What if Thomas Monson, Pope Benedict XVI, and John Piper began teaching that the practice of homosexuality was morally praiseworthy?

I pick John Piper to make it personal for me and some other evangelicals. He is not by any stretch of the imagination the pope of Protestantism, but he is my living hero. I even named my only begotten son after him. If he were to begin teaching that the practice of homosexuality was morally praiseworthy I would be crushed. But I have the freedom as a Christian to swiftly discard any wrong teachings of his in a heartbeat.

This is why I disagree that an attack on institutional Mormonism for any modern or historic problem can conceivably apply to Protestantism in the same way: we have vastly different views of church government, leadership, and authority. I do not believe that I have an inspired apolostic leadership, nor do I have a hierarchy to which I am bound. We evangelicals are more decentralized, and have no system of inspired (and I use that word in the strong sense) leadership-succession.

An ideological attack on the past actions and words of Roman popes matters more than attacks on any Protestant figure. I can discard the teaching of a Protestant on a whim. But Catholics in principle have more invested in the historic reliability of their succession of authority figures. So a Protestant preacher and Catholic pope could make the same exact theological error, but it should in principle have more impact on the system of Romanism than on Protestantism. This is even more the case when it comes to a Mormon president, because Mormonism says that its president is a bona fide prophet in the thickest sense.

Wanting modern prophets and apostles or Popes with inherent authority but without any increased standard of accountability and responsibility is downright shallow. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

For all the smack-talk about Protestants being in a denominational anarchy and disorganized mess, we have the benefit of not having to account for any historic leadership to which we do not put ourselves under. So while you could conceivably hold me accountable for sticking around my local church while my local pastor was doing or saying horrible things, or you could accuse a Presbyterian sticking around too long under a bad presbytery, etc., you can’t accuse me of being immoral for refusing to take responsibility for a Protestant like Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Ted Haggard, etc., let alone any dead guy.

The best real example I can think of is historic racism. I was previously accused of ideologically attacking the Mormon Church for not making an institutional apology for the kind of theology that undergirded the pre-1978 priesthood ban. After all, wasn’t Mormonism’s racism largely a continuation of what was Protestant racism? I responded:

There is no question in my mind over whether the seeds of Mormonism’s institutional racism were planted by Protestants. Racism is only the beginning of the list of the embarrassing sins of my religious ancestors. There are worse skeletons than racism in our closet. Furthermore, you and I both come from the same rotten mom and dad, Adam and Eve. The nice thing about sola scriptura (a belief some Mormons seem to retreat to when forced to deal with things like Adam-God) is that I can discard the teachings of historic Jews and Christians when they don’t reflect (explicitly or by inference) a historical-grammatical reading of the Old or New Testament. My leaders have no more access to God than I do, and I am not bound to any one religious hierarchy. God has promised that his people are securely in his hand, but he has not promised that religious leaders who are professing Christians will never lead people astray.

Mormons, on the other hand, have been given the promise that their leaders will never lead others astray. When Mormonism touts what it calls “continuing revelation”, living prophets, living apostles, and a modern stream of prophetic counsel, it ups the ante. I can, and I do right now, unequivocally denounce and condemn what Luther said about the Jews. But Mormonism’s leaders haven’t demonstrated a willingness to stand up and unequivocally and explicitly denounce and condemn what it (”it” being the institution with various institutional channels of communication and control) has promoted, perpetuated, enforced, and acquiesced to.

Just in case this isn’t clear, let me make it crystal clear. If John Piper taught tomorrow that Jesus was the spirit-brother of Satan, that we had to merit eternal life, and that one should have no certain position on whether God the Father was once a foul sinner in a past mortal probation, I would probably cry but then pronounce that he is anathema/accursed/hell-bound. As Paul said,

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9)

So even if Thomas Monson, or John Piper, or Pope Benedict XVI teaches a false gospel, let him go to hell. Turn your back on him and go where the Spirit is. And of this you can be sure: where the true gospel is not believed, the Spirit is not indwelling.

See also


A classic example of false teaching by a Mormon prophet is Adam-God. On this one Mormon writes:

“It’s now standard practice to teach that Adam and Heavenly Father are separate beings, but there was a time when that assertion contradicted what the President of the Church was teaching. Brigham Young taught that acceptance or rejection of the Adam-God doctrine ‘will either seal the damnation or salvation of [men]’ (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, April 9, 1852). Men like Orson Pratt were vocal in their opposition to the doctrine, and Brigham Young responded that it would “destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, March 11, 1856). Yet, in a matter of decades, the Church had abandoned the doctrine… So what are we to do if we find our conscience in opposition to what the present authorities are teaching about some issue? Force ourselves to accept something with which we disagree? I don’t think that’s the way to go. I mean, can we safely assume that, in another 25, 50, or 100 years, General Authorities will still be teaching the same thing? If Church history is any indication, then the answer is no. Today’s heresies might be tomorrow’s doctrines. As for myself, I’ll stick with my own intuition, spiritual experiences, and conscience.” (>>)

If you want to engage in constructive conversation on this whole issue, folks, don’t resort to the red herring of “prophets aren’t perfect, they’re human”, etc. That’s an inadequate way of approaching the problem. Some helpful questions to answer would be:

  • Do you believe your inspired leadership is expected to be more doctrinally reliable than the common laymen? How should they be held accountable to this?
  • How bad can the false doctrine of an inspired leader get before he is objectively disqualified from being a true prophet or apostle? Some Mormons seem to believe there are no limits.
This entry was posted in Mormon Leaders, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to What if Thomas Monson, Pope Benedict XVI, and John Piper began teaching that the practice of homosexuality was morally praiseworthy?

  1. Arthur Sido says:

    Excellent post. Whenever people start putting their trust in a human authority over the Word, it leads inexorably to heresy. If John Piper starts to contradict sound doctine, we can call him out and not at the same time reject Christianity. Piper doesn’t speak for Christianity authoritatively outside of what the Word of God says about Christ. That is our unchanging, inerrant, sufficient authority. If Piper started preaching heresy, I would call it what it is, show from the Word where he has strayed and unsubscribe from the Desiring God podcasts.

    That is not to say that more than a few Protestants have not gone off the deep end into heresy, and some deceived people still follow them (Hinn and Ostenn come to mind). The difference is that we can alwasy search the Scripture to see if what they are saying is true. We don’t need a Pope or a Prophet, or even Protestant rock star preachers, to reveal the will of God, He has already revealed it all in His Word. The Christian needs no intermediary, no human priesthood whether it is based in Salt Lake or Rome, when we have a great High Priest intereceding for us in Christ Jesus. Why is He not enough, why do we have this desire to exalt men above us to a place between Christ and us? Christ, and Christ alone, is all we need.

  2. Pingback: OD Today: 1 January 2009 « Online Discernment Today

  3. faithoffathers says:


    You are right in saying our leaders are standing on different ground. I recognize that you can dismiss or reject your leader without it affecting your view of “the church.” If I reject President Monson, I really am in spirit rejecting the whole LDS church. But you assume this is to your advantage. I suggest it is not.

    Being able to jump ship from one church or pastor to another when a person disagrees with or doesn’t understand a pastor does not exactly make for enduring doctrine or anything resembling a “rock.” Nor is it consistent with any scriptural precedent for God’s organized people. It makes for fracture, conflict, and all imaginable doctrinal deviancy. Yet many have been taught that this huge collective of different doctrinal interpretations and denominations is how Christ desires “His church.” At its heart, this is a slight of hand to explain away the apostasy. And it does not account for human nature, which did not change after Christ’s ministry. It doesn’t exactly adhere to the “one faith, one baptism” principle.

    “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” Ephesians 4:11-14

    “Every wind of doctrine” is a good way of describing what results when there is no accountability in the form of one organized church. What you get is pastors and leaders tailoring their doctrines and messages to attract the greatest number of adherents. Hence, the Anglicans “ordain” gay priests and marry same-sex couples. And on and on.

    What was Christ talking about when He told Peter “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven?” If “the work” was done with Christ, why would Peter need those “keys?” We claim our leaders have Priesthood authority. You claim your leaders do not have authority (other than the bible, which everybody has).

    You may not accept the 1978 decision on the Priesthood as coming through real prophets. But your opinion doesn’t change the fact that it was a decision from God. “Gods ways are not man’s ways.” Using your logic and opinion as a basis, the Lord was racist by only allowing those of Levi to administer in the Temple of old. Insisting on understanding perfectly a commandment or directive from Heaven before obedience is not a strength. And it does not demonstrate faith.

  4. FoF,

    If you want to boast of having a more reliable hierarchy to take doctrinal refuge in, then you should be able to talk about the main issues of this post. You quote Ephesians 4 on the purpose of the church to keep its people from being “carried about with every wind of doctrine”, but that seems exactly the problem with Mormonism. Mormons seem to pride themselves in a strong ship that doesn’t get beat up by a storm, but then make excuses for how such winds as Adam-God were able to lead so many people astray (including FLDS who wanted to take Brigham more seriously). Another example is neo-orthodox Mormons at BYU who believe the leaders have been essentially blowing it when it comes to whether we can merit eternal life and exaltation. Why do Mormon leaders get a free pass if they are “standing on different ground”?

    See my above addendum to the post, which I added while you were writing your comment.

  5. Arthur Sido says:

    FoF, the rock on which we stand is the Word, not on some organization. Our solid rock is Christ, the recognition of Him as Lord as Peter did when asked the question “Who do you say that I am?” Mormonism assumes that the mormon church is a restored organization, but the Bible doesn’t portray the church as some hierarchical organization but instead the Bride of Christ. We gather togther to worship, break bread, pray, teach but that doesn’t make a gathering the church. What makes the church is our commmon confession and common salvation. Mormonism claims to have restored something that never existed and was never intended.

    (BTW Aaron, I like the ability to edit your posts for a few minutes afterward, so you can catch spelling errors. Still can’t get that gravatar to work though…)

  6. David says:


    Overall good post. I have a few issues with it though. I would not disregard the teachings of ordained men in a heartbeat or on a whim. I would do it if it were necessary, though. Also, I hope John Piper (or any other super-pastor) would have a least one godly man around him to correct him (before words like “anathema” and “heretic” get flung). I do have a hierarchy to which I am bound, but at the top of that hierarchy is God’s word. So there is accountability just not a blank check.

    And . . . that accountability extends even towards pastors, bishops, vicars, apostles, etc. One does not need to dig too deeply into church history to see that nobody is above doctrinal reproof, not bishops . . . even bishops of Rome. Church councils anathematized theologians (Origen), bishops (Tertullian), and a bishop of Rome (Honorius). Keep in mind, even one of the original apostles was a devil. No man is above reproof; no man is infallible.

    The Roman Catholic or the Mormon cannot say that. So, when one of their top guys says or does something in error like kiss a Koran or tell people that Adam is God then there is going to be some obvious back-pedaling. B. Young did not just utter the words “Adam-God” he taught it at general conference.

    Seriously, if you cannot trust the words of the top guy (the one with “all the keys”), at general conference no less, then the restoration is useless, never happened, or needs to happen again. To hear Mormons tell it B. Young was just sitting around a camp-fire spinnin a yarn about a spectral locomotive and just happened to say, “Oh, by the way, Adam is God.” The man taught Adam-God as doctrine (I am sure most of his here are familiar with the quote by Brigham that everything he sermonized was scripture). Young did not think he was wrong or that he could be wrong. He defended his teaching and there were Mormons who were excommunicating for not accepting Adam-God. He was not teaching mathematics, animal husbandry, or needle-point.; he was teaching on religious matters and as such he is supposed to carry the authority of God Himself. No prophet of God can believe damnable heresy (even privately) and still be a prophet. Why is it in Mormonism the top guy gets to error grossly in terms of doctrine, but the people that are lower are the ladder are held to a much higher standard? Does anyone care to explain to me how this is not backwards?

  7. faithoffathers says:

    Arthur Sido,

    “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Ephesians 2:19-20.

    “He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.” Luke 6:13

    “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you.” John 15:16

    “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Titus 1:5

    “The Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.” Luke 10:1

    These passages would certainly suggest an actual organization. Why else the different offices- apostles, bishops, deacons, elders?

    Why ordain an apostle to replace Judas if the priesthood organization was not intended to be perpetuated? Who was ordained? Who did the ordaining? Why isn’t that done today? If it is, how is that the same as in the primitive church?

    Let me understand you. Do you claim that there was no priesthood at all after Christ? Are you saying there was no church organization with offices and heirarchy? Nobody here has answered the question of what those “keys” were that Christ mentioned- what were they? They seemed awfully important to the Savior and to the work He would leave for Peter.

    Yes- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built upon the rock of Christ- it is His church. He is indeed the chief cornerstone as you suggest. Having a foundation built on Christ doesn’t necessitate the abscense of an organization. “Buiding” something would actually suggest some entitiy- an organization.

    Aaron- When I posted my comment- you had used the blacks and the priesthood as your example, which I discussed. I gave a biblical example of God limiting the priesthood authority to those of a certain lineage. Throughout time, many have found fault and had issue with God’s commandments and doings. Similarly, a person can do the same today. You see racism in church practice based upon your own assumptions. What do you know of those men who lead the church and prayed for years for this decision? You see only the exterior from a cynic’s eye.

    Adam-God theory. I do not brush this aside. This is a real issue. Although I recognize that I cannot today understand fully what Brigham Young was saying or meaning, I also recognize the problem. I know that he clearly taught that God and Adam and Christ were different, distinct beings elsewhere in his day, and that Adam was clearly the creation of God. But teaching the idea that Adam was God is a big issue. We do not believe that- Joseph Smith did not teach that. We have not taught it since. Bruce R. McConkie said that Brigham Young would have to stand and account for that teaching himself before God. Again, I do not brush aside this issue. But I do not throw out everything I know because of one man.

    As far as “neo orthodox” mormons- this must be a Utah thing. I am there fairly often and have never heard of such a sub-category. I think critics of the church create these designations to promote the idea that there is conflict within the church. Yes- everybody has their opinions, but the vast majority of members I know (quite a few) by a huge margin believe in Thomas S. Monson as a prophet of God and do not make such arguments.

    I do not believe the church leaders get a “free pass.” They have more accountability and deal with more criticism and crap then your or I could ever imagine. The fact that there are people who criticize and find fault does not necessarily mean that others who do not find fault are giving them such a free pass.

    I find it ironic that some claim the church doesn’t have enough accountability. I have long thought that the LDS church was one of the only Christian organizations- the only one actually- to account for human nature in its organization and structure. What do I mean by this? Given man’s nature to drift off into his own desires and screwey way of rationalizing behavior, it truly takes loving, consistent shepherding to keep him on the straight and narrow. At every level of the church, there is just this kind of accountability and shepherding. Home teachers, visiting teachers, bishops, stake presidents, quorum leaders, even at the top leadership levels, all are structured to provide genuine, meaningful follow-up and accountability for each member, no matter what calling they have. Yet in all my time in the church, I have never felt dominated or looked down upon by anybody “above” me in the structure. I have always felts the loving call to follow the Savior and dedicate my life to him. This is an absolute genius element of the church that is largely unrecognized. The people are certainly imperfect, but the organization is none other but Christ’s own.

  8. mobaby says:


    I have used the premise of this article as an argument with my wife and fellow Christians on why it is “a devil’s bargain” to align with Mormons on social issues – to fight by their side against the social decay of this country. If the LDS leadership can do away with their own so-called “eternal commandments” and teachings such as polygamy and the historical Mormon view of blacks and the priesthood, even changing something as foundational as the nature of God – Adam is God, your excommunicated for not believing it, no, wait a minute, that’s heresy, Adam is not God – (that’s just something that crazy old guy said when he wasn’t thinking straight, and we can’t really understand what he was saying, B Young can be so obtuse sometimes – I got that same argument from a Mormon friend one time – we really can’t understand it – to which I say that’s strange, I understand it). If you can change and do away with things, bowing to public pressure on both polygamy and blacks and the priesthood, and dropping foundational doctrine because it is unpopular, then I have NO confidence that the LDS Church will continue to view homosexuality as sinful. As the culture becomes more and more aggressive in pushing the normalcy of “alternative” lifestyles, I can see a new revelation coming from the LDS hierarchy, God has opened the door and a new dispensation has arrived – temple gay marriage is now permitted. I don’t think this will happen right now, but 10 years, 20 years from now? – it could happen. On the other hand, when your beliefs are founded on God’s Word – then editing out, subtracting a teaching is really not permitted, if your going to hold to your foundational truth. I could be wrong about the LDS church adjusting their beliefs to go with the flow on homosexuality, and you know what, it wouldn’t matter, cause I’m not a prophet, nor am I pretending to be one.

  9. 2bowdown says:

    Just some thoughts on the Adam-God part of the original post. First, this was never a Doctrine or Official teaching of the church. For it to be such, it would have had to be presented to the priesthood body and sustained. This was never done. It is assumed that because a General Authority says something, it is therefore doctrine. It also seems to be an assumption that the prophets both modern and ancient were infallible. This is also not true. Rather, the Biblical text shows that many of the Biblical prophets shared different views on differing gospel topics. Last of all, is there any solid evidence of anyone being ex-communicated for not accepting the Adam-God THEORY??? I haven’t come across any, but if you have please share…..Thanks

  10. Berean says:

    This teaching by Brigham Young was given at the Salt Lake City Tabernacle on April 9, 1852. That means this was a conference address and you know what that means – it is scripture. D&C 68:3-4 says that it is. D&C 1:14 says that you “give heed to the words of the prophets” or “be cut off”. When Thomas Monson spoke this past October at the conference address were his words not scripture? Brigham Young made it very clear to the brethren what his words meant:

    “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good as Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:87)

    “I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations-that Brigham Young has said, ‘when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.’ I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good as scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:261)

    I thought the prophet would never lead the church astray?

    D&C 27:11; 88:21,112; 107:54; 116:1 & 138:8 teach the Adam-god theory whether the LDS people realize it or not. The title “Ancient of Days” is a title given to God in the Bible in Daniel 7:9-10, 13 & 22.

    If this teaching by Brigham Young is false, then that makes him a false prophet. Will the LDS Church own up to that? I’ll believe it when I see it. Modern day Mormons are embarrassed at the teachings of Brigham Young. They love Joseph Smith and he said that Brigham was, “Well beloved of the Lord” (D&C 126). Brigham’s in the spirit world doing missionary work (D&C 138:53-54). Aren’t Mormons today concerned that he is there still teaching the Adam-god doctrine and leading people astray?

    If this teaching is false, and all of us (LDS now and non-LDS) know it, then the LDS Church should remove D&C 136 (written by Brigham Young), remove the statues of this “crazy uncle” from Temple Square and rename Brigham Young University to what they really would like to name it – Joseph Smith University.

  11. faithoffathers says:

    What of Moses claiming to have “fetched water” for the children of Israel? God chastised him and punished him by not allowing him to enter into the promised land. Was Moses not a prophet?

    What of Noah’s drunkeness? Or Jonah refusing to do as God commanded? What of Peter’s denial of Christ- wow- how could anybody follow Peter after that? Moses’ manslaughter? The Lord had to intervene to keep Samuel from choosing the wrong king. What of Paul’s boasting that he had condemned Peter and “withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed?”

    Are these pillars in the Bible to be dismissed because of their weaknesses and sins? God has always had to deal with mortals as His representatives on the earth. Their fallability does not remove our responsibility to heed their warnings and guidance.

    It is naive to believe that the gospel was restored with a complete “blue-print” for the church handed off to Joseph Smith. Instructions were given step by step, a little here, a little there. It is easy to arm-chair quarterback after the fact and not appreciate the context and difficulty of what was done.

    Reverend J.R. Dummelow said the following of the Biblical prophets:

    “Though purified and ennobled by the influence of the Holy Spirit, these men each had his own peculiarities of manner and disposition – each with his own education or want of education – each with his own way of looking at things – each influenced differently from one another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines – it left them men.”

    I submit that using the same criteria used by critics here to dismiss modern prophets, a great many biblical prophets would be dismissed as well. It is easier to accept a dead prophet than a living one.

  12. falcon says:

    I think it’s either the Community of Christ or The Temple Lot sect of Mormonism that has pretty much repudiated everything Joseph Smith said and did after about 1832 and consider him a prophet that fell into apostasy. I believe they hold to the BoM and the original Book of Commandments. It’s really tough for Utah Mormons to get Mormonism straight as far as their prophets are concerned. They don’t know if they’re on foot or horseback when dealing with their “prophetic utterances”. For people who put so much stock in their leader/prophet, there seems to be a lot of confusion over what to accept and what not to accept. The cult-like mind-set of Utah Mormons and the FLDS puts the rank and file into a position of having to firmly believe in what the prophet says, regardless. But the Utahians can always fall back on the tried and true slogan of “there’s so much we don’t know and god is continually revealing more to us” slogan. So with that in mind it’s pretty easy to dump the old doctrine and still maintain the “integrity” of the old prophet who now looks like somebody’s crazy uncle. And if doubts regarding the entire system of authoritative prophets begin to creep in, do the personal testimony dance. There really aren’t enough fingers to poke in the leaks that sprout out of the Mormon dike trying to hold back the waters of reality that will eventually engulf Mormonism and sweep it away. It happens to individual members daily as they are unable anymore to resolve the unresolvable in Mormon history, doctrine and practice.

  13. “For it to be such, it would have had to be presented to the priesthood body and sustained”

    By that standard, the modern understanding of the Word of Wisdom is not official, neither the temple ceremony, nor the priesthood ban lift in the period between the announcement and corporate sustaining. Which is just silly.

    Brigham did not teach Adam-God like it was his favorite flavor of ice cream. He did not pad or couch his language in the rhetoric of opinion or conjecture. He threatened damnation on those who would reject it, and he integrated the teaching into the St. George LDS temple ceremony.

    And Bruce McConkie admitted in a private letter to Eugene England that Adam-God (as it is ascribed to him by the “cultists”, he said) was indeed taught by Brigham, albeit in a self-contradictory way given the sum of Young’s teachings. McConkie, knowing this, had the audacity to teach that Adam-God was a deadly, damnable heresy.

    So you have an allegedly true prophet who can teach false, deadly, damning heresy, integrate it into the temple, and preach it as soul-testing doctrine, and yet you want to pretend it was never “official” or “doctrine” in any meaningful sense. Why would I want to become a Mormon when you treat your leaders like this? If you can’t trust your leaders, why should I?

    I just came home from a family Christmas trip and we had to clean out our fridge of some rank items. Is this how the publicly repeated teachings prophets and apostles are also to be treated?

    Grace and peace,


  14. mobaby says:


    The Church I was a member of a few years back before we moved did an entire series on the sins of the prophets and leaders in the Bible: Moses – murderer, David – adulterer, murderer, Abraham – liar, fathered a child with Hagar (doubting God), etc. etc. However, let’s just speculate that Moses wrote a book that Egyptian god Horace was actually the true god and all Israel should worship at his shrine. He would then no longer be a true prophet – he would be an apostate and God would raise up a new prophet. Failing to do as God says and sinning show the humanity of the prophets. Proclaiming lies as God revealed truth shows the prophet to be no prophet at all.

  15. David says:

    For all Mormons,

    If you do not throw aside all you believe over one man, even if that one man is a prophet, then how many men would it take? I have yet for anyone to answer me on how a prophet of God can be held to a lower level, doctrinally wise, then rank-and-file Mormons. If one openly believes in Adam-God that is grounds for excommunication. So, why is/was not B. Young excommunicated (even posthumously)? How can a prophet of God use God’s supposed pulpit (general conference) to disseminate damnable heresy? How is it the apostles of God were unable or unwilling to stop the Adam God era of your church?

    Mormons, your top guy did not just error. He messed up as badly as one can. A prophet of God knows more about the things of God then average Joes that is why people follow him. B. Young cannot error this badly and still be a prophet; I am not asking for infallibility here. I am asking for a prophet of God to refrain from believing deadly, soul damning heresy. B. Young did not just error. Not filling up the car with case is a mistake or error. Leading Israel astray is far beyond an error. It is the job of the devil to do such things. It seems the only way to rescue the apostolic authority of Mormonism is to join one of the sects that never recognized B. Young as a prophet or accept Adam-God.

    The organizational structure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is good (not genius, but good) and there lots of activities and programs. Mormons actually require something of their members and that appeals to many people. There is loads of accountability at the ward level. However, people in formal and informal seats of power in Mormonism are often not held accountable. What we are looking for is theological accountability of Mormon leadership and it is conspicuously missing. Structure is not anything in and of itself. Amway has great structure. Great structure + Bad Theology = A Great Way to Lead People Astray.

    As far excommunication of Latter-day Saints for not believing Adam-God, that was perhaps a misstatement. The person I had in mind was Edward Bunker and he was disciplined for multiple things and Adam God was one of those. There was a court or hearing but no excommunication. So the word discipline would have been better.

    Also, there is a case of one Scott Anderson in 1884. The term used for him is “disfellowshipped“. (“for apostasy’). That is not the same as excommunicated at least not in the modern sense. It is possible that he was actually excommunicated and the term “disfellowshipped” was used. It seems as though excommunication is being referenced as the guy was trying to leave the church. I am not sure if disfellowshipped meant the same as it does in modern, formal LDS usage of the term. Scott Anderson left for many reasons and Adam God was one of them. He was “disfellowshipped” for apostasy and no correction as to his stance or the LDS church’s on Adam God was given. The link for the letter(s) is here :

    Suffice it to state, Adam-God was a common belief of many Mormons (not just Young’s personal opinion). It was also backed up with church discipline. Dare, I say that Apostle Orson Pratt was disciplined over Adam-God? If the man who holds all the keys can be so mistaken about the nature of God then the restoration is useless, needs to happen again, or never happened in the first place.

    So, if Thomas Monson were to take an unpopular and heretical stance on an issue, I think Mormons would do what they have done in the past when faced with unpopular doctrines. That is lay low on the particular issue until the reigning (false) prophet dies, then blow off his teaching. Even later and they will call it heresy. They may even go so far as to say that Thomas Monson never embraced such a position.

  16. What do you know of those men who lead the church and prayed for years for this decision?

    I know that while considering the conditions of society and one’s life experiences, I can have sympathy on a racist, but racism is still wrong, period. No exceptions. There is sufficient evidence in scripture and in the natural order of things to know that. And the Mormon Church refuses—out of a jaw-dropping arrogance—to give any explicit apology for what it as an institution has “promoted, perpetuated, enforced, and acquiesced to.” This racism was even promoted in a First Presidency statement. So here is the point: Your institution boasts of an inspired leadership that never leads its people astray. And when it does lead people astray, you make excuses for it.

    I’m not making excuses for my Protestant forefathers. But I’m not particularly tempted to, either, to the degree that Catholics and Mormons are, because my religion isn’t at all at stake when considering the faults of past teachers. As I wrote, “When Mormonism touts what it calls ‘continuing revelation’, living prophets, living apostles, and a modern stream of prophetic counsel, it ups the ante.”

    I recognize that I cannot today understand fully what Brigham Young was saying or meaning

    There are plenty of other Mormons who sufficiently understand what Young taught. No offense, but maybe you just haven’t given the study of the subject a valiant effort? Also, by implying that a valiant study of the subject doesn’t yield a reasonable understanding of what Young taught, you are implying that the scores of other Mormons who have included that Brigham indeed taught Adam-God have made an unwarranted conclusion. For the sake of integrity, you need to take that issue up with your fellow Mormons before you take it up with us.

    But I do not throw out everything I know because of one man.

    This “one man” Brigham Young was not a mere “one man” like C.S. Lewis or Mark Twain. He was a self-purported prophet. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either he was a true prophet or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, then your religion is a fraud. If you’re going to boast and pride yourself in a historic succession of reliable prophets, then you need to account for what Blake Ostler calls the “disaster” of Brigham Young’s theology. You need to demonstrate that a prophet can be a true prophet and be, generally speaking, a “disaster” when it comes to the distictive theology he publicly and repeatedly promoted from institutional venues like General Conference and the endowment ceremony. The bar is higher for true prophets than Mormonism purports. It hedges and whines and complains that no man is perfect, but good grief, we are not talking about mere imperfection here, and we’re not talking about mere personal moral failures. We are talking about theological disasters.

    the vast majority of members I know (quite a few) by a huge margin believe in Thomas S. Monson as a prophet of God and do not make such arguments.

    You need to have a personal conversation with some BYU professors and confront them with what LDS leaders continue to teach from institutional channels, including, for example, the issue of 2 Nephi 25:23. BYU professors write books that essentially rebuke members for believing what the LDS prophets teach (see Alonzo Gaskill’s recent “Odds Are You’re Going to be Exalted”).

    I do not believe the church leaders get a “free pass.”

    Then give them a parking fine. Brigham Young has parked his car in the prophet parking lot but didn’t get a pass at the front desk of the department of thou-shall-not-preach-false-doctrine.

    At every level of the church, there is just this kind of accountability and shepherding

    Have you read Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith? You might complain of the denominational anarchy of evangelicalism, but Brigham Young was a spiritual tyrant. Read the book with an eye on the Adam-God issue, as well as on the issue of whether God is still learning. Then tell us: What kind of accountability was Brigham Young under while he wielded his destructive doctrinal sword?

    Mormonism vaunts itself in the most pretentious of ways over the benefits of being under its oligarchy, but it has categorically failed to yield the supposed benefits of having a inspired, strict hierarchy: It has turned into a giant fog machine, with apologists and BYU professors making excuses for prophets and apostles, assuring us that the Golden Fifteen are simply too busy with administrative tasks to fix all the doctrinal holes and contradictions, too busy to give the kind of theological clarity that can heal the broken soul. Even after over 175 years of a “continual stream” of prophetic inspiration and counsel and direct access to God, Mormon leadership has essentially arrived at a point in history where it has less doctrine, less content, less enthusiasm, and less lucidity than it had in the 19th century. Conference Center has turned into a spiritual funeral parlor, an ironic fact give that is where they displayed the body of Gordon B. Hinckley days after his death. Mormons themselves simply aren’t satisfied with the water that comes from the river of their own leaders, and go to non-official streams—to other shelves in Deseret Book—for something more enlightening and fulfilling.

    As for me and my family, we will not drink from the river of what Blake Ostler calls a “disaster”. And going downstream in Mormon history won’t help, either, because the water is still tainted. It is absolutely inappropriate to tell people to drink from such a polluted river, advertising it as clean and refreshing and pure, only to hand them a BYU water purifier and tell them to save themselves from the diseases that come from the excrement of Mormonism’s own leaders.

    Sincerely and passionately,


  17. GB says:


    Wow, nice try there. Thanks for this quote though. “I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good as scripture as is couched in this Bible, . . .” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:261)

    So since Brigham NEVER “copied and approved” the “Adam-God” theory, it isn’t scripture. I am glad to see you guys admit that. Thanks.

    And just so you know, the “Ancient of Days” is a title given to Adam/Michael and when used in the Bible in Dan 7:9, 10, 13 & 22 it is referring to Adam/Michael and NOT God.

    A prophet is only false if he meets the definition of a false prophet as found in Deu. Although it is a separate topic, I have yet to see any proof that ANY of the LDS Latter-Day prophets are false, even though many have tried.

    It is interesting that you guys have to make up ridiculous hypotheticals to find something to be critical about. Isn’t that “grasping at straws”?

  18. Arthur Sido says:


    “Let me understand you. Do you claim that there was no priesthood at all after Christ? Are you saying there was no church organization with offices and heirarchy?”

    Where can you show me one place, just one place, where we see mention of any of the early church leaders holding a human priesthood? There certainly is a priesthood after the cross, it is held by Christ as our great high priest.

    There is a world of difference between having church offices, which of course every Christian affirms, and having a human priesthood that never existed in the apostolic age. You are claiming to have restored something that never existed. The pastoral epistles are clear on the qualifications for an elder or a deacon, and nowhere do we see a “priesthood” mentioned. Indeed based on the qualification for elders and deacons, most of the young men in the mormon church are not even qualified to hold those offices.

  19. Pingback: Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience « GUNDECK

  20. gundeck says:

    With all of this conflicting testimony is it any wonder that Mormons are always concerned with authority, keys, ordinations, and other man made symbols of power to lead and dictate doctrine to the church?

    The Bible plainly tells us that Christ is the sole authority. It also tells is that we are not bound to follow men when there is a conflict with God’s Word (Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29, 1 Cor. 7:23, Matt. 23:8–10, 2 Cor. 1:24, Matt. 15:9). It also tells is never to offer blind obedience to men. If all of this sound familiar it should if you are a “Westminster” man or a Confessing (1687) Baptist.

    God alone is Lord of the conscience, (James 4:12, Rom. 14:4) and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. (Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29, 1 Cor. 7:23, Matt. 23:8–10, 2 Cor. 1:24, Matt. 15:9) So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: (Col. 2:20,22–23, Gal. 1:10, Gal. 2:4–5, Gal. 5:1) and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. (Rom. 10:17, Rom. 14:23, Isa. 8:20, Acts 17:11, John 4:22, Hos. 5:11, Rev. 13:12,16–17, Jer. 8:9)

  21. faithoffathers says:

    Passionate Aaron,

    I have not “brushed aside” the issues you brought up as you claim. I do not make any “excuses” for the blacks and the priesthood issue. I fully believe the 1978 revelation was nothing less than a revelation from God. I don’t have to excuse anything.

    You gave no response to my example in the Bible of God limiting the exercise of the priesthood to one lineage (Levi). Why was it not racist for Christ to limit His ministering to those of Israel and neglect the gentiles? If you want to look condescendingly at the LDS prophets, please apply the same standards to ancient prophets and Christ Himself.

    Again on Brigham Young- I told you clearly that what he taught (Adam-God) was wrong. I make no excuse for him. But I was not there and didn’t know him personally, and when looking at other times when he clearly taught that God and Adam were separate beings, I must be open to the possibility that I am not understanding him perfectly. And I related what McConkie said- that Brigham Young would have to answer to God for that doctrine.

    You said “Mormon leadership has essentially arrived at a point in history where it has less doctrine, less content, less enthusiasm, and less lucidity than it had in the 19th century.”

    That is your opinion and nothing more. Some people suffer from the child in the back seat syndrome- are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet. Unless God provides some grand manifestation or proof at regular intervals we lose interest and faith. Remember, the Bible is a record that spans over 4 thousand years. Miraculous manifestations were not occuring every year or decade, and it is naive to believe they did. You find todays prophets “boring.” I don’t, and the other LDS I know do not either. Maybe that is why you are not a member! Can you accept that other people do not believe as you do?

    David- you said “people in formal and informal seats of power in Mormonism are often not held accountable.” Do you want to provide some support or proof of this statement? How in the world do you know? Reading stories on the internet?


    “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5

    “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” 1 Peter 2:9

    “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.” Mark 3:14

    “the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
    And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” Acts 13:2-3

    “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” Hebrews 5:1

    “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Heb 5:4

    Bishops, deacons, etc.- all mentioned in the NT.

    And, once again- what of those “Keys” Christ promised to give to Peter when He said “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Nobody has made any attempt to explain what these “keys” are- any takers?

    So after Christ’s resurrection, we have the presence of a “priesthood” in the church. There were men called of God, not of man, who were ordained by having hands laid upon their heads, and received power to administer in the things of God, including healing the sick and preaching the gospel. And of course Peter who received the “keys of the kingdom.” And they had different offices- bishops, deacons, etc. The apostles laid their hands upon Stephen and commissioned him to preach.

    It certainly seems like the priesthood authority was fundamental to the early church, just as it is today.



  22. GB says:


    Are you repudiating the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers?

    If priesthood was not had in the early christian church, explain to me why Paul spent the entire book of Hebrews trying to explain something that no longer existed?

  23. gundeck says:


    So you think that the thousands serving the “Ancient of Days” in Dan 7:10 were serving Adam/Michael and the “Son of Man” when presented to the “Ancient of Days” in Dan 7:13 was being presented to Adam/Michael, and the “Ancient of Days” coming in judgment in Dan 7:22 was Adam/Michael?

    In this Mormon view who is the “Son of Man”?

  24. gundeck says:

    Can Joseph Smith pass the Deuteronomy 18:22 prophet test. Three easy ones.

    1. PGP Joseph Smith History 1:40 “In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled.” The second part of this verse, the Acts 3:23-24 is difficult to establish.

    “About to be” is hard to define, but 178 years seems to be on the outside of reasonable. I think we can call the Acts 3:23-24 prophesy a draw as unprovable.

    2. D&C 29:8-9 The Saints will assemble in 1 place and the wicked will be stubble etc.

    “For the hour is nigh and the day soon at hand” is also hard to define but 178 years seem a little long for this too.

    3. D&C 28:9-11 For the hour is nigh for the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

    “For the hour is nigh” is also ambiguous as to an exact date, but something less than 179 years seems reasonable again. Especially when compared to the “For the hour is nigh and the day soon at hand”, one would expect that “For the hour is nigh” would be a shorter time period due to the lack of the “day soon at hand” I am of course assuming that these time periods are additive 1 nigh hour + 1 day soon at hand > 1 nigh hour.

    Just a guess?

  25. Berean says:


    You seem to be missing the point that Brigham Young gave this sermon as a conference address in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle. D&C 68:4 says that this makes his words scripture. Brigham Young had scribes following him around everywhere he went writing down all that he said especially his sermons. It was copied down in the Journal of Discourses and Deseret Books sells the whole set for $550. I’d encourage you to go place your order and learn about all the other crazy teachings that are in there too. LDS institute manuals quote from the Journal of Discourses constantly so it’s obvious that this massive resource must still be authoritative. These quotes were also copied down and published in the Millennaial Star, Volume 15, pages 769-770 in addition to the Journal of Discourses. How many places should they be copied down? These quotes are not hard to understand:

    “Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:46)

    “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:46)

    You’re wrong about Daniel 7: 9, 10, 13 & 22 not referring to God. In the Bible this is clearly talking about God the Father because there is a distinction made between Him and the Son in verse 13. Does Adam fit the description of who is described in these verses? No! If Adam was Michael in the first estate and then became Adam in the second estate, then how did Adam go back to being Michael again in the account in Jude 9?

  26. GB says:


    We KNOW that the “Ancient of days” is Adam/Michael!!!!

    The “Son of Man” is Jesus Christ.

    If the timing of Joseph Smiths prophecies are a problem then the timing of Jesus Christ’s prophecies MUST REALLY be a problem for you

    7 Behold, I COME QUICKLY: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
    . . .
    12 And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    . . .
    20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I COME QUICKLY. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (EMPHASIS MINE)

    Is 1900 years a problem for you? Does 1900 years seem “to be on the outside of reasonable”?


    As is too often the case, you fail to understand LDS scripture, in this case D&C 68:4. Just because a Latter-Day prophet/Apostle is speaking, doesn’t mean he is being “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”.

    Just because you say Brigham Young had scribes follow him around doesn’t mean a thing. You can’t show that he “copied and approved” any of the Journal of discourses you quote from because he didn’t. LOL!!!

    If you think the stuff in the JoD is “crazy teachings”, maybe you should listen to some of those “Christian” pastors. (Jeremiah Wright is the first that comes to mind). I get a laugh every time I listen to one of them.

    And just because “you” think it may be crazy doesn’t make it so.

    “Does Adam fit the description of who is described in these verses?”


    Adam didn’t have to “go back to being Michael again” because he always was Michael. A person can be known by two different names or even three or more.

  27. mobaby says:

    So from your analysis, when Thomas Monson gets up and speaks at conference the latter day saints say “that’s just his mere speculation, not authoritative or divinely inspired, and he could possibly if not probably be wrong. I’ll wait 20 or 30 years and see how it pans out.” I think you are on to something here.

    For reasons completely different from yours, I think the this approach to “latter day prophets” teaching within more and more of the LDS community and many here at Mormon Coffee rings true. I have no problem with discarding Brigham Young’s aberrant teachings, and hopefully the list of teachings which you reject will continue to grow. I am not just saying this, I do hope you will continue to examine the teachings with a critical eye in light of the Bible and begin to see that the list of bad theology doesn’t end with Adam-God. Examining what your church teaches in light of the Bible is the beginning of good theology – this is something everyone should do.

  28. gundeck says:


    You may want to check your keyboard. Your exclamation mark key is stuck.

    I find it instructive that your response to the Deuteronomy 18:22 prophet test on Joseph Smith is to attack the Bible.

    You asked if I have a problem with Revelation 22:6, 12, and 20. Honestly no. I do not see a problem. I take a historical post-millennial, what is now regarded as an amillennial, view to eschatology. Is there a conflict with these passages and time? Simply there is not if you understand the “already / not yet” view of the Kingdom of God. We believe that Christ is currently (already) ruling the Kingdom of God but that at the Eschaton (not yet) His Kingdom will be revealed in all its glory. As I understand it, your church holds to a literal millennium so I can see how these passages can cause you problems.

    For more on Reformed Eschatology consult “A Case for Amillennialism”, by Kim Riddlebarger or “More Than Conquerors” by William Hendriksen.

    Your position on Dan 7:9, 10, 13 & 22 referring to Adam/Michael is frankly hard for me to fathom. First your assumption that angels are in any way related to humanity is not supported by scripture. The creation of angels has nothing to do with the creation of man (Genesis 2:1 and Hebrews 2:5-8). Second there is no explanation for the worship/service of “Ancient of Days” in Dan 7:10 if this is an angel/man (Matt 4:10; 2 Cor 13:14; Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; Rom 1:25). Third there is certainly no explanation that does not cross into heresy than can explain why Jesus Christ would be presented to an angel/man as occurs in Dan 7:13-14 and “given dominion and glory and a kingdom…”

    Can Joseph Smith pass the Deuteronomy 18:22 prophet test, part two? One easy one…

    D&C 45:64-74, From Kirtland, Ohio, March 7, 1831 A prophesy to build Zion in Missouri, it “…shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints.”

    How did that Missouri Zion thing work out?

  29. falcon says:

    Mormons generally lead with the “we have a living prophet” line when talking to potential recruits. What they fail to expose however is that their living prophets have an abysmal record when it comes to their prophetic utterances. SLC Mormons are stuck with the recorded prophetic words of their past leaders. So they’re constantly hustling with the “counts, doesn’t count” line which actually serves them well since it’s then tough to nail them down on anything. It all comes down to the individual testimony of the Mormon believer anyway. Nothing else really matters. They read the BoM and got the feeling proving of course to them that it’s “all” true regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

  30. GB says:


    I find it instructive that your response is to put forth a double standard. (Not really a surprise). You are quite content to look the other way when considering timing of prophesies recorded in the Bible, yet are hyper critical with regard to Joseph Smith’s prophesies. There is a word for such usage of double standards. I am personally disappointed in your use of a double standard, as I had come to expect better from you.

    FYI, NO WHERE did I attack the Bible!!!!

    I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the Biblical passages I quoted. I have a problem with your use of a double standard.

    And just because you don’t understand the Daniel verses and what they are referring to, doesn’t cause a problem for the LDS view of them.

    And your assumption that angels are not related to humanity is not supported by scripture. See Heb 13:2 and Rev 19:10 (What part of “fellow servant” don’t you understand?).

    Also you might want to actually read that entire piece by Dan Peterson that you pointed me to, because it is apparent that you haven’t.

    I had assumed that you would start with your best shot. But now that the weakness of your “best shot” argument has been exposed, you want another bite at the apple so to speak.

    The truth of the matter is this, just because gundeck is unhappy with the Lord’s timing doesn’t make Joseph Smith a false prophet.

    And by the way, these are nothing new. Not that I expected anything new. Just the same old refuted garbage.

  31. gundeck says:

    You’ll want to check your keyboard again. Your exclamation mark key is still stuck.

    Hebrews 13:2 proves that angels may walk among us and has more to do with the exercise of charity to people we do not know than the nature of angels. I think if you look at my last comment you will find that I quoted Revelation 19:10 to helpfully explain that we do not worship or serve angels because they are not God. We do not worship the creature only the creator. Fellow servant of God does not mean future or past human. This does not even prove a pre-existence of the soul much less that we were angels in this pre-existence.

    This text seems in direct conflict with your view of Daniel 7:10 and the worship/service that is going on, as Adam/Michael is an angel/man in your view that we are commanded not to worship/serve according to Revelation 19:10.

    I submit that all you have proven is that angels are biblical. If this is your point then, I agree. You have not shown that man has any relationship with angels (other than being the product of the same creator), that man is the same species as angels, or that man was or ever will become and angel.

    You accuse me of having a double standard, in this I disagree. I have said that I am a confessional Reformed Presbyterian. I have quoted from and linked to my Confessions. I have consistently argued based on a Reformed theology. I will even give you my secret. Most of the Scripture quotes I use come directly from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Shorter and Larger Catechisms. My theology is an open book. My reference to Amillennialism was to ensure that you were aware that I am not a preterist as this has been making a appearance in some Reformed circles.

    To eliminate double standard accusations please explain to me the already/not yet eschatology of PGP Joseph Smith History 1:40; D&C 29:8-9; D&C 28:9-11; and D&C 45:64-74. Show me how these events have already and continue to take place but that they are only expected to be fulfilled completely in the Eschaton. I am sure you won’t use my eschatology but I am sure that you must have some logical explanation.

    I hate to disappoint you but the few Deuteronomy 18:22 prophet tests that I have shown are no where near the best stuff. I have only used material from the LDS standard works as they appear today. I have not include his prophesies from his sermons, speeches, and non-LDS sourced material. I have not include examples where the original Book of Commandments was changed to fix prophesies after the fact. I don’t expect any of this to be new to you, I would be surprised if you hadn’t heard of them.

    I am sitting hear with a busted knee and the only interaction with the text that you will give me is advice to read an article I gave you, a capitol I KNOW, and a stuck exclamation point key on you keyboard. Toss me a bone. Why don’t your explain how my view is wrong? I hope that I have proven that I will engage you openly and honestly.

  32. mobaby says:


    A horse and a ranch hand can both be the servants of a farmer – it doesn’t make them the same thing. There is no scripture that points to men and angels being the same thing. The scripture you sited above seems to say quite the opposite. It had to be stated that angels are “fellow servants” and not to be worshiped – indicating that there is a difference between men and angels, otherwise why would people be tempted to worship them – hey it’s just a man, no big deal. He saw the glory of the angels and were tempted to worship a created being and not the one true God. Also, if men are angels, wouldn’t we be entertaining angels unawares all the time? Like right now, if you’re an angel, you would read this and possibly be entertained and I would be entertaining an angel? No, angels take the form of human beings at times and people have entertained angels unawares (mistakenly thinking they were men and NOT angels). If you read the Bible in it’s entirety it is quite apparent that angels are different than human beings. I think Joseph Smith had the common misconception that pervades the non-Christian culture that angels are dead human beings and he translated this over to the theology of the LDS Church. LDS doctrine of men, angels and God being all of the same species is found no where in scripture and comes from the great presumption of one man – whose source was his own imagination.

  33. gundeck says:


    This reminds me of two terms that I have been exposed to lately. 1 The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC) and 2 The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE). I see the certainty coming from the living prophet with revelation and the experience the “still small voice” personal revelation to each saint.

  34. gundeck says:


    Another comment before we get totally sidelined off the topic. What if my minister were to preach something totally over the top on any issue? How would I know? I mean he went to seminary and speaks more dead languages than I speak. He went to graduate school and has more letters after his name than I have in my name. In theory he could swamp me in exegesis of the text to the point that I wouldn’t know what to say.

    I have a protection against this in my denominations confession. I have a protection in the Forms of Unity; the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Shorter and Longer Catechisms. These historic confessions offer a systematic statement of Reformed theology, piety, and practice easily understood. Chapters XX, XXX, and XXXI of the WCF clearly defend my Christian liberty, and place me under the discipline of Christ’s Church and its councils.

    If tomorrow I found myself at odds with the WCF then I would be obliged to present it to the Church. If we were unable to come to an agreement, I would be obliged to remove myself from the denomination. At the same time the denomination does not have the option to bind my beliefs outside of the confession or to claim a change in the confession without going through the councils of the Church.

    In the same way that the liturgy protects the faithful in worship, the confession protects the faithful in belief.

  35. Ralph says:


    If you are considering throwing JS out because of unfulfilled or partially fulfilled prophecies what are you going to do with the prophets of the Bible? If you look up on the internet a page called “Skeptics Annotated Bible” then on the right hand side choose ‘Prophecies’, it shows a great deal of prophecies made in the Bible which did not get fulfilled. I will agree that some of them are yet to be fulfilled and the reader/s do not understand this, but there are some that cannot be interpreted any other way than having failed to be completed. There are many other ‘interesting’ things on that site about the Bible, as well as annotated versions of the BoM and Koran. But if you wish to ‘attack’ the BoM and our prophets then please answer all of the questions properly using science, history and archaeology, not just because it was God’s hand/influence, then I may start thinking you have something. If you can’t, then I hold to my testimony of the BoM and our current prophets as well as my testimony of the Bible and it’s prophets.

  36. GB says:


    It appears that we can agree on these two things.

    1. Angels and men are God’s creation
    2. Angels and men look exactly alike in other words they are both created in the image of God. Unless you are agreeing with mobaby’s argument that your “angels take the form of human beings at times”, in other words your angels appear as something they are not, making your angels creatures of deception and not truth.

    So far you haven’t presented a discriminator between them.

    As far as LDS eschatology, this forum isn’t conducive to its discussion. I will say that there is no conflict with the following passages.

    Job 19: 25 he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
    Ps. 24: 7 King of glory shall come.
    Ps. 102: 16 Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.
    Isa. 40: 5 glory of the Lord shall be revealed.
    Isa. 52: 10 all . . . earth shall see the salvation of our God.
    Isa. 63: 1 Who is this that cometh . . . with dyed garments.
    Dan. 7: 13 (Matt. 26: 64; Luke 21: 25-28) Son of man came with the clouds of heaven.
    Joel 3: 16 Lord also shall roar out of Zion.
    Micah 1: 3 Lord . . . will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.
    Zech. 12: 10 shall look upon me whom they have pierced.
    Zech. 13: 6 say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands.
    Zech. 14: 4 his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount.
    Mal. 3: 2 who may abide the day of his coming.
    Matt. 16: 27 (Matt. 25: 31) Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father.
    Matt. 24: 3 what shall be the sign of thy coming.
    Matt. 24: 30 then shall appear the sign cf the Son of man.
    Matt. 24: 36 of that day and hour knoweth no man.
    Acts 1: 11 come in like manner as ye have seen him go.
    Acts 3: 20 he shall send Jesus Christ.
    1 Cor. 15: 23 they that are Christ’s at his coming.
    1 Thes. 4: 16 Lord himself shall descend from heaven.
    2 Thes. 1: 7 Jesus shall be revealed from heaven.
    2 Thes. 2: 8 that Wicked . . . whom the Lord . . . shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
    2 Pet. 3: 10 Lord will come as a thief in the night.
    Jude 1: 14 Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.
    Rev. 1: 7 every eye shall see him.
    Rev. 3: 11 (Rev. 2: 5; Rev. 2: 16; Rev. 22: 7, 12, 20) I come quickly.
    Rev. 6: 17 great day of his wrath is come.

  37. GB says:


    Oops! Sorry I missed something!!

    It appears that we can agree on these two things!!

    1. Angels and men are God’s creation!!
    2. Angels and men look exactly alike in other words they are both created in the image of God. Unless you are agreeing with mobaby’s argument that your “angels take the form of human beings at times”, in other words your angels appear as something they are not, making your angels creatures of deception and not truth!!

    So far you haven’t presented a discriminator between them!!!!!!!

    There!! Fixed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  38. Ralph says:

    Sorry, just had a quick read through my last comment and realised I made a small mistake.

    What I meant to say was – if you could answer ALL of the questions about the Bible on the Skeptics page then I may consider your comments about the BoM. Until then I will hold to my testimony of the BoM, the modern prophets and the Bible.

  39. David says:

    How did we get on the topic of angels and eschatology? How about authority and the (hypothetical) question at hand? How about Adam-God? How about the question of what to do if Thomas Monson hits on you or your wife? What do you do if you are told to bring another spouse into your marriage? The last two questions are legit as early Mormons faced these same questions.

    How far do things have to go before you jump from The-Good-Ship-Mormon? How many errors from the First Presidency would it take? What kind of errors? If you embraced a restoration of Christ’s church could you go along with another? What is the basis of your faith?


    So what if B. Young’s Adam-God sermon is not scripture? Although, a solid argument could be put forth that it is. You are still faced with a prophet believing in damnable heresy. How can you reconcile his beliefs with your church’s current view of Adam- God? Again, how bad would it have to get? Suppose B. Young (or some future prophet) ascribes to the Satan-God doctrine . . . but only in private? Tell me, should I really go to General Conference for spiritual food if there is a possibility that I will hear deadly, damnable heresy?

  40. Berean says:

    Let’s get back to the original thread topic that Aaron wrote and the hypothetical question – the “what if”. If Thomas Monson, the Pope or John Piper started teaching that homosexuality was now not a sin and morally praiseworthy, then I think three different scenarios would take place.

    For the Roman Catholics, there would be an official statement from the Vatican or on EWTN cable network stating that the Pope is suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s now in his old age and he needs to rest and be cared for until Mother Mary beckons him back to her Son and we would have seen the last of him until the offical papal funeral in Rome.

    If John Piper came out with this there would be no press release and it wouldn’t probably make the news. Christians that are alert and know their Bibles would renounce this as false teaching. The Biblical guidelines of church discipline would be followed as laid out in the Gospels. If John Piper would not repent, then his church should put him out for the heretic that he has become just like Ted Hagard’s church did him. Christians who know their Bible will be testing what ministers will be saying and determining whether or not it meets the Biblical standard (1 Thes 5:21; Acts 17:10-11).

    If Thomans Monson came out with this, then my guess would be that the LDS brethren would accept it and swallow it like other “bad medicine” they have been forced to swallow in the past that didn’t line up with past doctrines. Mormons know what the stakes are if one of their prophets is labeled a false prophet. It throws the whole system of successive prophet and priesthood theory right out the window. There can’t be a modern day prophet after Joseph Smith to “fall off the ladder”. Ezra Taft Benson made some unusual comments in his old age and the church did a good job of not presenting him to the public from that point on. Up until 1978 no Mormon would have never believed that the LDS priesthood would accept blacks into it. It was unthinkable. When it was presented to the faithful, what did they do? They accepted it, rewrote their books that had derogatory language in it towards the blacks and then put on this front like they loved the blacks the whole time. It’s quite remarkable. Mormons believe that homosexuals are the Mormon god’s literal children. We may live to see the revelation come that has the Mormon god giving a “free pass” to the homosexuals because the homosexual is made in his image.

    I equate the Mormon Church and its prophet to an account I have first hand knowledge of and will use it as an analogy. Several winters ago up in Wyoming while trucking on the flats, there was a winter storm going on. It was “white-out” conditions and one could barely see the road in front of them. In most cases like this all truckers will slow down and follow the truck in front of them. This means at some point up ahead there is one truck that is the leader and it is following nobody but what the driver thinks is where the road actually is. This driver thought he was following what he believed to be lines on the pavement that in reality could no longer be seen. He kept going and drove right off the side of a mountain embankment. Guess what happened? That’s right, the trucks right behind him followed right off the edge as well! At some point there were other trucks in the back that came to their senses and slammed on the brakes and stopped further travesty.

    My analogy is this: the prophet of the Mormon Church is the lead truck and the Mormon people are the trucks following in the back. They will follow him blindly no matter what even if it means absolute destruction (and they don’t realize it – that’s the sad part). They will accept doctrines, teachings and revelations that contradict all of these from the past and make excuses for it all under the label of the “spirit of revelation”. They are told to never question the prophet and “when the prophet speaks, the discussion is over”. This is dangerous. God’s Word has given us clear instructions on how to test a prophet or whoever is supposedly speaking as a vessel from the Almighty.

    The Christians (non-Mormons) are like the trucks way in the background. When we hear or read of heresy we “slam on the brakes” to false doctrines and revelations that don’t square up with the Bible. We just don’t keep following along with no questions ask. When the Jeremiah Wright’s, Joel Osteen’s, Benny Hinn’s, Ted Hagard’s, Jimmy Swaggart’s, etc., decide to “run off the cliff” we don’t follow them. We yell up ahead and warn them to stop. We plead with them to cease the heresy, but then there comes a point when we just “pull over and park it”. We reject these people as ministers of the gospel. We grieve over it, but we can’t follow them because they are in biblical error. It would be sad to learn of John Piper supposedly doing this, but we would live and go on as much as it would hurt us. We would pray that he would repent so we could welcome back into “the fold” with open arms just in the same way that Christians today hope and pray that the Mormons will repent of their heresy and in following a succsssion of false prophets from Thomas Monson and going all the way back to Joseph Smith.

  41. faithoffathers says:


    The simple truth is that LDS follow the prophet just as ancient people followed ancient prophets. If you criticize our allegience, you must be willing to find the same criticism of the ancient “followers.” In ancient as in modern times, there are times that following a prophet means not knowing exactly the reason for what is being asked. I would say of my own life, which is probably pretty typical of LDS, it is not very often that I am doing something related to the church out of “blind faith.” In other words, it is a mischaracterization to say we follow in blind faith. I do not think that is true at all.

    Was Abraham exercizing “blind faith” when he intended to sacrifice Isaac. I would say no because although he did not know why the Lord gave him that command, He KNEW the Lord and trusted Him fully. I suggest that if a person never ever has to extend his action into the realm of unsurity, trusting in his knowledge of the Lord, he is never developing or exercizing true faith.

    Throughout history, there are plenty of people who do not take that step, or who find “enough” fault with God’s prophets to keep them from following. We will all answer for ourselves.

    LDS are encouraged and taught to obtain their own testimonies of every principle of the gospel and of every new prophet. And of course there are varying degrees to which members follow that counsel. But to say we follow blindly is simply not true. We may not see everything, but we see enough to warrant our faith and action.

    I really sense that our ability to trust, or what you would describe as “blind faith,” very much bothers you and others here. You and I know much of the same information, or data about the church (I am very confident I have studied the BOM, POGP, D&C significantly more, though). So why the different conlcusions? Am I blind? We certainly are not both right. I can see how everything revealed in modern times fits absolutely beautifully with all ancient revelations and history. Why is this? I was converted to the gopel myself, really with no outside influences- not even missionaries. In other words, I have no compelling reason, be it family, financial, social, or intellectual to intimidate me into anything.

    You said “Up until 1978 no Mormon would have ever believed that the LDS priesthood would accept blacks into it. It was unthinkable. ” You are simply wrong. The leaders had prayed and supplicated the Lord for this for decades. I and most in the church I knew at the time knew it was only a matter of time, either in this life or the next, before the Lord extended all His blessings to all people. What was the response- relief and joy. You and others here really can only see the outside, worldy perspective of that event and base your conclusions on that.

    As far as the church accepting homosexuality as morally OK- that is all conjecture and speculation. There is no basis for it. In fact, it is ironic that there are now many protestant churches making that change in doctrine and policy. Who has been most outspoken and been willing to take PR hits for its stand against homosexual marriage, etc.? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly is near the top of that list. So you really have no basis on which to make such statements.

  42. faithoffathers says:


    If you knew the Book of Mormon, you would see how closely the patterns and prophecies outlined in it fit modern history, especially with Israel, the United States, and the world outside of those two nations. If you could only see the things that sincere study of that book makes obvious. There is so much truth hidden and unhidden in its pages. I came to a whole new understanding of the book when my eyes really opened after reading it for the twenty-fifth time or so. But detractors who focus on one verse here and there will never ever see it. The Lord planned it that way for a reason.

    So the Book of Mormon, the greatest proof of Joseph Smith’s prophetic call, is filled with such prophecy that you, unfortunately, cannot see.

  43. gundeck says:


    I am not throwing out Joseph Smith as a prophet because of partially or not yet fulfilled prophesies. I am throwing him out, in part, because he cannot pass the test laid down in Deuteronomy 18:20-22. This is not a test that I made up to be arbitrarily.

    I am well aware of the Skeptics Annotated Bible. I have also seen their BoM. Frankly I refuse to use any of the material because the view of the Bible presented there is so inane that I would not insult you by quoting from it.

    Can you explain why the only response to the 4 Deuteronomy 18:20-22 tests for Joseph Smith is to attack the Bible? I know both you and GB will deny that you are attacking the Bible. You claim that I am unduly holding Smith to a standard that I would not hold Moses to. Then prove it. Have you thought about presenting a positive defense?

    Come to think of it on the subject of this post none of the Mormons have presented their position on controlling authority. They have argued that this prophet was speculating on this subject or this general authority does not speak for the church or we didn’t vote on it so it does not count. Is there a standard, a controlling authority or is it all done democratically? Is the living prophet more senior in revelatory power than say Ezra? Is he senior to Samuel, Isaiah, Paul?

    I think you will find that I have clearly laid out the complexity of Christian Liberty and Church authority from the orthodox Reformed view. I have included some, not all, of the Bible passages that brought the Reformers and Divines to this position. Why don’t you explain how having a living prophet works? Just from the discussions above it must be much more complicated than some think. Why don’t you explain your views on voting for prophets and their pronouncements.

    You surly have better than an atheist website.

  44. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    Heber J. Grant, the seventh LDS Prophet, said, “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” If President Grant’s directive is an accurate representation of how Latter-day Saints follow their prophets, then the statement, “LDS follow the prophet just as ancient people followed ancient prophets” may be true to some extent, but it is not praiseworthy.

    In the Old Testament, God does not instruct people to follow the prophets wherever they may lead. God tells His people to be discerning because if they end up listening to and accepting a false prophet they will suffer dire consequences.

    In Jeremiah 14, Jeremiah tries to divert God’s judgment against the people by making excuses — they were unaware that the prophets they were responding to were not actually speaking for God. But God pointed out that the people preferred the message of the false prophets to the message of the true prophet (Jeremiah) and would therefore be disciplined. “And the people they [the false prophets] are prophesying to will be thrown out into the streets…I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve” (Jeremiah 14:16).

    I’m glad to hear Mormons do not blindly follow their prophets. But I hope they realize their individual, God-given responsibility for the choices they make, just as the people of Israel were responsible for their responses (as are we all) to those claiming to speak for God.

    Which message are you going to embrace – Heber J. Grant’s or Jeremiah’s?

  45. gundeck says:


    I am sorry this is where my tradition does not let me speculate. Because the Bible does not say that the angels are made in God’s “image” and because of the theological complexity attached to the “image of God” I just cannot confirm or deny that angels are made in Gods image. We do know that they are moral beings and some chose not to follow God.

    I really don’t know much about angels, for instance Berkhof’s Systematic Theology there are only 4 pages on angels out of 980. We do speculate that the invisible in Col 1:16 are “heavenly hosts / Spirits / Angels”. Others speculate about Cherub and Seraphim being angels. Wayne Grudem has written some on angels from a Reformed perspective but I am not familiar with his work only some criticism that I have read so I cannot comment on it. I think he has some stuff on the Moergism

    I cannot follow your line on “deceptive being” for being able to change shapes, this seems like you are trying to place your morality on a creation of God and it just doesn’t sound like a good idea.

    Sorry if you are looking for a bunch on angels all I can give you is Deut 29:29 and a humble I don’t know.

  46. faithoffathers says:


    You make good points in your last post. But I think that LDS point to prophets in the Bible, not to attack them, but to show how your CRITERIA for a prophet seems to discredit some of the prophets you accept. It is your CRITERIA we attack, or your interpretation of limited criteria provided in the Bible.

    As far as the passage from Deuteronomy cited by many LDS critics, it does not prove any modern prophets as false. Others here have shown that the issue has to do with timing. Not everything has been fulfilled yet, both ancient and modern prophecies. Some prophecies have conditions. Consider God promising blessing to a person or people. If they do not obey God, those blessings are not necessarily realized. It doesn’t mean God was a liar.

    As far as “controlling authority”- we don’t. Show me where God asks His people to “control” His prophet. It has never been.

    The pattern of revelation is clearly outlined by prophets, missionaries and elsewhere in the church. God chooses and authorizes men to speak for Him and lead His people. He teaches and instructs those servants. Those servants convey God’s messages to His people. Those people then are invited to consider the message, seek confirmation from above via the Holy Ghost, then act upon the message. Pretty straight forward. No coering or “blind faith” involved.

    What the church and its leaders do is invite people to learn the message of the restored gospel, consider it, pray and seek God’s confirmation, and act upon the message. Detractors try to create the perception that there is great conflict within the church, and they very much overstate their case.

    The whole Adam-God theory so loved here and by other critics played its course. What you don’t point out is that it worked out. The doctrine was recognized as not correct and the church did not fall as a result of a limited teaching on an important topic by one prophet.

    So what Heber J. Grant said was true. The church was corrected to the degree that one (or many) had strayed. What Heber J. Grant said does not contradict Jeremiah’s experience because the LDS prophets are not false prophets- two different things here. God was speaking of false prophets- Israel was punished for following them, not true prophets.

  47. gundeck says:


    You said, “The simple truth is that LDS follow the prophet just as ancient people followed ancient prophets. If you criticize our allegience, you must be willing to find the same criticism of the ancient “followers.””

    You may want to read the historical books of the OT again. The Children of Israel followed people that they thought were prophets right over a cliff and into exile. Having a living prophet of God and the priesthood did not stop the worship of the golden calf during the exodus. Frankly those people had just seen some of the biggest miracles of the OT and they still fell into apostasy.

    What was the net result of the Prophets anytime after David? The bulk of their job was to give laws that were not followed, call for repentance that never came, preform miracles that didn’t convert and to pronounce prophesy that was rarely heeded. I’m sorry there were not many people following them, and in the rare exception where people followed it never lasted.

    Living on this side of the Resurrection and Pentecost you seem to be rejecting the promises of Hebrews 8:10-11 in order to get a false sense of security given from a human being.

  48. gundeck says:


    God does not ask that his prophets be controlled but he does provide various tests to ensure they are prophets. How do you test the prophet? What is the fail safe for the believers? If the biblical Deuteronomy 18:20-22 test is to subjective there must be some other way. What about the Gal 1:6-10 test? Or the Isaiah 8:10 test?

    Think of it this way. There is church “a” with a prophet he pronounces doctrine “a”. A group comes to the conclusion that doctrine “a” is not biblical they split off the church forming church “b” and they have prophet too. 60 years latter church “a” changes doctrine “a” doing away with it. Now you have other people splitting from church “a” and forming church “c” in order to continue doctrine “a” and they have a prophet too.

    You can see how from the outside, church “b” and their prophet or church “c” could be seen as correct. I know that the people in church “a” claim continuing revelation but the people in church “b” and “c” and their prophets disagree with the revelations concerning doctrine “a”. While churches “b” and “c” disagree on doctrine “a” they both agree that the prophet in church “a” is wrong.

  49. Ralph says:


    We as LDS are taught to gain a testimony of the prophet as being the mouthpiece of God on this earth in these days. That said, when Pres. Hinckley died I knew that Pres. Monson was next in line, so before it came time to sustain him as The Prophet, I prayed and received a witness that he was to be The Prophet. So I could sustain him properly when it came time. All members are advised to do this. So then Heber J. Grant’s advice about following The Prophet even if he tells you to do something wrong then comes in here.

    Let’s look at Moses and the Israelites – The Israelites saw the miracles of Moses, they knew from these that he was The Prophet of God. In some instances those who did not follow what Moses told them to do were destroyed by God. So when it came to 35 years later in the wilderness, all these people knew and followed Moses as the mouthpiece of God and would not lead them astray. What would these people do if Moses suddenly told them to do something different to what he had said in the past? They have seen people destroyed by God for not doing what Moses has told them to do, so my guess is that they would have followed Moses’ words whether they were right or wrong. If, then, the Israelites followed Moses’ teachings and they turned out to be wrong who would bear the burden of the wrong doing – Moses or the people? He had proven himself in the past as a true prophet. Where is the line drawn after that?

    This is what will happen to those who follow The Prophet today. If he tells them to do the wrong thing AFTER one has received the witness that he is a true prophet, then the sin/judgement is on the prophet’s head, not the person who is following him. So it is not blind faith, one must already have a witness to The Prophet’s calling.

    Jeremiah, as you pointed out, is talking about following FALSE prophets, not TRUE prophets ‘gone bad’.

  50. falcon says:

    You’re going to have to be a little more specific about all of these prophetic utterences that the “prophet Smith” made that reflect Israel’s future and “modern times”. We know Smith was a total bust when it came to his Kirtland Temple prophetic activity. As to the BoM, the prophet didn’t even get the birth place of Jesus right. No small feat since he was copying the King James Bible for filler when he ran out of story lines. And let’s be specific about what spirit Smith was operating under when he prophesied. I understand your sincerity in believing you received a message from God that the BoM is true. In reading the BoM, you have submitted yourself to a deluding spirit. Go and read Second Thessalonians, the second chapter. ” ……..because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false.”

    I do feel sorry for you, honestly I do, because I don’t know if you can get free from this spirit. You opened yourself up (to this spirit) when you took the Moroni challenge. The deluding spirit is attached to the BoM. Born again Christians, operating under the power of the Holy Spirit, can see right through Joseph Smith. You’re like an untrained cashier who keeps accepting counterfeit money because you can’t see the difference between it and the real thing. The power of the deluding spirit is that it feels good, it feels right, and it feels true. Can you break free? I doubt it. You love what this spirit is providing you too much. The end for you, unfortuately, is eternal seperation from God spent with the spirit you’ve embraced.

Leave a Reply