despite what Articles of Faith #8 says) with ads of transcripts of online chats between LDS Church members and fictitious non-LDS members claiming to have the answers to man’s questions. Mormons tell me that they like Mormonism because it all makes sense. However, when I ask them some basic questions they have no answers and give me a blank stare or they say, “It hasn’t been revealed yet.”

    You don’t have the answers. You don’t have any authority. You don’t engage in serious study or scholarship. You don’t have anything noteworthy to add to this discussion other than talking points and cry-baby tactics. If Shem and yourself are the products of what is coming out of institute these days, then the LDS Church education department needs a serious overhaul. The level of LDS scholarship on this blog and the ward classes that I have attended is a pathetic joke.

  21. FIGJAM says:

    @ andy and aaron – well said, each of you. you intellect and steadfastness is admirable.

    that being said, i cannot wait to see the skype chat between shem and aaron – although i doubt it will take place. nevertheless, I have my popcorn and microbrew ready!

    one more thing … if not shem, then why not trying to schedule a discussion of the most compelling topics on this forum (or take a vote for questionable topics of mormonism in general) between an lds mormon coffee user and an authority figure from either a local ward or his/her ward? i’d pay to see that.

  22. FIGJAM referred to “Occam’s razor”,

    Just as an aside, this goes back to William of Ockham, a 13th Century Franciscan Monk from Surrey in England.

    There are several ways to express it, but the colloquial is “if its irrelevant, ignore it”. Its a favorite for rationalists, but it doesn’t provide the end solution because you always need to ask the question “how do I know if its irrelevant?”.

    In context, though, I believe that William of Ockham was speaking to the current scholastic method. Up to then, the Church had trained its scholars to start with a hypothesis, write the antithesis, then to write down what everybody of note had written previously. By the 13th Century this became quite an arduous task because every time you needed to say something, you had to go back over at least 13 centuries of scholarship (maybe more if you go back to Aristotle and the Greeks); hence Ockham’s razor, which allowed the scholar to disregard what he thought was irrelevant.

    Now, LDS might invoke Ockham’s razor in the sense that 18 Centuries of scholarship were irrelevant to the restoration.

    However, what I think you’re trying to say is that when you ask the obvious, don’t get sidetracked by something unrelated to the issue at hand. For example, if we ask why the LDS leadership cannot explain a core doctrine, we shouldn’t get deflected with loyalty rhetoric, such as “we must not criticize God’s mouthpiece for today”, or “I have a testimony that these guys are authentic”, or, even “that’s not an important issue”. etc etc.

    On the last objection, I’d say it jolly well is an important issue, given the claims of the LDS leadership about holding the sole franchise on God.

    Finally, you may have noticed that William of Ockham lived right in the heart of the “Great Apostasy”, which kind of discounts him as an ally for the LDS world-view.

  23. Megan says:

    I have a vague memory of hearing about Ockham’s razor a few years ago, but had forgotten what it was or what it meant. Thanks, Martin, I always enjoy learning something new.

  24. shematwater says:

    AARON

    I would love to go into a live chat with you, but I am a poor man about to be evicted from the house that I am renting. I can barely afford the few minutes each day I spend posting. I cannot afford skype or other forms of long distance, live communication by internet.

    However, as I am attending school I will try and find out if someone here can make this possible.

    The one problem with the challenge is that many of the things I know are not taken from dirrect statements from the leaders. They are simply the logical conclusion that follows the collective teachings of these men. I do not have documented proof, as it has never been given. But, as I said, I have the spirit of prophecy, and I feel confident that, if God wants me to enter this challenge, he will tell me what to say.

  25. shematwater says:

    ANDY

    Ask your questions again. I missed them, so please repeat. I am confident that I can answer all one hundred, but let us start with your supposedly simple three. And you should be confident that I will reply, based on my past history on this site.

    My scholarship is not high, I will admit. However, I do not need to know what philosophers or christians said a thousand years ago to know what my church teaches. I only need to know the scriptures and the past two hundred years of history.

  26. shematwater says:

    JACK

    Your character speaks for itself, I simply describe it. In doing so I had no thought to stifle your voice (maybe a little, but no real hope as your arrogance would prevent such a thing). But you have done just that to me, Ralph, Olsen, and any others who come here to reason with you and explain the errors you have in your understanding of LDS doctrine.

    There has not been a thread that I have read where the first attack on character was made by a member of the LDS church. Usually we make such statements only after several people have done so against us. As I said, I am tired of being submissive to those whose only real motivation is to vilify and destroy that which they obviously know very little about.
    On these threads the LDS have been called devil worshipers, arrogance, ignorant, foolish, unable to think, brainwashed, and many other things. In return we have, for the most part, calmly shown our intelligence, our understanding, our love for God, our independence in thought, only to be once again attacked. And the worst of these attacks come from those who once shared our faith.

    You may speak the words of Christ, you may invoke his grace in our behalf, you may voise your concern for us, but in so doing you have made yourself a hypocrite. You follow not his words, you understand not his grace, and your only concern is to destroy our faith.

  27. shematwater says:

    Oh Yeah

    as touching polygamy, what you said is actually very stupid when you consider it.

    Where does it say that Lamech was the first to take a second wife? It doesn’t. All it says it that he did have two wives. Why does it say this? Because the geneology was being given, and it was important information. It was not given to show the sins of this man. It was given to finish the geneology of Cain.

    We cannot say that this was the first time a man took a second wife. We do not know who was the first.

  28. shematwater, Skype-to-Skype is free, and if you have a landline, I can call that from my own Skype application (at no cost to you).

  29. jackg says:

    I see Shem is again resorting to the “you don’t know Mormon doctrine” theme. I guess that’s the best he can do. The problem is that they hate it when former members such as myself reveal what the Church actually does teach. I don’t really mind the character assassination attempt by him or the others. The one thing that is interesting is how they reject words of grace and truth and spin it into something it’s not. They eisegete the biblical text, so when one exegetes it for them, they can only contend with the “where does it say…” red herring questions. The biblical text speaks for itself, and Mormons can’t cope with that. Their thinking is so convoluted because of the lies they have been taught by their leaders that the Bible is NOT authoritative for them, which is clearly evident by what they say. But, alas, Shem can only resort to saying that my comments are stupid despite the fact that what I presented was purely biblical. So, it’s not that he is attacking what I said, but rather he is attacking the biblical text. And, I am a hypocrite because I don’t allow for him and the others to bully me with their constant attempts to say I don’t know what Mormonism teaches. As for destroying your faith…well, Shem, your faith is in the lies of JS. Such a faith in a false prophet and a created god from that prophet’s imaginations needs to be destroyed in order for True faith in the True and Living God to take root in your heart. So, even your attempt to try and dissuade me from speaking the truth by your use of the word “destroy” is not authoritative enough to keep me from speaking to you the Truth about God’s Word and the falseness of the church established by JS, the false prophet. I am weary of walking on egg shells when proclaiming the Truth against the lies of JS. You are merely a victim, Shem, and I truly do have pity for you. I wish you knew about God’s grace, Shem, and how beautiful it is.

    Praying for you always…

  30. Olsen Jim says:

    Shematwater,

    You will notice that when an honest question about the foundation of the non-LDS Christian religions is asked here, the person asking the question is accused of attacking character or causing an uproar. I have repeatedly challenged anybody here to answer basic and simple questions about the authority of protestant/EV religion and their doctrine. I was then asked “why are you even posting here, what are your motives.” It really seems the LDS critics here are only comfortable asking rediculous and unrealistic questions about far-out doctrines about which we have never claimed to possess every detail and answer. They are not willing to ask or try to answer the most basic questions directed at them.

    In their view, its not clear whether baptism is required. It isn’t clear if the laying on of hands is necessary. God Himself is very poorly defined. There is little explanation of what happens to the majority of humanity who have never heard of Christ. There really isn’t an actual church, just the “mystical body of Christ.” All ordinances and outward expressions of religion were done away when Christ died on the cross. There is no authority outside the Bible, only the “Priesthood of the believers.”

    This is all very interesting when one realizes that the protestants have made many, many changes to the Bible over the last several centuries.

    So many gray areas and ill-defined concepts. Nothing is concrete or sure. The only sure thing is that the Bible is perfect and is the word of God is its entirety- He cannot speak again.

    All this is the result of apostasy and the lack of authority. Human nature left TO ITSELF. They have no authority or foundation.

  31. setfree says:

    Olsen Jim,
    You’re talking about “the priesthood keys” that JS “restored”, right? This is your “authority”? May I ask you for your explanation: how is it that the “keys” were lost, given that according to Mormonism, John the Beloved and three Nephite Apostles, all of whom should have had “the priesthoods”, never died but are still walking the earth today?

  32. setfree says:

    Olsen Jim,
    Also, hasn’t it been shown already that the Mormon Melchezidek Priestood comes from JS’s involvement with the Freemasons? If not, you’ll find it if you do the research. Are you okay with your “authority” coming from them?

  33. Olsen Jim says:

    Yes- of course it is the Priesthood keys that were restored with the authority to administer in the ordinances of the Priesthood and to represent Christ in leading His church on the earth. There has also been the additional knowledge and witness of further holy writ.

    Good question, although I think you know the answer. Yes, technically, John the Beloved and the three Nephites have remained on the earth holding the Priesthood. But the church organization was lost as well as the Priesthood in its role in leading the church. I see it as being much like Mormon in the BOM being told by the Lord to not actively preach among the Nephites in their most wicked of times. Those blessings were being withheld from the people and a result of rebellion.

    We claim a full restoration of Apostolic Priesthood authority with all its manifestations and blessings. It is either true or not true. But the claims from EVs simply make no sense. They are nowhere supported outside of their box. Nor are they in any way consistent with anything God has done in interracting with His children in the past. They are claiming authority while also saying nobody has authority. The simple question “how does one know the religious claims of the Holy Bible are true” reveals the convoluted nature of their claims to authority and their religion. They are working in a vacuum.

    When has God ever actively lead His people without working through commissioned, authorized servants? Never.

  34. FIGJAM says:

    @ MARTIN – it is like you read my mind! sorry if i wasn’t more descriptive, but yes, your definition of my meaning is correct (as well as the sarcasm).

  35. FIGJAM says:

    @ the Morg – If you believe in LDS “authority” and its validity today, then you have to neglect the historical facts according to J. Smith and the his witnesses. The LDS mandate is baptism prior to laying on the hands for priesthood ‘rights’. However, mormon history states that J. Smith and Cowdery received priesthood prior to baptism, correct? (P. of G.P. J.S. History 1:68-73) You cannot baptize one without “authority”, correct? Even Adam, as you teach, was baptized by the spirit of the Lord. My question … if this is the true gospel and church of Christ, why would he omit such a practice. Surely, knowing the importance of such doctrine, the almighty would’ve conferred priesthood only after he or John baptized (either spiritually or in a resurrected state) J. Smith and Cowdery. Or would he? Just something to think about. Also, wouldn’t such a method (priesthood prior to baptism) be rejected today?

  36. setfree says:

    Olsen Jim

    You “see it being much like…”, but do you know? Why would Jesus allow them to stay around at all? Because of WHY they wanted to stay:

    3 Ne 28:9 “…all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.”

    By LDS scripture, John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, all holding “priesthood keys”, have been around all this time to bring souls to Jesus.

    How, oh please tell me how, were they doing this?

    Why, if people were finally able (for whatever reason) to get “the blessings” of priesthood, couldn’t Jesus’ loyal apostles, who had been working for him for so so so long, be the ones to organize it and give it to everyone?

    You didn’t answer my question about it being okay with you if the MP comes from Freemasonry.

    As far as God actively leading His people without working through commissioned, authorized servants? You know the answer. He is still using the same ones. Hebrews 1:1-2.

    I know you keep claiming that the Bible is messed up. To do so, you are admitting you know very little about it. God wrote into the lives of the OT people the things that He wanted people to know so that there would be no mistaking it.
    This was accomplished over hundreds of years, and a variety of people.

    You’re still accusing THE ALMIGHTY GOD of not being able to hold things together.

    or, or, or… JS (out of the blue) needed to bring back the Freemasonic Melchezidek Priesthood because Jesus couldn’t keep His church together..

    hmmm

    by the way… another quick dilemma? Why Peter, James and John? OOPS! Peter and James are dead, but John…..

  37. jeffrey b says:

    Mormons and Catholics alike are living in the Old Testament and refuse to accept all of what the true Jesus Christ has done for mankind. Work? It is finished. Law? It is finished. Hey, He said it, not me. If he has authority to say that those who believe in Him and Call His name will be saved, I’m not about to pipe up and say waaaaait a minute, don’t we need priesthood and prophets and all these old men surrounding us telling us what we need to do?

    OPEN YOUR EARS (and your heart)

    What do you need Monson for? To tell you not to be bad every general conference and be a good husband/father/son/daughter/mother/etc.? How bout you do this instead –

    Love the Lord your God with all that you are and love your neighbor, and you will keep his commandments.

    Know this, Mormons, that God offers uncensored grace as a gift and laid out the plan of salvation in His word. If you wish to continue to reject it to have your ears tickled and ego stroked by some organization of deception, then that is your choice.

    As for me and my house, our president of our Church is Jesus Christ.

  38. falcon says:

    Andy Watson/Berean told me the other day that some Jehovah Witnesses were telling him that Jesus returned to the earth in 1914 and is living in Brooklyn New York. Maybe John the Beloved and who-ever-else are there also. As nutty as that JW claim about Jesus is, these JW folks believe it!
    It would seem reasonable, given what Mormons believe, and that they and the JWs intersect in a couple of other ways so why wouldn’t our Mormon friends buy into that belief also? John the Beloved could be in Brooklyn, right? We can make this work in both Mormon mythology and Mormon logic. Joesph Smith…..New York…right? It all comes together very nicely if a person will just learn to think Mormon.
    Mormons are tested, you see, by verifiable evidence. The more they continue to testify regardless of the evidence, the more in esteem they are held in the Morg. So our TBMs suspend credulity and continue down this path because this type of thinking is imbedded in the Mormon culture and is reinforced by the group.
    Now how jackg, SetFree, FIGJAM, Arthur Sido, Paige and all the other folks break loose from this psychological trap is truly amazing to me.
    So to my exMo friends who write so eloquently, passionatley and with fully documented facts remember; you’re writing for the questioning Mormons that show-up here and read. It would take a whole squad of deprogrammers to get through to the Mormon posters. The Mormons are here to expose how truly twisted the Mormon thought process really is.

  39. shematwater says:

    SETFREE

    Again you show a lack of understanding. The Three Nephite disciples did not remain on the Earth, at least they did not remain among the people.
    Mormon 1: 16 “And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.”
    And Mormon 8: 10 “And there are none that do know the true God save it be the adisciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to bremain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.”

    While we do not know what actually happened to John, I believe he was also taken. These men were no longer to remain among men, but were to appear to a few, such as Joseph Smith, when the Lord commanded it.
    Thus all the authority was taken off the Earth.

    As to your claim that we accuse God of not being able to hold things together, are you really that stupid?
    This is a common accusation made by those apposed to the LDS church as an attempt to dismiss the evidence of the apostacy.

    Let me ask you this. Why couldn’t he keep it together from Adam to Noah? Things got so bad there he was forced to start over.
    Why did Moses have to come and restore the law? Why could God keep it together from the time of Jacob and his sons? After all, that was only 400 years, not 2,000. Yet the gospel had been corrupted.
    What about from Moses to Christ? Why was it necessary for Christ to reorganize the church? Could God hold it together?
    More than once the saints have fallen from the true gospel, and each time a new man was called to restore what was lost.

    We do not accuse God of failing at anything. We praise him for allowing us, and all men, to fail.

  40. shematwater says:

    (continued)

    As to the priesthood, no it was not Masonic in origin. I know you like to believe it, but please look at the dates of events in history.

    It was in the spring of 1829 that Joseph Smith received the Priesthood at the hands of the ancient Apostles. It was over five years later that he joined the Freemasons. Thus he could not have based the Priesthood on Masonic teachings, as he did not know Masonic teachings at the time.

    Now, the claim of him taking the Temple ceremony from Free Mason makes more sense, but this is not the extent of the priesthood. Please get your facts strait before you try and present something as fact.

    FIGJAM

    I like your little comment on Baptism and Priesthood. I don’t know whay it was done this way, but I have no problem with it. What God commands cannot be a sin, and as they were commanded to act in this way they it is fully binding. I understand why we do not do it this way now.
    I would also point out that after they were baptised Oliver and Joseph did re-ordain each other to the Priesthood.

    I would also say that Laws can change to fit the circumstances. After all, incest in wrong today, but what did Adam and Eve’s children do but marry their brothers and sisters.

  41. shematwater says:

    Finally, JACK

    To claim the Bible says what it doesn’t say is stupid. It is twisting the words of the Bible to fit what you want to believe.
    If it does not say that Lamech was the First Man to have more than one wife than where is your proof that he was. That is what I am asking. Show me where it actually says this. It doesn’t.
    You could just as logically say that after Cain killed Abel there were no more murders until Lamech killed the one man. Of course, we really don’t know this to be true, but this is the second one recorded so it must be the second one to occur, right.
    It must also follow that no one died of natural causes before Adam since he is the first to be recorded as dieing. And after God cursed cain he didn’t communicate with anyone until he walked with Enoch, as this is the next account of such communication.
    Oh, yeah. No one could have loved their children until Abraham, as he is the first that we are told loved his son (that all the way in chapter 22).

    The logic is the same. However, I think we will all agree that the examples I have given really don’t make sense. Yet what you say concerning the first man to live polygamy must be true because it agrees with you.

    (Following the same logic has lead many to accept as fact that there were three wise men who came to the infant Christ, yet the scriptures never give a number.)

    We do not know who was the first to take plural wives because the Bible does not tell us who was first. This is a fact that is easily read in the text. You can believe it does all you want, but your belief does not prove anything.

  42. Mike R says:

    Falcon, concerning Jehovah witnesses belief about Jesus returning in 1914 and living in Brooklyn: He did return in 1914 but it was invisible and he’s actually not on the earth. He directs his prophet, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is in Brooklyn. I find it interesting that LDS authoratative belief and JW authoratative belief is exactly the same, ie the need for a modern day prophet to reveal God’s truth to man kind. Like LDS the Jw Jesus is not unique he is one of many “sons”. The JW Jesus is a god, the first creation by Jehovah God.

  43. jackg says:

    shem,

    You’re too smart for me. I will keep praying for you, though. Blessings to you and your family, and I really mean that. I will be praying for you and your apartment situation. Did you say you were in school? Where?

    Peace and Grace!

  44. shematwater says:

    JACK

    I attend Missouri Southern State University in Joplin, MO.

  45. setfree says:

    @ falcon,
    lol, and there you have it…

  46. setfree says:

    Shem,

    The logic doesn’t follow that the authority was “taken off the earth” just because the apostles were taken out from among the wicked. Didn’t Jesus of the BoM tell them they could stay until he got back? Wow, your Jesus (the one who also lied in the Bible when he said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church) is a weak and insufficient guy isn’t he? It’s no wonder you have so little regard for him.

    No, the problem of the long-living apostles is easily resolved by reading John 21:20-24.

    “Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved (John the Beloved, who is writing this) following; which (John) also leaned on his (Jesus’) breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
    Peter seeing him (John) saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man (John) do?
    Jesus saith unto him (Peter), If I will that he (John)tarry till I come, what is that to thee (Peter)? follow thou (Peter) me.
    Then went this saying (rumor)abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said NOT unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
    This is (John writing) the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true (because he’s giving a first-hand account of what happened).

    FYI:

    Joseph Smith, Sr. was raised to the degree of Master Mason on May 7, 1818 in a lodge in NY.
    Hyrum was also a member of a New York lodge, pre-BoM.

    William Morgan’s expose “Illustrations of Masonry” was published in 1826 and spread like wildfire due to his death, people afraid of and people deciding to practice the arts he described.

    Joseph Smith Jr had prior-to-BoM knowledge of Freemasonry.

  47. shematwater, you asked setfree, “are you really that stupid?” Don’t talk to her like that. Treat a lady with some respect. If you see an evangelical talking to an LDS like that, please tell me, because it’s wrong either way.

    There are more intelligent and constructive ways to essentially ask someone, “are you really that stupid?”

  48. shematwater says:

    AARON

    There are more constructive ways to discuss things. However, there are very few threads where you won’t find a Non-LDS say the same thing about the LDS. Oh, I admit they cover it in a nice little paskage, disguising it in a vow of care and love, but it all amounts to the same thing. I am just being a little more blunt than they are.
    We, as LDS, have been directly called Devil Worshipers, liars, frauds, ignorant, and a few other things. In directly we have been called spiritually dead, stupid, gulible (however you spell it), and a few other things. So forgive me if I get a little annoyed.

    SETFREE

    Again you show a lack of knowledge (to be more blunt about it, you are ignorant of the scriptures). What Christ actually said is this:
    “Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.”
    Does this say they will be among the people, preaching. No. It says they will witness all things. I didn’t say they were taken off the Earth, only that they were taken from among the People. So, it all fits. They have become silent observers of the works of God.

    Now, the logic is perfectly sound. If you take every person who has the authority off the earth then the Authority has been taken off the Earth as there is no one left who holds it.
    If you removed all citizens of the United States from the Earth who would have the Authority to be the President. Since the Constitution says the president must be a born citizen, and must be elected by the rest of the citizens, who would be the president. No one could, because there would be no one left who could claim the authority.

  49. shematwater says:

    (continued)

    As to John, what is in John 21 does not tell us either way. From this it is possible he tarried, but it is possible he didn’t. So, to clarify it a little I would quote from Revelation 10: 11 where John eats the little book: “And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” So, it seems that he likely tarried so that he could fulfill this commission.

    Now, concerning Joseph Smith: Again you make assumptions that have no real proof.
    I don’t know when his father and brother became Masons, but they would not have told him about the Freemasons because that was forbidden. As to the book, unless you can prove that either every person at that time read it, or that Joseph Smith actually had a copy, you are assuming what cannot be proven.
    Even if he had a copy you would need to prove that he could read it, which is doubtful. In all the accounts of his translating the Book of Mormon it was not uncommon for him to spell words out because he had no clue how to pernounce them, or even exactly what they meant. He questioned things in the translation, like Jeruselem having walls, because he didn’t know.

    So, all you have is the assumption that because he knew members of the Freemasons, and because there was a book published he had to know about them. It is not a fact, but an assumption based on your desire for it to be a fact.

  50. setfree says:

    Shem,
    1. To quote you: “I didn’t say they were taken off the Earth…If you take every person who has the authority off the earth then the Authority has been taken off the Earth”.
    I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding this. Isn’t this a contradiction?

    2. Looking at other translations of the Bible, there seems to be an agreement that Rev 10:11 says “about” rather than “again before”. Regardless, though, John did, didn’t he? He wrote it down, and now the prophecies he was to share have been shared. They are about many people, nations, tongues, and they also have been taught to many people, nations, tongues…

    3. The larger point here, Shem, is why you’re okay with JS being involved with Freemasonry at all. Much less using their stuff. Thought all of his “revelations” came from God? No? Why are you okay that they didn’t? Why are you okay with any of the stuff that sheds light on him, and exposes “the church” for having lied to/misled people about him?

Leave a Reply