Getting Mormons to know the doctrine

BYU professor Robert L. Millet spoke at Education Week in Provo, Utah on Tuesday (August 19, 2008). According to a report on the Deseret News blog Mormon Times, “false ideas” about the LDS Church held by non-members come from “dumb Mormons” who don’t really know what the Church teaches.

Though said in jest, Dr. Millet’s words must sting Latter-day Saints who are trying to do as LDS Apostle M. Russell Ballard directed: to use the internet and other forms of new media to engage public discussions about the LDS Church. Mr. Ballard said,

“We cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches.”

Yet, according to Dr. Millet, Church members are ill equipped to explain what the Church teaches. Mormon Times reported:

Church general authorities find the situation frustrating as well. Millet told how, after a question and answer session with non-Mormons, an apostle told him, ‘We have a lot of work to do.’

“That work is to help those who are not LDS to understand its doctrine. It also includes getting members of the LDS Church to know the doctrine. ‘We’ve got to get on the same page,’ Millet said.”

Getting on the same page sounds like a great idea, but I don’t know why there would be any optimism about actually accomplishing that goal. Throughout the history of Mormonism, even the leaders of the LDS Church have been unable to “get on the same page” doctrinally.

For example, in his Education Week lecture Dr. Millet told of an LDS apostle who was asked if Mormons believe they will become gods and “be in charge of universes and planets”:

“According to Millet, the apostle said he didn’t know anything about that planetary stuff, but that the point was for us to strive to become more like God and more like Christ. The apostle quoted several scriptures that indicated the possibility of becoming more like God, including 2 Pet. 1:4 which speaks of partaking of the divine nature. Details of the post mortal condition are sketchy, the apostle said according to Millet, but looking forward to living forever with his family, ‘That’s godhood as I understand it.'”

A student manual produced by the LDS Church for its Church Educational System provides the details of which this apostle seemed to be unaware:

“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 132, 1976)

Some LDS leaders can’t even stay on the same page with their own teachings. LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie provides an example of this. In his book The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, Mr. McConkie wrote:

“Salvation is free. Justification is free. Neither of them can be purchased; neither can be earned.” (page 346)

In another book, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Mr. McConkie wrote,

“‘Salvation is free’ (2 Ne. 2:4), but it must also be purchased; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” (volume 3, page 426)

Dr. Millet himself has not always been on the same page as LDS leaders. In Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation between a Mormon and an Evangelical, Dr. Millet explained that Christ’s Atonement began in the Garden of Gethsemane, and was finished on the Cross:

“We believe that what began in Gethsemane was completed on the cross, and that Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross are a vital part of His overall atoning mission.”(page 84)

This teaching is at variance with LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie who wrote:

“And as he came out of the Garden, delivering himself voluntarily into the hands of wicked men, the victory had been won. There remained yet the shame and the pain of his arrest, his trials, and his cross. But all these were overshadowed by the agonies and sufferings in Gethsemane. It was on the cross that he ‘suffered death in the flesh,’ even as many have suffered agonizing deaths, but it was in Gethsemane that ‘he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him’” (The Mortal Messiah, pages 127-128).

It seems unreasonable and unfair of Dr. Millet to chastise “dumb Mormons” for not having a firm understanding of LDS Church doctrine when those responsible for formulating and explaining that doctrine apparently don’t understand it either.

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 Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to Getting Mormons to know the doctrine

  1. GRCluff says:

    Andrea said:
    “I am VERY offended by Cluff’s presumption of Christians in heaven.”

    Why? If my belief in eternal progression has its logical extension to my planet creation and management skills, why can’t your failure to believe in eternal progression be logically extended to laziness or failure to apply yourself, both in heaven an here on earth?

    If you believe in eternal progression then heaven means continuing growth and expansion of the universe.

    If you fail to believe in eternal progression, I can only assume that you believe in eternal stagnation. You can’t have it both ways.

    You should be offended by eternal stagnation, it is an offensive teaching. It is not truth. The truth is eternal progression. If you are going to study Mormonism you will need to get used to the concept.

    jer1414 said:
    ” The suggestion that “those who DO open their heart to the Holy Spirit, become Mormon” is blindfully arrogant.”

    My suggestion is based on observation, not arrogance. I spent two years as a missionary teaching people about JS. Those who were open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit would join the Church, those who were not would reject our message. Everything I have seen, including the posts in this blog have reinforced my opinion. Those who recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost are open to it’s quite pursuasion, those who feel nothing just pooh pooh the concept.

    Consider this:

    1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

    The same is true of Joseph Smith. If you miss one you miss both.

  2. Just for Quix says:

    The Bible teaches of the new heaven, the new earth and new Jerusalem — indeed a new humanity that partakes in His glory. This is God’s vision — to the extent we have scripture revealing it — for our future.

    To believe progression encompasses “planet creation and management” does not follow clearly from scripture, so it seems more of the worship of the creation instead of the Creator to me. To think that His glory is OUR ultimate and intended glory is misappropriation of confusing His work and His redemption for our own work and redemption.

    To reject this LDS flavor of deification is not stagnation, not the rejection of the Holy Spirit, nor is it a failure of scriptural understanding. This flavor of the LDS worldview is simply the application of imagination in a different direction. I don’t fault that, per se, given the lack of conclusive detail about the afterlife from the Bible. But I do take exception to the assertion that I believe in eternal stagnation because I see in the NT (Romans 1:18-25 for ex) a clear call to avoid making His glory my own glory, His vision my own vision — and that I see LDS theosis doing exactly that. Where we apply imagination to how things will work in the new heaven I think we should take care not to offend teachings of the Word that seem more clear.

  3. Arthur Sido says:

    I am jumping in late here, having been away from the internet most of the weekend, but in a nutshell mormons don’t know their doctrines because it is not emphasized in mormonism. Mormons are not taught doctrine, and they don’t teach it at BYU. What they are taught are faith affirming stories (i.e. the westward trek, the martyrdom of Joseph, the translation of the BoM, the appearance in the grove in the first vision) Mormonism is built not on foundations of truth, but a reliance on history and stories. If you believe the history, the stories of Joseph and Brigham and the brethren, then you will believe whatever doctrines they taught no matter how outlandish or how completely they are refuted. I believe the story, so I believe the men, so I believe their teachings.

    Therein lies the difficulty in witnessing to mormons. Mormonism cannot stand on the facts or when compared to the Bible, but that frontal assault rarely works because the heart of mormonism is a belief in a story and as long as they believe the story, they will reject the truth. There is a reason for the faith affirming movies about Joseph, for the pageants that tell stories, for the books that repeat the story. Mormonism is not a set of truths and doctrines, it is a story. Believe the story and you believe the doctrines. Reject the story and the doctrines are exposed as the lies they are. Mormons are flat out discouraged from digging too deeply, looking to sharply at their own history because that is where it most easily falls apart. When you start to see the holes in Smith’s story, you realize that that the tale he spun is full of holes, and then it collapses. Many a fo-mo has seen this house of cards collapse, and it is swift and complete. There is no foundation of truths, there is only the story of a frontier boy with a vivid imagination and a penchant for tall tales and lies.

  4. GRCluff says:


    That post reads like an angry whip striking my quivering flesh. Stop it already.

    We need some balance here.

    An honest researcher will find two versions of history, the lies told by Joseph Smiths’s enemies and the glowing versions told by his converts. Lets not assume that only one side has all the truth.

    Since I happen to benefit from family journals that contain the latter account, with detailed stories about JS, you can guess where my alligence will fall.

    You said:
    “that frontal assault rarely works because the heart of mormonism is a belief in a story and as long as they believe the story, they will reject the truth.”

    It’s not the story my friend. Listen to me I sound like John McCain. It is the power behind the story.

    Let me illustrate:

    1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

    The POWER behind this verse is the power of the Holy Ghost. ONLY by that power can we know Jesus is Lord. The same applies to JS– Like this:

    1 GRCluff 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Joseph accursed: and that no man can say that Joseph is the Prophet of the restoration, but by the Holy Ghost.

    If Paul were writing a letter to the poor lost souls in Mormon Coffee, that would be a relevant verse. Lets just consider this his post. (the first 11 chapters would be all about not drinking coffee)

  5. johnnyboy says:

    Hi there, first time commenting. I have been reading this site for quite some time and I finally wanted to get in on the discussions.

    Firstly, I am still shocked at how vicious some of the comments are towards LDS. I can understand questioning and discussing differences in belief, but seriously.. some of these posts get really out of hand.

    Secondly, some of the arguments many of you make regarding revelation and how God doesn’t change… etc… should really take a look at the NEW testament. Why did we need it when we already had the OLD testament? Oh yeah.. cus people.. times.. and situations change.. cus we are human. God doesn’t change.. he REVEALS new teachings to us.

    I guess we should just call Moses a false prophet too since Christ and the apostles put an end to his “doctrine” and “laws”. Darnit! No more animal sacrifices! Man.. why can’t I still follow Moses’ law?

    I really enjoy this site because I come here to see what evangelicals/baptists/lutherans/etc, believe. Which is really, truly something that is enlightening for me. I just wish the discussions revolved more around the “why do you believe this” rather than.. “you are dead wrong! Argh! I hate Joe Smith the money sorcerer” I mean, cmon.. ripping into President Monson? The guy is easily one of the sweetest old men alive… and many of you seem to have real hatred for him. That is just wierd!

    I hope to post more on here.. there are some really good topics of discussion. I would love to rant a bit more.. but it might end up going

  6. johnnyboy says:

    … way off topic.

  7. LDSSTITANIC says:

    If Joseph had spent more time reading Paul we wouldn’t even need this site…

    Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

    But here comes the Native American angel Moroni with a “new, improved” Gospel and so here we are…

  8. germit says:

    Arthur: intriguing post on the function of LDS history, I’ll stir the pot a little. Consider the phrase ‘faith promoting’ and in particular the way Cluff uses the idea: an inward ‘spiritual, holy ghost led’ experience. Now add you element of ‘story’ and ‘narrative’. They reinforce each other. and so we have pagaents and parades that reinforce an inward testimony built on feeling and experience (NOT FAKED, I would point out, but quite real) these are all ‘irrefutable’ and unassailable elements, they cannot be challenged because they are all private and outside of any kind on objective comparison: and so the kind of history that you are talking about lends a hand (assuming it does not become that OTHER kind of history) and that is why all Mormon historians are on a very short leash, even the ones that are for NOW (R. Bushman) OK with utah. food 4 thot. GERMIT

  9. jer1414 says:

    I agree with Just for Quix above, and would add the Mormon teaching of eternal progression includes specifically becoming “A god”.
    Cluff’s observation that “Those who were open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit would join the church” is different from my observation that those open to the same flee Mormonism and come to the truth of Jesus Christ. I’ve also observed that these kinds of statements, including the “if you are sincere… God will answer you”, “if you are open… you’ll join”, are a form of mind control and in some cases, intimidation.

  10. Andrea says:

    Cluff, [Comment trimmed by moderator.] You said, “(my) failure to believe in eternal progression (can) be logically extended to laziness or failure to apply yourself.
    If you believe in eternal progression then heaven means continuing growth and expansion of the universe.
    If you fail to believe in eternal progression, I can only assume that you believe in eternal stagnation. You can’t have it both ways.” Well, we all know what assuming does.
    I don’t want it both ways -the world is not black or white, good or evil; can’t there be a happy medium or at least a compromise? Perhaps I do believe in eternal progression, but that it is mainly spiritual progression. I do not automatically have to believe in your version of EP, and those statements you made sound dangerously narrow-minded. And by the way, I don’t need to get used to concept of EP, I’ve heard it all my life. Actually, I’m offended by your presumptions because they are so narrow-minded. Just because I don’t agree that we will move on to create our own planets and be gods to our own people doesn’t mean that I think we will just sit on a cloud gazing dreamily at God, sighing away eternity.

    Let me say one thing and I will go back to this heaven topic. You keep quoting 1 Cor 12:3, but you replaced Jesus with JS -how telling that you would equate the two…

    If anyone’s studied psychology, sociology, and human behavior, the one theme evident throughout all peoples is the desire to “fill the void”, find what’s missing within themselves. Just as a pres chooses a vp because their qualities complement one other, one human mates with another to complement each other and create a “whole”. But what’s really missing that everyone is searching for is God. We are complete with Him. So when I depart from my body and am present with the Lord, I will be complete.Why then, would I need to depart from Him to create my own planet? I don’t believe that is what God created us for

  11. germit says:

    Dear Johnny: welcome to Mormon Coffee, we’re glad to have you going beyond listening to posting. As you’ve already seen we’re a stubborn crowd, I’ve been called out as a ‘pig-dog’ before, which I’ll own, and my wife will testify to that. Our posts are strong against your religion, no more strong than your leader’s against ours, so fair is fair. I hope you are able to learn as much about orthodoxy as I’ve learned about your faith while here at MC.
    Christians see the OT and NT as complimenting each other: they are in no way opposite or antagonistic, Jesus came to FULFILL the covenants and the promises given to Israel (thru Moses and others), not to overthrow them. For example, reread the TEMPLE thread and you will get the idea: Jesus SUMS up the Old Covenant and ushers in the new. People and situations actually change very little over time, what has changed is what was looked FORWARD to in the OT is NOW FULFILLED in Christ. We still need revelation and a prophet: God has seen those needs and given us JESUS. For those who have met the LIVE JESUS, some other authority or power or office is a tuff sell, but good luck, have at it. Welcome again, bye all till tomorrow GERMIT ps to AARON: your most recent article about christians not being forgiven acc. the LDS gospel is SPOT ON.

  12. Arthur Sido says:

    Hi johnnyboy,

    “Secondly, some of the arguments many of you make regarding revelation and how God doesn’t change… etc… should really take a look at the NEW testament. Why did we need it when we already had the OLD testament? Oh yeah.. cus people.. times.. and situations change.. cus we are human. God doesn’t change.. he REVEALS new teachings to us.

    I guess we should just call Moses a false prophet too since Christ and the apostles put an end to his “doctrine” and “laws”. Darnit! No more animal sacrifices! Man.. why can’t I still follow Moses’ law? ”

    Well the Bible itself answers that question. We no longer need prophets because the revelation of God is completely and finally revealed in the person and work of Christ…

    Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Hebrews 1:1-2)

    Just memorize Heb 1:1-2 and then listen to the “new” revelations of Smith, Young, Hinckley and Monson (not that you are likely to get anything new from Monson)Plus Moses doesn’t contradict Christ, unlike Joseph Smith. I really don’t see a lot of viciousness on this page. Strongly stated beliefs yes, but we are talking about witnessing to people that we believe are lost in a religion that will damn them if left unchecked. If that doesn’t beg for strongly worded statements, what does?

  13. Arthur Sido says:


    “That post reads like an angry whip striking my quivering flesh. Stop it already.” Please never use “quivering flesh” in a post again, that is a little too graphic. maybe it struck a nerve though?

    What is funny is that these stories that contradict official mormon history are not written by his “enemies”. They are written by Smith and his contemporaries. The most damaging material against mormonism doesn’t come from Ed Decker, it comes from the Bible and the words of early mormons before they are scrubbed. The “@nti” folks need only reference what hs come from the pen of mormon authorities to show how the story has changed. Then there is this:

    “The POWER behind this verse is the power of the Holy Ghost. ONLY by that power can we know Jesus is Lord. The same applies to JS– Like this:”

    Yikes! So now we see Big Joe on par with Christ? I mean sure, Smith thought so but it is the rare mormon that will admit it. The problem with your quote is that no matter how many times you say Jesus, you don’t bow the knee to Him as Lord because your view of Him is flawed, because you see Him as a created, finite being very similar to yourself just more advanced. That is not the power of the Spirit, or the Lord Jesus Christ, that is idolatry pure and simple.

  14. Rick B says:

    More problems with LDS doctrine not agreeing

    So did God lie? He states it is a new and everlasting covenant. Again since when is everlasting only 50 plus years. Also if God did not lie who did? Mormons teach that the plural wife teaching was for a select few men, God said it was for all that it was reveled unto. Again if you heard it, it was reveled unto you, why are you not obeying it?

    Now lets look to the book of Mormon. In Jacob 1:15-19 and 2:21-25 it teaches David and Solomon did evil by having many wives. Then in Mosiah 11:2 it teaches many wives is a sin. Now here is a contradiction because in D and C 132:37-39 it says it was not a sin for David Solomon and others to have many wives. Now I thought God could not lie? But Gods word is both in the B.O.M and D and C. So either man wrote it and messed up or God lied.

    If the BOM is the fullness of the Gospel why then does it not support D and C 132 About the topic of Plural wives forever.

    Then Again if the BOM is the fullness why do we read in Mosiah 11:2 and Ether 10:5 plural wives is a sin, this goes against D and C 132. Add to that Jacob 3:5, the Lamanites are called filthy yet at the same time they are more righteous in their actions because they don’t practice plural wives.

    D and C 19:26 and 42:12 states both the Bible and BOM contain truth and are the word of God, yet they deny the teaching of plural wives as a good God ordained teaching.

    Moroni 8:18 teach’s God is unchangble yet he changed his stance, saying plural wives is an abomation by allowing it to happen in D and C 132?. Now I know LDS will reply by saying Plural wives was practiced in the Bible. It was a sin even in the Bible, If God were to punish us with death every time we sinned there would only be plants and animals left on this planet. Now if you want to give your Bible scripture on plural wives please give a scripture(s) from the Bible as clear as D and C 132 Where God says here you go a gift of many wives or Hey you I commanded you to ta

  15. Rick B says:

    I commanded you to take wives and the more the better. It is not in there. Yes the people sinned and disobeyed the Lord by taking them but God never said this is what I want/commanded you to do.

    Let me ask again. Who in Mormonism can we trust?

    Now, Mormons claim they are christens also, Lets look at what the Prophets of old said about Christians and I quote:

    “B Young: “With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world” (Journal of Discourses 8:199). I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr. Taylor) “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth” (J.O.D 6:176). I quote Heber C. Kimball “Christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth” (J.O.D 5:89).” then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the Christian creeds are an abomtion in his sight.

    If this is the case how can you say you are Christians. Along this lines I would like to ask also, if you are Christians then why do you try and convert Christians to the Mormon faith if we all are Christians?

    OK, Now I will just post problems in general otherwise known as contradictions. But the problem with these is, either The Prophet Joseph Smith claims God told him or God himself said this stuff, Again, who in Mormonism can we trust?.

    Over in D and C 7 it teaches John the apostle was to live and preach till the lord returns. Read 3 NEPHI 28:6-7 It teaches the apostle John, Who walked with Jesus, Was told he will never die. Then over in ETHER 12:17 3 more disciples were also told they would never see death. Then read D and C 7:1-8 Ok now if this stuff is true there could never have been a total apostasy of the church, Because there were people who were living that had the gospel

  16. Rick B says:

    Cont:living that had the gospel truth.

    1 NEPHI 1:8 It says ” I THOUGHT I SAW GOD” You either did see God or you did not, You cannot say I thought I saw God. Not only that but the Bible teaches no man can see God and live, Also over in D and C 84:19-22 Says if you do not have the priesthood you cannot see God and live. Here is another problem, When this guy said I thought I saw God, There is no mention of him having the priesthood. Also when Joseph Smith first had his vision and said he saw God, Then later said God came and baptized him he did not have the priesthood. So if Joseph Smith could see and talk with God then receive the priesthood, That means D and C 84 is wrong other wise the only other option is Joseph Smith lied. Either way someone lied.

    Now here is the subject of Negros and them not being able to receive the same rights as white people according to the Prophet B Young and Bruce Mc. But even this has since changed and has been tried to be buried.

    In the 1958 edition Mormon Doctrine ( I happen to own a copy), pg 477 says,

    Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES can they hold this delegation of authority from the ALMIGHTY. The GOSPEL message of salvation is not carried AFFIRMATIVELY to them….Negroes are NOT EQUAL with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned.

    So please explain how we go from UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES to the change that it is ok in the newer versions of Mormon Doctrine? Also please explain this, B Young clearly states here in

    JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES VOL 10 PG 110 (again I own these books) Shall I tell you THE LAW OF GOD in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of cain, the penalty, under the LAW OF GOD, is DEATH on the SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO.

    More tommorow, Rick b

  17. Ralph says:

    RickB, (from Aug 25)

    The definition of ‘the new and everlasting covenant’ is found in D&C 132:4-20 and says NOTHING about plural marriage, it just discusses temple marriage. Yes plural marriage is in the same chapter, but it is not in the description of ‘the new and everlasting covenant’. To further this, here is official teaching on this from the D&C Institute Student Manual (

    The “new and everlasting covenant” (D&C 132:4) is the covenant of celestial marriage, as President Spencer W. Kimball stated: “Though relatively few people in this world understand it, the new and everlasting covenant is the marriage ordinance in the holy temple by the properly constituted leaders who hold the genuine, authoritative keys. This glorious blessing is available to men and women on this earth.” (“Temples and Eternal Marriage,” Ensign, Aug. 1974, p. 5.)

    Now as for your other quotes that damns all who speak against polygamy, you need to do what you bag on us LDS to do about scripture – context and audience and other quotes from the same person to fully understand their words. The 2 quotes you gave are talking only to those people at that time; meaning that if they at that time did not accept polygamy then they were damned. I can’t find it now, but there is a quote from BY I used a few months ago in which he stated that there may come a time when God will tell us to stop polygamy. I will keep trying to find it from the archives so I can give you the reference. So from the 3 criteria – context, audience and other quotes – BY was only talking to those in his day when he said they would be damned if they spoke out against polygamy.

    Polygamy is not the ‘new and everlasting covenant’ and we do not practise it in this day because God does not require it of us at this time.

  18. 4givn says:

    Cluff, To say that Smith and Christ are equal? You do have vivid imagination. Christ was Divine at birth and was even sought out to be killed. Preached nothing but love. Performed miracles, turned the hearts of men, raised the dead, etc. Smith on the other hand had a pretty normal quaker life that must of made for a fantastic imagination. He had no miracles to speak of, no healings, and wasn’t raised from the dead. How are they similar? As for “articles of faith”, I think you left out a few. Like #11,”We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own consciences, and allow all men the same privilege,let them worship how, where , and what they want.” Sounds like masonic to the core.
    Johnny, What is up with that? No matter how much you sugar coat the prophets, you take of the garments and you will find one just like you and I. Ashamed of our sin and unable to stop it by our own works. Sweet old men are still sons of Adam.
    DJBrown, I find it ironic that you chose 2 Tim. If you read the whole paragraph, instead of taking it out of its context, you will see you opened a door for the truth to peer into you.

    My wife believes she is a Mormon, although she believes that God was never a man, Jesus is the only way, and she doesn’t believe in becoming a goddess. Confusion is most definitly running amuck there. I think that the LDS will take anybody that they can get their hands on. I wonder if they really think that the baptism for the dead is going to free her from the lowest level of their heaven. Before we got married, the preacher wanted to have Q&A with her. He concluded that she was not Mormon according to their beliefs. She said that it was about Christ. I attended to find that the prayed more about Smiths words to be true, than the “free gift” that was given long before. It is truly sad, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, choo!choo!

  19. Missusslats says:

    From 2 Tim 3&4, Paul’s final thoughts before facing the executioner. He passes the torch of the Gospel to Timothy with a warning: difficult times are coming. First, trouble in the world: “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” Second, trouble in the church: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.” He then gives Timothy the antidote: “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Paul’s final warning does not counsel us to look forward to a NEW gospel. Instead, he tells us to look backwards, to continue in what has already been revealed: “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me” (1:13). “Guard the treasure which has been entrusted to you” (1:14). “And the things which you have heard from me…these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2:2). A time of moral and theological chaos is coming. The antidote for both is the same: guard what has already been given you. Continue in the things you have already learned. Everything we need for righteousness, to be adequately equipped for every good work, has already been revealed. For Paul, all the old stuff was all the right stuff.

  20. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    So Jesus sends the sword. And does that give you license to pick it up and use it? God condemns the world and decrees all kinds of plagues, does that give us license to be the instrument of that destruction. That is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. The Word of God surely divides (by its very nature, not something I am required to do), but I will “hold my peace” in condemning others until the Lord commands otherwise. He has said declare repentance, so that I can do.

    Rule #1 (DOF doctrine) Do what the Lord says, not whatever our own nature or personal interpretation of the scripture gives us license to do.

    1. Huge difference between your own knowledge of things and the mandate of how to preach the gospel (I have preached by the Spirit and without; there is no comparison) I promise, no BS in my approach.

    2. Your comment that you “don’t quite feel the Spirit” and still having your testimony is contrary to scripture.

    1 Cor. 12: 3
    3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

    As far as honest questions, I thought of a couple today.

    1)Do Christians believe that Christ is an exalted man?

    2) Why does Christ need grace?

    3) I can only find 3 instances in the NT (pre-Paul) where the word grace is found. It’s only connected to Jesus and the apostles not all of us. Why the absence with such a crucial issue? Loss of Plain/Precious truths? or is Paul a progressive Revelator? Any other explanation?

    I also realize I have not responded to what LDS believe about grace. Pretty complex. Suffice it to say that in general Grace is the Gift of God through the offering of His Son. A real gift. Father literally offering His Son. Grace is freely given but almost universally rejected. The reciptient must receive the gift. Grace is given not just to live with God, but to make us like Him.

  21. Ralph says:


    You said “Paul’s final warning does not counsel us to look forward to a NEW gospel. Instead, he tells us to look backwards, to continue in what has already been revealed:” OK, so what you are saying here is Paul was telling Timothy to stick with the scriptures, nothing else. Now let’s look at this in context. All they had in those days as scripture was the Talmud, or the first 5 books of the OT, plus a little more. The NT was unheard of at that time. So in your logic/interpretation of Paul’s words to Timothy, Timothy had to use only those scriptures (ie the OT), nothing else. Does that mean we still need to stick with what is written in the OT and nothing else? Of course not, we now have more scripture – the NT. But because LDS believe that God is a God of revelation, we have more scripture, and we believe that more is on the way. Not just from our prophets in these latter days but more found from ancient civilisations that knew Jesus. The main point of Paul’s argument was that scripture is from revelation/inspiration from God. So if a man is inspired by God to write something regardless of if it was 2000 years ago or today, is this not scripture? If so, then according to Paul’s words we need to use those writings as well. So the verses you have used do not rule out continuing revelation.

  22. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    If Sido and Jackg are going to gain any credibility in my eyes, then they had better, at least, start with what we our doctrine really states. I will explain.

    Sido: “no matter how many times you say Jesus, you don’t bow the knee to Him as Lord because your view of Him is flawed, because you see Him as a CREATED, FINITE being”

    First our doctrine:

    D&C 38:1 “Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the dwide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made” (INFINITE is the doctrine; please state our beliefs correctly if you are going to try to refute them: isn’t this disingenuous to anyone else?)

    2) Created

    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    Begotten def. (

    esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).

    Please present the doctrine correctly before the tirade.

    D&C132: You spent a lot of time drawing conclusions but you never got the doctrine right to begin with. Please reread 132. I think Ralph summarized it well. Eternal marriage is the covenant. Let’s state the doctrine correctly. Credibility please!

    “For Paul, all the old stuff was all the right stuff.”

    Except for “grace”. Only 3 times is it mentioned in the NT prior to Paul. Noone else seemed to bother much with it.

    LDS doctrine: We believe all that God HAS revealed, all that he does NOW reveal, and that He YET reveal…. Closed cannon is the call for many. Why? The scriptures you quoted say nothing of more revelation. The Bible itself is a witness of ongoing revelation. Each prophet stood on their own, often changing previous teachings. Moses/Midianites; Abraham/Issaac; Jesus Sermon on the Mount; Paul/Grace

  23. LDSSTITANIC says:

    Ralph…if what you say is true why does the LDS church not accept the Book of Jeraneck and its prophet in Britain? He was even a Mormon I believe. Matthew Gill is his name…he is all over You Tube. Modern technology really helps those prophets out!!

  24. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Problem that a rampant on this site.

    1) Innacurate statements of doctrine (I tire of making corrections). If you don’t agree with a correctly stated doctrine, that is fine with me. Amazing to me that it is the FoMo’s that state the doctrine innacurately. Has the light been taken away? I will refrain.

    You comments on Mormon knowing their doctrine made me laugh! Really! Were we in the same OT/NT/BOM/D&C/PoGP and Teachings of the Living Prophets classes? I took them all (6). My hardest classes at BYU. Did you even go to BYU? If so, I would like to know who you’re professors were.

    What did we learn? Doctrine. You are created a false picture.

    What history/stories are you talking about? Stuff like The Ark/Flood; Abraham sacrificing his son; Moses slaying the Midianites; Elisha and Fire from heaven; Jesus healing with spittle; A virgin Birth; A resurrected being that is not here.

    Of Course!! They are all stories. They just happen to be true accounts. You believe the stories of the Bible, therefore you believe the men and what they teach. Why the double standard? You are digging a pit for yourself by tearing down why we believe because you are built on the same foundation.

  25. Andrea says:

    Forgive my lack of Jewish studies, but don’t they follow the whole OT, not just the Pentateuch? The last book in the OT was written 500 years before Christ, so didn’t all the first century Jews have what we know as the OT?
    Paul’s letters make up the majority of the NT, and as we see in 2 Tim 1:13-14, Paul is talking to Timothy about the things that he has said regarding Christ, and to trust in and guard those things. So no, I wouldn’t say that Timothy had only the first 5 books of the OT to go off of.

    Ralph also said, “So if a man is inspired by God to write something regardless of if it was 2000 years ago or today, is this not scripture?”
    Then please answer me why the LDS church disregards BY’s Adam/God doctrine? Honestly. Why is anything that’s in the Journal of Discourses considered scripture, but only considered doctrine if it falls in line with what Mormons want to believe at the time? I’m not trying to be snide, flippant, etc -I’m sincerely asking why there’s a double standard. For me, if it’s written in the Bible, it’s doctrine, even if it goes against my current perceptions, because it is God’s Word the end period.

  26. GRCluff says:

    4givn said:
    “Cluff, To say that Smith and Christ are equal? You do have vivid imagination”

    Arthur said:
    “Yikes! So now we see Big Joe on par with Christ? I mean sure, Smith thought so but it is the rare mormon that will admit it.”

    No, No, calm down now. Take a deep breath. Relax. Picture a sunny day on the beach, salt air breese. Ok.

    Do I really have to draw a map every time I make a point? Talk about the LACK of imagination.

    Never at any time did I intend to say the JS is equal with Christ. I can understand how you could come to that conclusion, but you had to steer clear around my point intentionally, carefully and completely to get there.

    Here it is, hold on to you hats.

    In Pauls day, Christ himself was the prophet of the restoration. He was the teacher of truth, the corrector of false doctrine.

    Those that denyed him (Paul should know about this) had to ignore the promptings of the Holy Ghost to do so.

    It is the same exact thing today, except the Holy Spirit speaks about JS. Many people all over the world like in Japan, for example, feel the Holy Spirit about JS first, then realize that the same spirit testifies of Christ. That is how they become Christian.

    It is quite appropriate for me to replace Christ with JS in that verse because the same point that Paul makes about Christ DEMANDS to be made about JS.

    You see now, not equal, but the same witness is borne. Feel better now?

  27. JessicaJoy says:

    To tag off of Andrea’s comments, I would like to add that the big difference in the NT scriptures (and the ‘modern revelations’ claimed by the LDS) is that the NT scriptures were not only in harmony with previous revelation (and expounded upon previous revelation), but the NT apostles convinced unbelievers of the truth of Jesus Christ by relying on the prophecies in the OT scriptures.

    Those who embraced Jesus and preached that He was the Christ were “mighty in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24) and they convinced the Jews by “showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28).

    This feels to me like a huge contrast from the LDS method of tearing down faith in the NT scriptures and seeking to convince others that “pure and precious truths were lost in translation” and that is why we need ‘modern revelation’ that does not expound upon the NT, neither can it be backed up by the NT, but is in contradiction with it…

    If a Biblical method was employed wherein Mormons sought to be “mighty in the scriptures” and sought to convince unbelievers by “showing from the scriptures” that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God and the ‘restored gospel’ was foretold in the NT… then we could “reason together” from the scriptures.

    Instead, when talking with Mormons (not necessarily on this site) they do not seem to know the OT or NT scriptures as well as the ‘modern revelations’

    The Pharisees were in error because they did not know the scriptures:

    “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29).

    (side note: they were in error in believing there would be marriage in the resurrection…)

    Also, do we see anywhere that Jesus taught that the OT could not be trusted in that “pure and precious truths had been lost”?

    No, he showed them “by the scriptures” that He was the Christ.

    “Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures… ?” (Matt. 21:42)

  28. GRCluff says:

    Andrea said:
    “So when I depart from my body and am present with the Lord, I will be complete.Why then, would I need to depart from Him to create my own planet? I don’t believe that is what God created us for”

    Your goal is to be with God as a spirit? You already had exactly that and you abandoned it for a reason.

    Do you believe in the Bible?

    Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
    38:7 …and all the sons of God shouted for joy.

    Who where the sons of God who shouted for joy when the world was created?

    Jer 1:5 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee…

    Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

    God promised us eternal life WHEN?

    Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

    How can your spirit return to a place it has never been?

    2 Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling,…which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

    When was this calling given?

    And just in case you don’t understand the dual nature of mankind read this:

    Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

    We already lived as spirit children of God in His presence. Why did we come to earth if our goal is to get back to where we started?

    Complete you say? We came here for a reason, we were obviously NOT complete.

    You need to re-evaluate the purpose of your life. The BoM can help you there.

  29. 4givn says:

    So let me get this right, Christ was sent to restore the church, to remove works from the obtaining of salvation. Then Smith came along to restore the church, to add works to the obtaining salvation. Sounds like doublespeak. So that makes the church that Christ instituted what, the apostate church? The Mormon doctrine states that Christ came to the Americas. Was that to give the natives the works theory also?
    Paul on the other hand refutes the DEMANDS that you claim. He has written enough to refute that. The witness of Christ was testified, not only by the Living Word, but also by the miracles that were performed, and the love that was shared even with His enemies. The fact that Smith was not fortold to us by the Word, didn’t perform miracles, and didn’t preach love, negates any promptings for him being the same witness as Christ. I truly hope that you will find, that you should test the spirits that you say are the same. The desire that lurks in your heart, is the same whole in which Christ can fill and make good works flow out of it without your need for trying. Being a sinfull creature is not anything new people. It has been going on before since the forst ancestors were tempted by the desires of the heart. It was not the devils fault. It has everything to do with the freewill that we all have. If you can read the warnings that were written long ago, and still believe that you have been “enlightened” by another. Than that is your freewill. I have heard and read the teachings that you have been taught, but the feelings (though warm and really fuzzy) I felt were not even close to the ones that the Living Word has blessed me with. I went with an open mind because of the folks that I had met with seemed to Know something that I didn’t, but in the end, the Holy Spirit had me to stay put, and by the Grace of God be in His Word. My Gods Grace shine into your heart. AMEN

  30. Arthur Sido says:

    DOF, the Bible is built on propositional truths. The narratives in the Bible reveal the nature of God and man. They are designed to communicate redemptive revelation. Mormonism uses stories to build faith in a man. Believe in the BoM, not what the BoM teaches but rather the story about where it came from and you will believe that Smith was a prophet. Hence the “I’d like to bear my testimony that I know this church is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, Thomas Monson is a prophet, etc” that you hear repeated every fast and testimonial Sunday. It is all about the church is true, the prophet is true, the BoM of true. As far as this:

    “You comments on Mormon knowing their doctrine made me laugh! Really! Were we in the same OT/NT/BOM/D&C/PoGP and Teachings of the Living Prophets classes? I took them all (6). My hardest classes at BYU. Did you even go to BYU? If so, I would like to know who you’re professors were.

    What did we learn? Doctrine. You are created a false picture.”

    I didn’t go to BYU, but I do have some of the student manuals from the classes and they are elementary at best. Compare those workbooks for lack of a better term with the reading level of first year seminary students. This isn’t a contest to show who has a better educationaal system, but to demonstrate that BYU doesn’t offer any majors in theology, and has no graduate level degrees precisely because doctrine is deemphasized. Mormon leaders are chosen because of faithful service, not because they are grounded in doctrinal truths. Why should they as long as they can repeat the right testimony?

  31. GRCluff says:

    4givn said:
    “The fact that Smith was not fortold to us by the Word, didn’t perform miracles, and didn’t preach love, negates any promptings for him being the same witness as Christ.”

    A good list of requirements. If I can prove JS met each of them will you concede the point?

    fortold by the Word:
    Isa 29:11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
    12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
    13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
    14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

    perform miracles:
    “A special divine power is needed for the working of miracles. The Prophet Joseph had this power in a very high degree. It was one of the evidences that he had the authority of the holy Priesthood. One of the numerous miracles God performed through him was the healing of one Mrs. Johnson, who, in company with others, visited his home in Kirtland, 1831. She had, for some time, been afflicted with a lame arm. She could not raise it to her head. The conversation turned on supernatural power, and someone in the company asked if there was anybody on Earth that could heal Mrs. Johnson for instance. The Prophet arose, walked over to Mrs. Johnson, took her by the hand and said, ‘Woman, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command thee to be whole,’ whereupon he left the room. Mrs. Johnson at once lifted up her arm, and the next day was able to do her washing (History of the Church, I, p. 215)

  32. Vicki says:

    Welcome, bornagainmormon,
    Baptism is a sacrament. This is a Christian teaching of baptism in regards to Matt 28:19, and likewise in Mark 16:16:
    ‘Observe, first, that these words[in Matt.& Mark] contain God’s commandment and ordinance. You should not doubt, then, that Baptism is of divine origin, not something devised or invented by men. …..To be baptized in God’s name is to be baptized not by men, but by God, Himself. Although it is performed by men’s hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own act.’ (do you see how different this is from Mormon teaching?)
    ‘What is Baptism? It is not simply common water, but water comprehended in God’s Word and commandment and sanctified by them. It is nothing else, than a divine water, not that the water in itself is nobler than other water but that God’s Word and commandment are added to it.’
    ‘God, Himself, stakes His honor, His power and His might on it. Therefore it is not simply a natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy and blessed water–praise it in any other terms you can –all by virtue of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word which no one can sufficiently extol, for it contains and conveys all the fullness of God. From the Word it derives its nature as a sacrament, as St. Augustine taught, when the Word is added to the element or the natural substance, it becomes a sacrament, that is ,a holy divine thing and sign.’
    ‘Here you see again how precious and important a thing Baptism should be regarded as being, for in it we obtain such an inexpressible treasure. This shows that it is not simple, ordinary water, for ordinary water could not have such an effect. But the Word has. It shows also that God’s name is in it. And where God’s name is, there must also be life and salvation. Hence it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water, for thorough the Word,Baptism receives the power to become the ‘washing of regeneration.’ cont.

  33. 4givn says:

    Nice quote, but you took it out of the context. It goes on to speak of things of secrecy, placing oneself as god, and false testimonies. Needless to say it starts out with it is nothing but words seeled in a scroll. Nice try, but the truth is not out of context my friend. Don’t forget to read the whole thing before you get too wrapped up in your feelings of justification. That is not what I was looking for. I was trying to find out why the restoration was needed by Smiths doctrine of works when Christ instituted His by Faith. You truly need to read the NT. It is so clear what it speaks, works don’t and can’t add up to what is necesary, without the Grace of Christ that trumps all things. The works are merely fruits of Faith. They show the Glory of God, even if the man tries to claim them for himself. If the Smith teachings are prayed to be true, and Christs’ are true. Than who’s the trump suit? I think I can firmly say, buy the Grace of God, you better know when to fold them my freind. I truly admire your zealousness, you have been blessed with a lot of spirit. W/LOVE

  34. Vicki says:

    Dear, bornagainmormon, let me just add:

    It is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God’s.’ (Jesus’ baptism tells us of God’s presence)
    When we are in sin and despair, we need to remember our baptism, and put our trust in God’s Word of promise, that we have been called by name by God, Himself. How awesome is that !!!

  35. Berean says:

    For those that are not familiar with what Cluff is referring to in Isaiah 29:11-12, let me give you a little background. This is referenced in Joseph Smith History 1:63-65. This talks about Martin Harris taking to Charles Anthon, a Columbia University professor, characters supposedly from the golden plates that were written down on paper by Joseph Smith. Let’s now look at the scripture text and compare it to the Mormon reference and historical facts.

    This Mormon text does not fit the text in Isaiah 29:11-12. (This can be confusing so read the passage and concentrate). Why doesn’t it fit?

    1. This is a parable and the subject is a book – not a vision.
    2. The vision of the prophets meant nothing to the people – not a book of some future time.
    3. According to Martin Harris, Professor Anton said the translation was correct. Anthon could only have said this if he had read it. But Isaiah said the plates were sealed! The only way the professor knew the plates were sealed was because Harris, “Told them they were.”

    In the Isaiah passage, THE BOOK WENT TO THE LEARNED MAN FIRST – THEN THE UNLEARNED. But the Mormon story has the book of gold delivered to the unlearned Smith who copied some of the characters of his translation on a plate of paper which was taken to the “learned” Anthon. In Isaiah the same sealed book wsa taken to both the unlearned & learned man. But Anthon did not receive any book sealed or unsealed, and in Isaiah THE BOOK WAS DELIVERED TO THE UNLEARNED and he simply said, “I am not learned” and he made no effort to read or translate it. But Smith claimed he did read the book, even though unlearned.

    I know it sounds confusing. Study the text in Isaiah and then read the account in JS History carefully. The account is not validated, but rather is the exact opposite.

  36. Berean says:

    Reference was made to Joseph Smith performing miracles as a mark of authenticity of him being a true prophet. I would like to look at some Bible passages that put this in perspective with this question: Can false prophets perform miracles? Can Satan perform miracles? Let’s go to our Bibles.

    Matthew 24:24 states that false prophets “shall shew GREAT SIGNS AND WONDERS; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

    Satan has power and can counterfeit, or try to, what God does. Luke 4:6 says, “And the devil said unto him, ALL THIS POWER will I give thee”. Look at the account of what happened in Exodus 7:8-13,22; 8:7. Aaron and Moses throw down their rod and it becomes a serpent and (verse 11) “the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, THEY ALSO DID IN LIKE MANNER with their enchantments.”

    Look at the power that Satan has in the book of Job chapter 1:12 (“all that he hath is in THY POWER). Look at what Satan can do (verses 13-19). One that I find particularly interesting is verse 19 where it mentions “a great wind”. Could this be a tornado? Maybe the next time we suffer from a large hurricane or tornado we might wonder who made this happen.

    Let’s get back to miracles. Look at what the beast is going to be able to do (perform miracles) as cited in Revelation 13:3,12,14; 16:14; 19:20.

    There are many false Christs, false prophets and phonies of all kinds today that mock and imitate the genuine gifts of healing offered by God. Turn on the TV and look at some of these TV preachers. Most of them are frauds. God can and still does heal people today. It is rare and when it happens it is absolutely amazing. One way to test that miracle is by finding out if that miracle/healing is permanent. When God heals it’s forever. Whatever the ailment was never returns. When Satan does the healing or miracle it’s only temporary or a hoax all together.

  37. Missusslats says:

    Ralph: (Thanks to Andrea and JJoy for taking up the baton on this one!) I beg to differ with you about Timothy ONLY having the OT as “scripture.” In 2Pet we read: “just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you as also in all his letters epeaking in them of these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the unstable and untaught distort as they do also THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES…” IOW, Peter considered Paul’s letters Scripture! The Apostles were well aware that the recording of their writings and experiences was scripture.

    Cluff: I keep thinking that IF there was a Zarahemla and IF the BOA was not a fraud and IF the DNA was Hebrew instead of Asian (and a mountain of other evidence of the falseness of Mormonism), THEN we would have a reason to examine and consider LDS interpretation of the Bible verses you cite. But since JS fails the prophet test found in Deut 18:21-22, then we are free to discard ANY interpretations of doctrine that spring from him or his church–indeed we are not only free to do so but OBLIGATED as followers of Truth to do so. As it stands, however, your Isaiah quote is completely out of context and unrelated to the rise of Mormonism. BTW, Muslims use that same set of verses to lend OT support for their false doctrines, too.

  38. Missusslats says:

    Also: I forgot to credit my friend and mentor Greg Koukl ( for the essay about Paul to Timothy (2 posts ago). Greg was actually referring to another false declarer (they are all over the place, just as Jesus warned us: “If ANY MAN shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ, or Lo, he is there; believe him not” Mat24:23, Mark13:21), but the message applies to Mormonism as well. Christ has warned us in advance! His next coming will be like lightening from the east to the west, not “in quiet grove”, privately, to just one MAN! Surely God could use additional scripture if He chose, but the Bible is clear: the gospel was given once for all, the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and God’s word will stand forever. We are to test the spirits against it and it alone, just as the Bereans (the “more noble” ones) did; if those spirits are found in oppostion to it, we are to flee from them. Thank you Lord for your written word that we are NOT deceived by the schemes of man!

  39. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    I\’m sorry Sido but if you were not at BYU I have a hard time accepting your assessment of the doctrine taught there. I was there. If you want to suppose that the course was \”elementary\” that is fine. But I find it presumptious at best with a twinge of arrogance.

    Nevertheless the doctrine stands for itself. Your charge that the leadership does not teach the doctrine or somehow tries to hide it is a false accusation. Any honest seeker can easily see that from birth to the grave it is all doctrine (funny how some charge us with outright brainwashing and other say it\’s gross neglect of the doctrine).

    I do agree with you about the scriptures revealing the nature of God. I suppose that is why I find it so hard to understand how the Trinity can come out of the scriptures. They are so plain. Beginning with \”created in the image of God\” to God speaking with man \”as a man speaketh to another.\” To Christ saying \”handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and blood as ye see me have\”

    I also agree with you that the nature of origin of the BoM and how it came forth stands as a symbol that the prophetic mantle rested upon JS. I find the coming forth, especially the oft-mocked translation process, to be an incredible miracle.

    I am glad that you brought this up again, because we never really got to discuss proving things by the scriptures. I would love to go through this exercise with you. I will try to include a previous OT/NT prophecy that was fulfilled with the Restoration.

  40. germit says:

    DOF: first off, GREAT questions, what the heck did you have for lunch prior to thinking up those gems? Did you need an answer to global warming and gang violence while I’m at it ?? I don’t own a seer stone/Urimm & Thummim, so my reply might be tonight or tomorrow on that.
    Your point reg. history seems to be that the LDS and orthodoxy use history in roughly the same way. Never been to BYU, but my outsiders take is: does not seem that way to me. For one, even the UNPLEASANT parts of the OT and NT are put to good use for us (Abraham wimping out about his wife’s identity while in Egypt; David and Bathsheba) We learn that it is foolish to trust in men, other than the Man, Christ Jesus. Your side has fought an accurate telling of JS past tooth and nail, with some excpetions (J.Bushman and “Rough Stone Rolling” come to mind). Many LDS don’t have a clue (so I’ve heard here at MC) about the seer stone thing, the fact that JS was an ‘on sight’ 3rd degree Mason, his many wives, ETC,ETC Is that a careless oversight, or something(s) avoided because they are not ‘faith promoting’ ?? Why are ev.christians explaining these historical details to LDS at Manti ??
    I would be interested in knowing from your perspective who, among your higher level leadership, you consider to be a ‘theologian’, someone who understands, and has taught on, the deeper things, as DJBrown put it ?? Most of the faces I’ve seen seem to be ‘unofficial sources”. Any official sources that are your theological voices (comparative to N.T. Wright, Richard Mohler, C.S. Lewis, etc) More later, GERMIT

  41. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Just a comment on why the LDS will never win an argument here (also why I believe the Lord commands us not to dispute His doctrine). It is the same reason the Pharisees rejected the Savior.

    Accusation #1: LDS don’t teach the same gospel as taught in the Bible.

    So Cluff, myself and others get irrate and say “I’ll show you”. We do know the scriptures well. We start with list upon list of scriptures that support our position and refute the position of the accusers. And what is the knee jerk reply “OUT OF CONTEXT”. Everything that does not fit the Evangelical doctrine (including other Christian sects) must be out of context. So they can explain away anything. All you need to do is go to school and get your doctorate and learn about all the ways you can twist the scriptures to fit the established doctrine.

    Example: Jesus doesn’t have a body like he so plainly showed his believers post resurrection. Why not? Because it doesn’t fit our doctrine, so we’ll say it was an allegory, or it was just for humans to understand, or it is the context of life beyond death. They could make up a thousand things. And why not, there is no one here to refute them. Jesus is not here, the apostles are not here. They have left their word and we can make it say whatever we want.

    So to try to argue about what a specific scripture means is fruitless. We will always be wrong. Why? Because evangelicals say so.

    How does that relate to this thread?

    Accusation #2: Mormons don’t know their doctrine.

    How does the evangelical know? Because Sido and others say so (even though he didn’t go to BYU). Please be fair.

    One piece of doctrine. The resurrection is real. Jesus has a body of flesh and bone, period. No fluff. Just like he showed his apostles anciently.

  42. LDSSTITANIC says:

    Germit…I think you meant Albert Mohler? My roots are actually Southern Baptist so I had to straighten you out there (ha!). Bravo with C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright…Anglicanism isn’t always as theologically definitive but those are definitely two of the brightest lights we have produced…Blessings!

  43. germit says:

    DOF: we seem to miss our posts by mere minutes, WEIRD !! Where in the Bible does it say we are to not dispute doctrine?? What a strange view. Not be argumentative, or combative, or ‘wrangle about words’, as it says in II Tim, but I don’t see that as avoiding a doctrinal dispute. Consider the very example you’ve given about the Pharisees: did Jesus AVOID talking to them, or did he engage in obviously frustrating exchanges with them ?? I think He did this as much for those LISTENING IN ,as the pharisees and Sadducees, themselves. I’m not trying to play the HS for you, and each one must answer the question of when they’ve done all they can do, and anything more done is a waste of breath. I know for myself, I post for those listening in, as much as for ‘winning over’ you, Cluff the Imovable, or anyone else. While this random thot is in my head: is there something comparable to MC with the proportion of ev.christian/LDS reversed?? Just curious, I might decide to walk into that lions den sometime.
    Reg. cluff and his quoting verses on pre-existence: that is ALL he has done: quote verses that expicitly talk about Gods eternal purpose and plan, he has made no effort (other than reposting the same verses) to explain why the verses might be saying what he interprets them to be saying. The one verse in his favor is the one from Job (37??) and we have not been rebutted in saying this refers to angels, not men. Cluff, I love you, but you sometimes post from a macro, and leave out the explanetory details (then again, many times, so goeth I)
    I would maintain that a fairminded observer would still go with the ev.christian take on pre-existence of man, in the abscense of scriptural reason to believe otherwise. All for Wed. GERMIT OUT

  44. LDSSTITANIC says:

    DoF…context isn’t that hard to establish really. If you simply begin reading a book at the beginning and establish definitions according to the author it is really elementary to keep yourself in context. We have manuscripts of the original languages so we can also do word studies to get definitions of the word the author used in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. Isn’t it amazing how each of us finds the same context when we use this inductive/logical approach?

    For example I read Doctrine & Covenants Section 84 and in context Joseph Smith says (1) there is to be a temple built in Independence, Missouri IN HIS GENERATION…I live there…ain’t one…

    (2) that without the priesthood NO MAN can see the face of God the Father and live…so how did a teenager who didn’t even know about a priesthood see God and not die? or was it really an angel? why would the LDS church lie then?

    See…context is elementary my dear Watson…

  45. Jeffrey says:

    Germit makes a good point.

    These Evangelical/LDS debates never seem to go anywhere. The die-hard LDS on here (Cluff, Ralph, DJ, DoF) remain just as unmoving as the Ev’s on here. Even if one were to come the realization that the LDS gospel is false, do you think they would come out of the closet on this blog about this? Monson coming up with a new/modern revelation would be much more possible (My attempt at a little humor). The simple fact remains that because of our natural man status, we all have something in us that just refuses to publicly admit their wrongs, and that is called pride. Like it or not, everyone at some point (I’m beginning to think always) has a little bit of unhealthy pride in themself. Even my very own wife had a hard time telling me she didn’t believe in the LDS church anymore. “Why?” I asked. “Because I don’t want you to think you’ve won,” she replied. I laughed a little and said “God won, not me.” I am thankful that I can find joy in God’s victories.

    So why even bother having these endless discussions that never seem to go anywhere among us? Because it’s not completely obvious that there are more among us then we can see. Yes, lurkers, I’m talking about you! Ev’s and LDS that post on here need to admit that there is not much chance of changing the minds of those who post. So don’t be discouraged and let the discussion make you hot tempered, because you are simply presenting your case allowing those who are in a questioning/uncertain stage to come to a decision on where their faith is. Having this in mind, I think, would definitely keep discussion more civil, less personal, and all about contending for ones faith as Christians (whoever they truly are, lol) are asked to do.

    In Jesus name.

  46. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    Just a short clarifying note:

    Defender suggests evangelical Christians think “Jesus doesn’t have a body like he so plainly showed his believers post resurrection.” Defender’s idea is dead wrong. The bodily resurrection of Christ is a basic Christian doctrine.

    Also, Defender wrote that Mormons are accused of not knowing their doctrine: “Mormons don’t know their doctrine. How does the evangelical know? Because [a Christian participant here] and others say so…” I do believe that LDS Professor Robert Millet was the first to make that suggestion related to this thread.

  47. BornagainMormon says:

    Thank you for your post. To answer some of your questions.
    “‘Observe, first, that these words[in Matt.& Mark] contain God’s commandment and ordinance. You should not doubt, then, that Baptism is of divine origin, not something devised or invented by men. …..To be baptized in God’s name is to be baptized not by men, but by God, Himself. Although it is performed by men’s hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own act.’ (do you see how different this is from Mormon teaching?)” Quite frankly, no I don’t.
    Let me assure you that I consider baptism a sacrament. I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. As near as I can tell, we are on the same page.

  48. Rick B says:

    Ralph said

    Now as for your other quotes that damns all who speak against polygamy, you need to do what you bag on us LDS to do about scripture – context and audience and other quotes from the same person to fully understand their words. The 2 quotes you gave are talking only to those people at that time; meaning that if they at that time did not accept polygamy then they were damned.

    Funny Ralph, but this does not say it was only for certain people at a certain time, Again it CLEARLY SAYS:

    Some quietly listen to those who speak against the lords servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that god has revealed. Such persons have a half dozen devils with them all the time. YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY “MORMONISM,” AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES. Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. Also we read in vol 3 pg 266, where B Young said and I quote, “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned. WOW B Young promises we will be damned if we stop this practice. I guess there will be many damned LDS, as the stopped doing this.

    I own the books I quoted from, you tell me I need context and evidence, the Burden for evidence is upon you, show me where BY or other from this group say, this is only for the people of this day and age and not every person.

    This is a great example of LDS denying what prophets taught as direct Word from The Lord, You deny because you know it was truth and you do not like it.

    Here is more from your Prophet on this subject. The question I am posting is from the Q/A section of the blog/website question 45. Cont:

  49. Rick B says:


    Under the date of 5 October 1843 Willard Richards, keeper of Joseph Smith’s personal journal, recorded Smith gave “instruction to try those who were preaching, teaching, or [crossed out in the original: ‘practicing’] the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof.–No man shall have but one wife.” (Faulring, The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 417) Yet Smith had provided a revelation which sanctioned the practice of polygamy, Doctrine & Covenants 132, nearly three months earlier and was clearly engaged in the practice himself.

    Why did Joseph Smith denounce plural marriage after recording a revelation in which he was told it was the “law of the priesthood”?

    This was the answer I gave,

    titus 1:2: god who cannot lie. ok. if god who cannot lie says in d and c 132:3 “for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same”; 132:4: “i [god] reveal a new and everlasting covenant.” since when is everlasting only for a limited time? if 132:3 says the law is revealed, mormons teach that their prophets reveal god’s will to us the people, so this means they must obey the everlasting covenant or you will be damned 132:4. mormon doctrine says to be damned is not attaining the 3rd heaven. Now j smith went and taught this to the people because it’s god’s will as 132:3-4 teach. so if they misunderstood it is not on god but on him, j smith, who was god’s mouth piece. also 132:4 god says no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter my glory. i.e., 3rd heaven. do mormons really read their teachings? someone wrote “jacob 2:27-29 is the preferred method of marriage for those who are not called to practice plural marriage.” first of all this is not what jacob teaches. second of all we read in d and c that all who hear it must do it. and j smith was the mouth piece of god.


  50. Rick B says:


    read jacob 2:27-29 where god says more than one wife is an abomination and whoredoms. so who’s lying here: god or the mormon mouth piece? titus 1:2 says it is not god who is lying.

    Then BY said What did Brigham Young mean when he said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”? (Journal of Discourses 11:269)

    Someone said read the whole story for context. I did because I own the 26 volumes of the JOD. This is what B Young said, and I quote:

    When that revelation was first read to me by J Smith, I plainly saw the great trials and the abuse of it that would be made by many of the elders, and the trouble and the persecution that it would bring upon this whole people. BUT THE LORD REVEALED IT, and it was my business to accept it.

    Ok. B Young said: 1. it was through the prophet; 2. it was reveled by God. If this is the case then the church is astray here because they are not following D and C 1:14–therefore they will be cut off. B Young continues,

    it is the word of the lord


    I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart and I know it is from God, I know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true.

    so what did B Young mean when he said you must enter into polygamy to become sons of God? just that. He said it was reveled by God–you cannot get any clearer. To this day the church denies these alleged teachings of God and the prophets. this is a serious charge. Nowhere does it say this teaching was for a certain group of men only.

    people who teach that this was only for certain men never understood D and C 132:3:

    all who have this law revealed unto them must obey.

    If you read it you are included in that ALL. It appears the church denies the teaching of their God; it’s not the true church. Rick b

Comments are closed.