What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?

This entry was posted in Compassionate Boldness and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?

  1. falcon says:

    The Christians on this site have both in public and private communications with you gone through the doctrine of the trinity, for example, point-by-point and in excrutiating detail, spending an inordinate amount of time, effort and concern demonstrating to you what the doctrine is all about and how the early Church reasoned it out. We’ve gone through the historical record and the written Scriptures. You my friend, at times, seem to making some progress and then “bang” you’re right back to the same old Mormon talking points. This is pretty typical. The lines of the illusion begin to dissipate and the picture begins to become clear and then (those lines) reappear and the true picture cannot be seen inside the illusion.
    This is a cultic mind-set that cannot be overcome with solid information, evidence and a high level of scholarship; and the process has demonstrated much to the Christians here, regarding the quaqmire of false belief and thought process Mormons are entangled in. My guess is that most of the Christians who present clear, logical, reasoned arguments are fast coming to the same conclusion regarding what type of Mormon to interact with and which to leave to themselves. To say the efforts not worth the trouble is a little strong since every soul is worth saving, but we’ll just have to give this over to prayer in the hope that God will send His Holy Spirit and grace to you and somehow your mind my be set free.

  2. Rick B says:

    Just because the word
    “Trinity” is not found in the Bible does not mean it does not exist.

    You claim you showed Sources from “Christin” Books that claim they cannot find the Trinity in the Bible. I would say, these guys must not know the Bible either.

    I gave you a few examples that you seemed not like a whole lot.

    Gravity, I know it is real, I can see it’s effects, but outside of seeing it’s effects, I cannot see gravity, I cannot taste gravity nor can I feel it. I can feel it’s effects, but I cannot feel it like if I were to pick up a cat and feel it.

    Their are many poisonous gases that were always being warned about and told to by alarms for are house, Why? Because they can and do kill us, many reported cases of people dying from Carbon Monoxide. Falcon I’m sure has heard stories since it seems to happen more often in very cold weather states from Ice fisherman to elderly people trying to reduce heating bills by having faulty gas heaters.

    Ralph, we know these gases exist, yet they are colorless, orderless, tasteless. Same for the Trinity. Then just because someone claims to be Christian and writes a book does not make it true.

    Below is an example of a guy that claim to be Christian, but later seems to have denied it and I posted about it, but I dont think anyone saw it.

  3. Rick B says:


    Martin From Bisbane,
    Follow Acts 17:11 and search this out your self, But you told Ralph to read the Book the “Shack”

    The Shack author openly stated he DENIES BIBLICAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT.

    I saw Falcon quoted from Norman geisler, Norman does talk about the shack and how it is false.

    Pastor Gino Geraci from Calvary south Denver put together info on the book and I quote him saying,

    The Shack in not a precious Gem, but a broken piece of glass that should be labeled, HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.

    Mary Danielsen of http://www.thethings2come.org
    Minstry said,

    And Remember, every rat trap has real cheese in it.

    and lastly a group called “lighthouse trails research put out info on this book.

    You guys might want to do as Acts 17:11 says and search the scriptures, I choose to read only the Bible, I rather hear from God himself, than what Man thinks God said, or A man that heard from an angel of Light but is really and angel of darkness, Thats how JS started Mormonism, and look, be it the shack or the BoM, they are both false and will only lead people astray. Rick b

  4. Ward says:

    Rick B.: I have read both of your posts on the Shack. However, the link you list only goes to the church website/blog in general. I may be missing something, but I could not find a reference to the Shack. Do you have a more specific link? Thanks so much.

    FWIW: When I started lurking around here, what attracted me first of all was the way in which Sharon, Aaron and Bill gave their perspective on things. Almost without fail, they were and have been careful, respectful, and engaging. At times, some of you other Christian frequent posters, have been confrontative and sometimes perhaps a little sarcastic, from my perspective. I struggle sometimes with the put downs.

    However, as I have become more familiar with the many posts on different topics, I have come to see the difficulties under which you are contending, and, I am somewhat sad to say, I am seeing where your frustration and disappointment is coming from. (And getting that way myself)…

    Certainly a blog format with numerous postings from many people can be a little disjointed and repetitive, but this format still probably represents real life interaction frustrations. I put myself at the novice level of these kinds of dialogues, but even so, it is becoming easier to see the circularity of the responses you guys get. Those of us who come from Historic Creedal Christianity have well formulated methods of analysis which help us to test ideas. I do not see that developed by our Mormon friends. And the fall back to name calling and labeling as ignorant, etc., makes me wonder if it is worth the effort. It is, of course. It is our calling. I am humbled and honored to walk along this road with the likes of you three I mentioned above, and you others who I will not list by name. Take heart. Your work is not in vain. Your scripture analysis has helped me greatly, and I pray it is giving others pause and thought as well. S’later.

  5. Rick B says:

    Please send me an address where I can mail you stuff, My Email is [email protected]

    I can send you copies of everyone I mentioned speaking on the shack and all their sources. I pulled their sites from the written materiel I have.

    I have had this written materiel for months, but never meet anyone who read the Shack. So since it has been a while, these on line sites might have moved it to the back as new stuff is posted. It would be really easy to put it all in the mail for you. Rick b

  6. Ralph says:

    Gee, there are a lot of people on this site that are touchy when I make the comment that the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible.


    Yes, may people have shown me how the doctrine of the Trinity came about, but as per the quote above and a quote you gave a few weeks ago, it is an INTERPRETATION of the Bible, not in the Bible itself. Big difference. I have understood more about the Trinity from the explanations given and how it was formulated, but that does not mean that I agree with it. Maybe you have part of the cultic mind-set if you cannot understand that you believe in an interpretation of the Bible, not actual doctrine found in it.


    I never said that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. Read my comments again – I said the DOCTRINE is not found in the Bible. Yes it can be supported from the Bible – I am not refuting that. The Christian books say the same thing – the Trinity is an interpretation of the Bible, so they do not say it is not in there, they are just saying that the doctrine is not in there.

    So again – which of the interpretations is the correct one and can call themselves Christian? The JW; LDS; Trinitarians; Modalists? Any other? Jesus said let it be as He will sort it out on the Day of Judgement.

  7. falcon says:

    I think we again see the interesting take our Mormon friends have on what Biblical “interpretation” is. The Church, from the beginning, recognized the nature of God for what it is as presented in the Scriptures. This little “interpretation” ploy is used endlessly by heretics in an attempt to sweep away any of the basic doctrines of the orthodox Christian faith. That’s what the Church fathers went through with the early heretics because they were playing the “interpretation” card. The gnostics for example were claiming “secret” information/revelation in much the same manner as Mormons and other heretical groups do today. That’s why the (Church) could appeal to the “tradition” of the Church which was the teaching or handing down of the Gospel from the apostles to their disciples. That’s why Jude would write “…..contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” “Once for all” means completed, done, finished, no more revelation of a “new restored gospel”.
    Christians believe that in Christ the Word of God who is eternally one with the Father was at work. They believe that the Spirit who is one with Father and Son filled the earliest Christian community at Pentecost. Christians should also never forget that the Spirit is the Spirit of truth who dwells in the Christian community, leading it into truth (John 14:17,26). The story of the fourth century is one of the most important examples of this leading. The emergence of classical Trinitarian theology was a slow and complex process, the culmination of Christian reflection and argument that had begun at Pentecost…….the faith of Nicea is the true faith of Christians…it was drawn out of the community’s reading of Scripture not only by human effort but by the inspiration of the Spirit shaping and guiding, leeading a real human coummunity into the truth.
    (Lewis Ayres, author of Nicea and its Legacy; co-editor The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature)

  8. Ralph says:

    “The emergence of classical Trinitarian theology was a slow and complex process, the culmination of Christian reflection and argument that had begun at Pentecost” (Lewis Ayres, author of Nicea and its Legacy; co-editor The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature)

    Once again Falcon, thanks for the quote. It was a “slow and complex process”, and the “culmination of Christain reflection and argument”. Yes the quote says it began at Pentacost and CLAIMS the involvement of the Spirit, but still…

    We LDS claim the influence of the Spirit in our church and its inception. Who is right and who is wrong? You can appeal to ‘history’ and ‘tradition’ all you like – I have asked God for the truth and He has affirmed it to me through the Spirit.

  9. falcon says:

    Speaking of the cultic mindset and aberrant thought processing that we see in Mormons, Jim Spencer former Mormon elder and author of many books including “Beyond Mormonism” writes:
    “Certain interesting phenomena ocur in the ‘snapped’ person. For one thing, investigators find that a person’s intellectual maturity seems to freeze at the point he entered the cult. Former cult members leave the cult at about the same psychological age they entered. I had always been an excited learner, feeling I was growing in maturity, experience, and emotional stature. During my ten years as a Mormon, however, I had the nagging feeling I was going nowhere. Now, after nearly ten years of post-Mormon experience, I am once again experiencing the exciting feeling of personal growth. People leaving cults also tend to experience a period of ‘withdrawal’ in which they fight confusion. For several years after I left Mormonism, I experienced a frustrting sensation that there were places in my mind I could not go. In trying to talk to people about it, I described what seemed to be a steel band wrapped tightly around my mind. Only after considerable ministry and prayer did I experience complete deliverance from the hold of the Mormon cult. As a final act of rejecting Mormonism, I took all Mormon literature out of my home and burned several dozen books in the desert. Only then did I feel completely free.”
    Given what Jim has described it’s no wonder Mormons have difficulty comprehending what “Christianity” is and why that label cannot be applied to Mormonism. Having rejected the core beliefs of Christianity but still wanting to wear the label is more than a little strange but understandable. The Mormon church, as an institution, has a vested interest in coopting the label for both public relations and recruitment purposes. The average Mormon wants the label so that their nonMormon friends and associates will think that they (Mormoms) are just like them (nonMormons) in religious belief.

  10. falcon says:

    Well this is wonderful Ralph because I have asked God and He has confirmed His Word in me so I know I have the truth. Touche, right! We can play that Mormon game all day long if you want.
    Ralph you have, in your most recent posts, used two of the three tactics that Mormons use to try and find some kind of support for their false religion. In a previous post you talked about it all being a “matter of interpretation”. Well given that little phrase any fully documented and well reasoned argument can be dismissed. That’s why Mormons can claim belief in such off the wall concepts as Joseph Smith’s bogus “translation” of the BoA; a work he did that has been proven to be just more of this guy’s fantasy life. Now you hall out a version of “I bear you my testimony”. I know your back’s up against the wall Ralph but please have at least a modest amount of respect for the rest of us here and refrain from such dubious and weak tactics.
    The reason you struggle Ralph is because you’re not born again of the Spirit of God (John 3:10,11). Laboring under the false spirit of Mormonism, your perspective is clouded and your reasoning is entangled in a web that won’t allow clarity of thought. The apostle Paul talked about the natural man and his inability to appraise spiritual things. In fact Paul said it’s “impossible” for such a man to do so.
    To complete the thought; a Christian is someone who is born again by the Spirit of God. This is the God that is revealed in the Bible. Mormons are spiritual “born” of the spirit of Mormonism. Being born of and led by that spirit, Mormons will not be able to understand God’s spiritual truths. Mormons are given a spiritual affirmation from the spirit of the god of Mormonism. Having accepted that “truth”, Mormons have given themselves over to a spirit of deceit that will do all in its power to block the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s why a Mormon’s testimony is worthless in terms of the truth of the Gospel and eternal life.

  11. Ward says:

    Falcon: I completely understand your comments back to Ralph, above. This circular broken record is so old. However, how does it get any of us further in this dialogical adventure when we use words like”worthless,” “playing the game,” (again). You have obviously been at this way longer than I have, and you have a wealth of understanding of the scriptures, from my perspective. You are right. Are there other words? Misguided, misperceptive, misinterpreting, misinformed, –I don’t know. A soft answer turns away wrath.

    In saying all of that, I am not necessarily saying we should completely ignore the often expressed harshness and arrogance, and other stuff that comes from the other viewpoints. There is no ready or easy answer for any of this.

    I come from a therapeutic framework where there is a lot of disagreement and anger. I also come from a missiological framework where there is a lot of opportunity for dialogue. I wonder what would happen if we looked at using frameworks from that (in saying that, now someone is going to say, “Like what?” and I am going to say, “uh…”)

    Sometimes I wonder and think that if half or more of the zingers at the beginning of a post or at the end of a post were left off, there would be a different level of civility present. Anyway, thanks for listening to my wonderings…I am learning so much from you.

  12. falcon says:

    Thanks a lot for your review and critique. Anyone who’s been around here for any length of time, understands my style of writing and a few even enjoy it. In fact it’s been trademarked as mine. I write the way I do for a reason. Having worked around and having tormented many (mental) health care professionals in my time, I understand your frame of reference completly. I especially enjoy seeing the mouths’ of these folks drop open and watching the people in white coats run for the defiblerator paddles as the offended party hits the floor. I’m retired but still do a lot of consulting and college teaching. I have to explain to every class the first day about my style of communication; the use of hyperbole, sarcasm and irreverent humor. It’s especially fun in the politically correct world of a university campus. Actually my students seem to be quite entertained and judging from my (student) reviews, I’m effective in getting my points across.
    Hay, I’m relativly mild compared to Rick “the Hammer” B. At least I try to be funny. Rick B. just pummels people.
    Anyway, thanks for the feedback. At least I know someone is paying attention.

  13. Ward says:

    I would love to meet you in the real world, sometime. I have the gifts of sarcasm and cynicism myself. You sound like a lot of fun. I taught a Spiritual Formation class in Thailand for Wheaton a few years ago (mostly for bragging rights – oh, I am Wheaton faculty! which is pretty spiritually unformation). I did it in my usual non traditional way. My favorite evaluation was from a woman who said I was not what she expected. She was looking for an old retired Sem prof who would teach about contemplation. I, on the other hand asked students to get creative, and gave extra credit for effective use of show tunes. oh well, we are really off the blog topic now.

  14. Ralph says:


    ”Well this is wonderful Ralph because I have asked God and He has confirmed His Word in me so I know I have the truth. Touche, right!” Again you have illustrated my point exactly.

    Let me go through this again, I will try and make it understandable.

    The question posed was ‘Can Evangelical Christians call themselves Mormons?’ The reason given is that LDS like to call themselves Christian.

    Alright, let’s define what a ‘True Christian’ (as opposed to ‘Evangelical Christian’) is first. It is someone who believes in the only true Jesus Christ. Where do we find information about Jesus Christ – in the Bible. Now, who is the Jesus Christ of the Bible? Let’s answer this WITHOUT the interpretation of the scriptures, just take the things that are non-controversial and plain and easy to understand.

    He was born about 2000 years ago to a young lady (or for Falcon’s sake a young girl) named Mary.

    He is the Son of God

    The Christ/Messiah

    He atoned for our sins

    was crucified and resurrected 3 days later

    He will be our final judge for our eternal destination

    There may be a few more things, but outside of these the majority is an interpretation of scripture. The reason I say this is because of the evidence (ie 6 Bible dictionaries) I have presented and now 2 quotes from Falcon saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is not written in the Bible but is an interpretation of it. Likewise, the LDS Godhead doctrine is an interpretation of the Bible. Now there are as I keep pointing out a number of different interpretations from the Bible about God and Jesus – which one is the true interpretation? Can you prove that yours (ie the Trinity) is the true interpretation besides claiming history and tradition?

    So if we accept the premises above then who is ‘Christian’? Quite a number of groups can be called Christian according to this, isn’t (NOTE – IS NOT) that right?

  15. Ralph says:

    So what we have are subsets – usually called denominations – in the Christian society. In fact that is how it started – the Anglicans and Lutherans and Greek Orthodox broke away from the Roman Catholics claiming them to be corrupted and lost with heretical teachings.

    So let’s look at LDS. We believe in Jesus Christ as written above, but we also believe in Him as being a separate being to Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost but the 3 make up the Godhead and in this sense are one in purpose and mind and ‘spirit’. This can also be supported from the Bible but it is opposed to the Trinitarian view. We also believe in a living prophet, the BoM as further scripture, and further truth and ordinances that are given to us. Does an Evangelical Christian believe in these things as well? The answer there is NO.

    So the answer to the main question ‘Can Evangelical Christians call themselves LDS?’ is NO because LDS are a subset (denomination) of Christianity and so are Evangelical Christians BUT Evangelical Christians are not a subset of LDS.

    Now if we read what Jesus taught in Matt 13, He said that there will be tares growing amongst the wheat – interpretation being there will be incorrect teachings within His church but for the sake of the true believers He wants the separation of these to occur on the day of the harvest, otherwise some of the true believers will also be thrown away and lost.

    Going on this premise, if we wish to confine who can be called Christian to one certain group of people (eg Trinitarians), then it may be at the expense of some or all of the true believers in Jesus – ie the True Christians. If this is the case then you are doing Satan’s job for him. Especially since no one can prove indisputably that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. NOTE I am including the LDS in this last statement even though I believe that is it the correct way, I cannot prove it without the help of the Spirit. But as Falcon shows above this is subjective

  16. Rick B says:

    Falcon said,

    Hay, I’m relativly mild compared to Rick “the Hammer” B. At least I try to be funny. Rick B. just pummels people.

    Thanks for the kind words, I dont go out of my way to offend it just comes natural. I try and be very honest and up front, if people get offended and end up in hell, then I guess they will have added torment from remembering me telling them the truth and how they rejected it. Rick b

  17. gundeck says:


    There are some problems with your look at denominations. First the Greek Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox didn’t break away from Rome, they never accepted to primacy of the Roman see.

    Second and I can only speak for the Reformed Protestants we beleive that there is only one catholic or universal Church and that despite denominational (Eph 1:10,22–23; 5:23,27,32; Col 1:18) differences every Christan is part of that same catholic or universal Church unless they have “degenerated” to the point of being cut off (Rev. 18:2, Rom. 11:18–22). I am unaware of any group that has been accepted in to the catholic Church that believes in a plurality of gods.

  18. Ralph says:


    I am aware that the RC and GO churches grew apart from the beginning – I was just simplifying things. The fact is they did not recognise each other’s authority and declared the other in error.

    As far as your comment about Reformed Protestants, there are still denominational boundaries as you have mentioned, it’s just that you want to see past them and include a larger portion. But this does not hold true for other denominations in the Trinitarian Christian Community. The RC want to be identified as Catholics, not Protestants. And the reason for the split in the past was because each saw the other as apostate. Now-a-days they have grown together more and accept each other. But that still does not negate my argument about who can and can’t be called ‘Christian’ because we do not know who the ‘True Christians’ are. And for us to specify just one group out of a number of them is doing Satan’s job for him and performing the harvest before Jesus has told us to.

  19. gundeck says:


    It doesn’t matter it the Roman Catholics want to be called Catholic. There is only 1 catholic church and Christ is at its head, the members of that church are only those given to Christ by the Father, no matter their denomination, brought into union with Christ buy the power of the Holy Spirit. Membership in Christ’s Church is in itself a Trinitarian activity.

    You claim is “that because we do not know who the ‘True Christians’ are” we should accept each other? Does your Church practice Church discipline? Does your Church excommunicate members? Is that getting along?

    Paul instructs us to place someone who preaches another Gospel as accursed (2 Cor 11:3, 4; Gal 1:6-9). The very essence and nature of God is one of the fundamentals we are not talking about a debate between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism we are talking about the nature of God. Frankly too many of your views are heterodox to be even close to Christ’s Church.

    On the surface the list you gave “(1)He was born about 2000 years ago to a young lady (or for Falcon’s sake a young girl) named Mary (2)He is the Son of God (3)The Christ/Messiah (4)He atoned for our sins (5)was crucified and resurrected 3 days later (6) He will be our final judge for our eternal destination” shows a remarkable amount of concurrence in our religious views. Once you go beneath the surface I guarantee we do not agree on a single of these issues in fact I don’t think we could get past the incarnation and the 2 natures of Christ.

  20. falcon says:

    Where do I go with you? Around and around and around and we never really seem to be making any progress with your understanding of any of this. Maybe you just like all of the attention you’re getting here so it’s not in your interest to demonstrate any understanding.
    The Jesus that Mormons talk about is not the Jesus of the Bible and this is not a matter of interpretation. This whole “interpretation” tactic is just a smoke screen because you’re not getting the point and you’ve run out of arguments.
    The Mormon jesus is the off spring in the spirit world of a father god and a mother goddess. This isn’t in the Bible or the BoM for that matter. There’s no interpretation here. According to the Mormon prophet Bringham Young Jesus was physically conceived by a sexual union (sexual intercourse)of the Mormon father god and a virgin named Mary. Again, no where to be found except in the perverted mind of a demented Mormon prophet. Now you will say that what BY says doesn’t count and I can play the Ralph game and say “Oh yeah, well that’s your interpretation.”
    Ralph I’m just not getting through to you and I along with other Christians here have spent countless hours going through point-by-point the process that the Church went through in developing the explanation of the theology of the Trinity. Your thinking is shaped by Mormonism to the point where it’s impossible for you to comprehend the points being made by any of the Christians who have patiently explained these things to you. I give you the quotes I do from the Church fathers in a hope that it will help you understand, but it becomes more and more obvious to me that you are spiritually incapable of making the connections. And yet you follow a guy who claimed he could see treasure buried in the ground by the use of his magic rock and that makes total sense to you.
    I would suggest that you read the NT thinking of God in the manner in which we have presented Him and ask Him to reveal Himself to you.

  21. GRCluff says:

    I think evangelicals SHOULD call themselves Mormon — then we could be done with the name calling and stone throwing to focus on the REAL differences such as:

    1. Did JS really accept heavenly visitors?
    2. Is God really a 3 in one trinity, or 3 distinct beings that are one in purpose rather than one in substance.

    You get my point- we need to get beyond the labels we put on each other to focus on truth or falsehood of the claims being made, as the case may be.

  22. falcon says:

    Well Cluffster,
    Where’ve you been buddy? Same old persecution complex I see. Come on, you’ve got to move-on. You’re spending way too much time on the Mormon gerbal wheel. You’ve got to get out more. But I suppose they keep you guys so busy down at the Morg that there’s no chance that the little people might escape and actually expand their intellectual and emotional boundries. World’s a scarry place. Better stick close to the comfort zone of the ward. I didn’t want to disappoint you, so now you can feel persecuted all day today. Come-on, lighten up buddy, you know I love ya!
    So did Joseph Smith entertain “heavenly” visitors. No he didn’t! When you’ve got a guy who was into the occult magic arts to the degree that your boy Joe was, any spiritual encounters he had didn’t come from heaven. His use of second sight vision and magic rocks for scrying, insured that any encounters with spirits he had, came from the dark side. In fact, inviting in “spirits” from the demon world under the guise of “spiritual experiences” is a time honored tradition in Mormonism (see “Temple Manifestations” by Joseph Heinerman).
    I listened to a presentation by Mormon author Grant Palmer (his book, “An Insiders View of Mormon Origins”) talk about how Joe’s versions of his “first vision” became expanded and improved coinsiding with his need to bolster his street cred with the faithful when things would begin to unravel. Joe’s story would just get more and more fantatic with the retelling. The guy did have a fantastic imagination.
    As to the nature of God, Andy Watson did a thorough and excellent presentation regarding this fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church so I won’t go into it again. Needless to say however, a more accurate description of the Mormon god would be a use to be man who progressed to become a god. In fact, I guess if I thought I had a chance to become a god, it’d be a pretty tough thing to give up.

  23. theswedesmusic says:

    Are Mormons Christians? Actually, the question is whether Christians are Mormon. There are MANY doctrines presented by Joseph Smith that have now become adopted by every wing of modern Christianity. These are singular teachings that Smith was ridiculed for and were not taught by others. Now they are common among Evangelicals because they are solidly Biblical and they make better sense. They have become obvious. For a list see:


  24. theswedesmusic says:

    On a seperate note, would you call yourself Catholic? Do you subscribe to everything that Catholicism has taught over the years? No, you don’t. But you have no problem calling them “Christian.”

    This video is nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide your personal bitterness against LDS faith, culture and identity. The very name of this blog is pure derision and mockery. People want beauty, not Hellish attempts to defame.

  25. Ward says:

    RE:Are Mormons Christians? Actually, the question is whether Christians are Mormon. There are MANY doctrines presented by Joseph Smith that have now become adopted by every wing of modern Christianity. These are singular teachings that Smith was ridiculed for and were not taught by others. Now they are common among Evangelicals because they are solidly Biblical and they make better sense. They have become obvious. For a list see:


    What an interesting article. Except that the facts are “common among evangelicals because they are solidly biblical and they make better sense?” Come on… you are not even close in representing that Evangelical Christianity would come close to acceptance on these points. The paper, the best I can figure out, since it is undated, was written in about 1975. I don’t think that should be your best argument. A lot has happened in the last 34 years.

  26. theswedesmusic says:

    Actually, I think the argument there is rather conclusive. After all, there are those in the Protestant mainstream now teaching them. The sources speak for themselves. Are you saying the author made them up? The proof is in the pudding.

    Whether the paper was written in 1975 or not does not diminish the doctrinal points that have seeped into mainstream Christianity over the years. Perhaps the trajectory indicates there are even more today.

  27. Don says:

    Are Mormons Christians. My understanding is that the Trinity is stated and taught in the Bible. Ref: John 10:30 I and [my] Father are one (Unity of Nature, being one. Not just purpose and will but in Identity). Also, 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. Additionally, remember John 1:10-12 John 1:10-12, 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,[even] to them that believe on his name:

    What does this mean? That they would not believe in him. No, it is much deeper than not believing in him. They WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE HIS IDENTIDY. Deeper than not believing that he was the Messiah. It was in recognizing WHO the MESSIAH was. The Messiah was not JUST the child to be born and the Son to be given. The Messiah was El Gabor, The Mighty God, The Father of the Everlasting, The Prince of Peace, The Lord of our Salvation; The Messiah was God himself in human flesh. This was the message of the Prophets. Isaiah 45:23 By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Who is Jesus? Jehovah God to the Glory of God the Father. Referring to Jesus, Romans 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? This is your affirmation of Christ’s Deity. How can ANYONE claim to Christian that does not receive Christ, what he was and who he is?

  28. Ward says:

    Actually you hit it right on the head with mainstream. The sources in that article are all mainline denominations, and not evangelical authors. Oh, wait a minute. I said all, I should say the vast majority. And there has been decades of study over some of the documents like the dead sea scrolls, for instance. Standard academic research dictates that one uses the most current research. There are numerous more recent articles about the Gospel of Philip, and Thomas, which may or may not prove the point. Indeed, it is quite popular amongst those of a more liberal orientation to trot out things like the Gospel of Philip and give them more credence than they actually have. All in the name of research. The Jesus Seminar is another one. Your article has lots of references and some very nice personal communications, but it does not reflect the mainstream Evangelical viewpoint. It goes back to what I have said before. Where is the preponderance of evidence? Show us references from across the broad spectrum of Christendom, and then we may have an argument. As Aaron says, Grace and Peace.

  29. Don says:

    Ralph, I have never discussed any theology or understanding of God’s Holy Word with you. Please discuss your interpretation of this passage, since you claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible; , 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

  30. Rick B says:

    Hello theswedesmusic
    I’m guessing your a Mormon.
    Mormons are not Christian, no matter how much you guys claim this is true. I will post the info later because I have no room now, But I put together info showing LDS Prophets not LDS lay people like Ralph or you, but the Prophets who cannot agree on LDS doctrine.

    Now I know Some LDS member will say, But I can find Christian pastors who dont agree, And I would agree with that, but the Problem is, Pastors are not claiming Like LDS prophets to hear from God and give the people the Word Straight from God. And any “Christian” Pastor claim He has a word from God, but that word does not line up with the Bible is a liar just as the Bible tells us. More later. Rick b

  31. Don says:

    Ward, actually through scripture we are taught that God’s Word qould endure forever. Actually I do see your opinion “Standard academic research dictates that one uses the most current research”. However, we should include ALL current research. You mention the Dead Sea Scrolls, great! Please inform as to when the Gospels you mention were written ( I believe you will discover late third century). Additionally, I am satisfied you are educated to the history of the Nicene Creed, if so there are many reasons for the council meeting. I agree that we should utilize and test the most current research but not simply accept unchallenged theories as fact or even acceptable. With over 5,500 scraps and full texts of 1st and early 2nd century manuscripts from the Greek script regarding the new testament, I feel that is at the very least a solid baseline. Thank you for your input, I always enjoy learning truth.

  32. GRCluff says:


    Don’t mistake contradiction and conviction as an overreaction to persecution.

    I would like to contradict the idea that Mormons would dislike evangelicals using our “label”. Feel free, use it all you like. It is just a name.

    My conviction is that the lines we draw in the sand and the names we call each other have little to do with the real event at hand- the eternal quest for truth. After all, that is one thing we have in common.

    If anything, the names we use destract and misdirect. It is a form of deception. By calling Mormons a “cult” you can more easily dismiss our assertions. It is a tool to that end- a red herring to avoid discussion, a form of bigotry.

    Please don’t put words in my mouth to promote the same kind of bigotry in reverse.

  33. Don says:

    CRCluff, I directed this question to Ralph earlier. I did not receive a response. Perhaps you will respond. Please discuss your interpretation of this passage, since you claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible; , 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

  34. Don says:

    GRCluff, I notice above where you are full-forced with your opinion regarding falcon. I have another question for you. Everytime I ask questions regarding LDS teachings and do not receive answers I wonder why? Everytime I produce reason and scripture to discover that an LDS representative has lied to me, I am labeled anti-Mormon. I am not anti anything except deception and lies and the Father of Lies. I am however Pro-Truth. Would you be kind enough to address my earlier question regarding the Trinity?

  35. Don says:

    I am sorry. my filtered profanity or slur was
    a n t i – M o r m o n. I was not being vulgar or sluring anyone.

  36. Andy Watson says:


    I’m not a Mormon, but I can answer your question since it appears that you are anxious for an answer. First, this phrase that points to the Trinity (“Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God”)is stated many times in the Book of Mormon starting with the “Testimony of Three Witnesses” and going on from there. It’s even stated in D&C 20:28.

    The Mormon view is that they are one – one in purpose and unity. That is where it ends. They do not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God BY NATURE & ESSENCE (Galatians 4:8) which is the belief of Christianity. Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate gods, but are one in unity and purpose. Mormons cite John 17 incorrectly as a proof text, but their sloppy exegesis is easily dismissed with sound study and examination.

    So, if our Mormon friends only say half of what they believe about this statement, then it sounds orthodox to the world and it gives them aspirations of grandeur of one day becoming part of mainstream Christianity. However, as long as Christians have the ability to read and can see what Joseph Smith said in his teachings about the Mormon godhead, then the Mormon’s aspirations of wearing the Christian label are suddenly put out like a candle in a tornado.

  37. Andy Watson says:


    Don’t let our Mormon friends get you to worked up. If you’re new to this fairly new religion that was hatched out in the early 1800’s then what you need to know is that the Mormon Church has been on a desperate mission the last few years of begging the world to accept them as Christians along with other mainline Christian denominations. The reasons for this are many and time and space here does not allow a fully expose to cover it. It’s been done many times before.

    The LDS Church has done an incredible job of cleaning itself up to the public and keeping quiet about certain teachings that don’t go over well with society today. The teachings are still there, but not discussed openly and not even at Conference either. They use our words, but have redefined them to mean something else. They carry a King James Bible and look like us and live like most faitful and God-centered Christians do. It’s really quite masterful. It’s working powerfully in foreign countries where the LDS Church is growing because people there are ignorant for the most part about the Mormon Church and can’t get the information that we can here. I just came back from Asia and can verify this – again.

    Mormons want to be Christian? Great! Let’s start by changing two institutions:

    1.The Mormon Tabernacle Choir to “The LDS Christian Tabernacle Choir”
    2. The Mormon Times (newspaper) to “The LDS Christian Times”

    Mormons hold dear to that title. When the FLDS calls themselves Mormons, the Mormon Church in Salt Lake cries “Foul ball! We are the real Mormons – not you!”

    Mormons want to be Christians? Great! At the next Conference have Thomas Monson open up with the words of Spencer Kimball when he said, “We are gods in embryo”. See how that plays out in Newsweek or the New York Times. I don’t see Monson sitting down with Larry King and saying one of those “oldies but goodies” to the world today. The LDS Church has toned down it down because they know they have to.

  38. Andy Watson says:


    I see you have Truman Madsen on your mind. Was your link to his article a tribute for his years of service at BYU? You must be reading the same paper I am – the “Mormon Times”. He died on May 28th. They had a full spread on him with many of his words in quotes. He was called a “true poet”. It’s too bad that none of his words are binding or have no LDS Church authority since he never made it to the GA’s.

    As I read the article and looked at the pictures in this week’s issue of the Mormon Times I wondered what was it was like for Madsen on May 28th to finally get the answer to his question about Mormons being Christian when he, like the rich man in Luke 16:23 “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments” found out that the answer was “no”. I wonder if the verse would go on to read, “…and seeth Joseph Smith afar off he [Madsen] ran to him and screamed, ‘Why did you deceive me?'”. Maybe Joseph Smith said to Madsen what he had said earlier in his life:

    “I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:517).

    If Mormons want to be Christian they can start by accepting what Christ said in Matt 12:37. I didn’t sentence/condemn Smith to hell. The heresy that Joseph Smith taught about the God of the Bible condemned himself and anyone who believes this false prophet. If Madsen believed in Smith’s teachings, then they both are in torment sadly enough and I wouldn’t wish hell on anyone – I mean it!

    A Mormon said to me, “Andy, just because you wear a badge that doesn’t make you a policeman.” I replied, “Yes, and just because you call yourself a Christian that doesn’t make you one either.”

  39. Ralph says:


    I am in a different time zone to you – Newcastle Australia, so it may take a while for me to answer at times. Just quickly, the people here are like you, they are not ‘anti’ the people but they are the message. Because of this they have decided to make the ‘anti’ word a no-no. That’s why it was censored, nothing more.

    In answer to your question about 1 John 5:7, if you look up on the internet ‘Johannine Comma’ you will find that this verse was added to the Bible a couple of centuries after 1 John was written. This means that it is not actual scripture, so it cannot be used as evidence of the Trinity.

    As far as John 10:30 goes, Jesus uses the same language in John 17 – v11 “11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.; v21-23 “21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” Someone mentioned that we interpret John 17 incorrectly – but that’s what it comes down to – INTERPRETATION. They say the same thing in the same words so one viable interpretation is that they mean the same thing as there is no outside reference to something else.

  40. Rick B says:

    I know all the LDS who reply will set aside Logic and truth to hold fast to what JS taught. First off, JS died a coward jumping out the window of a jail after shooting a gun and possible killing two people. Yep Sounds like a guy dying for his beliefe.

    Now here is was I was speaking of yesterday.
    JS claims over in D and C 135:3-4 he has done more except Jesus has, well if this is the case why is it that the apostles like Paul, John, Peter and others have books of the Bible named after them and not Joseph? We read in the book of revelation that the names of the 12 apostles will be written on the gates of heaven but no where are any LDS apostles or prophets mentioned, strange how not even the super prophet JS is not mentioned if he ranks second to Jesus?

    Now we read J Smith saying in the book History of the Church vol 4, pg 461. “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it’s precepts, than any other book.”

    Then over in the book, Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith on pg 71 we read, ” Take away the book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? we have none.”

    Now lets look at what the prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith said. Notice Joseph Smith was the first “prophet” Joseph F Smith was the 10th “prophet/president” of the Church. So as not to confuse with the close names.

    We read in the book,

    Doctrines of Salvation vol 3, pg 198-199 J.F.S. teaches, ” In my judgment their is no book on earth yet come to man as important as the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, with all due respect to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, and the pearl of great price, which we say are our standards in Doctrine. The book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all.

    I am going to tell you why. When I say that, do not for a moment think I do not value the Book of Mormon, the Bible,

  41. Rick B says:

    and the Pearl of Great Price, just as much as any man that lives; I think I do. I do not know of anybody who has read them more, and I appreciate them; they are wonderful; they contain doctrine and revelation and commandments that we should heed; but the Bible is a history containing the doctrine and commandments given to the people anciently. that applies also to the Book of Mormon. It is the doctrine and history and commandments of the people who dwelt upon this continent anciently.

    But this Doctrine and Covenants contains the word of God to those who dwell here now. It is our book. It belongs to the Latter Day Saints.

    So we find here two prophets disagree on just how important the BoM really is?
    Now lets add to this what Ezra Taft Benson taught. He taught the 14 fundamentals of following the brethren. This was the SECOND: The Living Prophet is More Vital to Us Than The Standard Works.

    So now we have 3 people, all prophets teaching different things. This leads to another question, if D and C is over the book of Mormon, why do the Mormon missionary’s not pass that out? And if the Prophet is over all the 4 standard works, why bother passing them out at all? Why not pass out books of the prophets teachings?

    Now lets move on to a sore subject in Mormonism that shows more contradictions. The issue of Plural Wives.

    I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I feel that it was a doctrine of man, by man and for man. Not from God and here is why I say this. In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this and I quote extra for context that some seem to feel people leave out. More Later, Rick b

  42. falcon says:

    The reason I use the word “cult” in reference to Mormonism or in particular the Mormon organization is because the behavior that is displayed is that of a cult. For example, the organization puts an inordinate amount of control over a person’s time. If a person’s time can be controlled so is the person. They place an inordinate demand on people’s money. Rewards regarding such thing as temple recommends are tied directly to the amount of money the organization dictates that a person contribute. The money aspect is the mother’s milk of Mormonism. Another characteristic is fear/intimidation. Read some of the accounts of folks and how they were treated while they were in the process of leaving the orgaization. A person’s continued ability to make a living can be tied to their continuation in the organization. Recruitment practices include the use of “love bombing” of the prospect and then withdrawl of approval from the person as a means of controlling them. Lack of repect and consideration of personal boundries and intrusion in a person’s life is another characteristic. Reporting on members who are not conforming to the norm of the group.
    I could go on but I’ve listed here just some of the behavioral characteristics which basically point to the Mormon organization as a cult. Jim Spencer, who I’ve quoted here often, talks about the one emotional characteristic that he sees in Mormons who are trying to move out of the organization is “fear, black stcky fear”. That’s straight-up intimidation.
    I wouldn’t belong to an organization that attempted to control me the way the Mormon organization attempts to control its members. In reading accounts from exMos the recurrent theme is the sense of freedom they feel to now control their own lives. That is the ability to control their time, their associations, their money and how they think. They talk about becoming an individual again and not having to put on a front for the benefit of appearences

  43. Ward says:

    Swede: ANother thought on the Madsen article: This writing style- it looks familiar. It is so “Nibley-esque!” It reminded me of some psychoanalytic research I had to read way back long ago. It sounds convincing, but then you realize it is just a bunch of opinions in books quoting others’ opinions. There is no underlying research, or biblical references in our case, which supports the theme, which is hard to find too. My fav quotes from the article is the asides that people may have made in jest or who knows that are now presented as bonafide and reputable evidences.

    Have a great day.

  44. Rick B says:

    I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I feel that it was a doctrine of man, by man and for man. Not from God and here is why I say this. In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this and I quote extra for context that some seem to feel people leave out.

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

    Let us add to this

    D and C 132 1-3 2. Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. So here we find it is “supposedly” of God. 3. Therefore ,prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THIS LAW REVEALED UNTO THEM MUST OBEY THE SAME. 4. for behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, then are ye damned;for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. I would like to point out some things here. First off in D and C 1:14 it says we must obey the lord, the apostles, and the prophets or we will be cut off.

    Their, You read it and heard it, so this applies to you, not only to a select few as Mormons claim, otherwise God lied.
    Also Since when is new and everlasting only 50 or so years.

  45. falcon says:

    I don’t mean to argue with you, but that stuff doesn’t count anymore, does it? Brigham Young said a lot of stuff that’s buried somewhere out in Monument Valley now. What about Adam-God, and Blood Atonement. You can see how BY wasn’t going to have any end to the practice of plural wives. Andy Watson and I were talking about this the other day and I think old Brigham had something like 57 wives.
    I don’t mean to get too out of line here or too graphic but how did the guy physically do it? I can feel the old me from 40 years ago rushing back and I’ve had to take hold of my creative sense of humor here. It’s amazing how the old man is still lurking back there some place although it takes quite abit for him to surface after all of these years.
    I guess God just keeps washing me in the Word; “For those who are in Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with it’s lusts and desires”. I don’t mean to get off track here, but I’ve spent a lot of time meditating over the years on that verse of Scripture wondering exactly how it applies. Because it also says “Anyone who is in Christ is a new creature. The old has passed away, all things are new”.
    Here’s what I think. In the heavenlies before God through Jesus Christ I am a new creature. God has declared me righteous not on the basis of my works but on the basis of what God did for me through Christ Jesus on the Cross. So my task is to try and live out the reality of what God has already declared a finished work in me.
    The Bible says that a just man falls seven times a day. Think of what that calculates to a “just man” in a normal life time. That’s a lot of sin even for a just man. That’s why we need the gift of salvation. We could never hope to earn it and certainly not deserve it. All of a sudden I feel burning in the bosom good. Isn’t God great? I’m going to go have church now all by myself!

  46. Ralph says:

    RickB and Falcon,

    The only people who were allowed more than one wife were the ones that God told through the prophet – no one else. Now as discussed in the past about single people who did not have a chance to get married in this life not missing out on the blessings of the CK, this also applies to those who did not get the chance to have more than one wife – as the following quote from the JoD states –

    ”It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,”-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. – JoD 11:268-269”

  47. Ralph says:


    Note the bold – if one accepts the policy in their hearts/faith. It states that those who do not accept it in their faith/hearts but oppose it will not gain the CK. That is what the other quotes you gave are saying. No where do your quotes say that if we stop practising polygamy we are damned, they are saying if we oppose it we are damned.

    I have looked through the past blogs about polygamy to find a quote that I think Lautensack or Berean wrote from the JoD, but I can’t so you will have to look it up for me RickB since I don’t have a copy (in the mean time I will keep looking for it as well but it may have to wait until I get home tonight as I can’t do too much here at work). In the JoD, BY said that we will practise polygamy until God tells us to stop. So even BY says that there may be a time where we will stop practising polygamy, but that does not mean that we stop believing in it. It is those who do not accept the principle of it that are opposing it and will be damned, not those who believe in it and if they had the chance would follow it.

  48. Ralph says:


    As I said I would, I found the BY quote that states polygamy is only for a time and not forever – ”If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.” JoD 11:266 So BY taught that if God wanted us to stop practising polygamy, He will tell us and we will stop – which is what happened.

    Like I said in my previous posts, the quotes you gave are telling us that we should accept whole heartedly the teaching of polygamy and that is all that is necessary until we are told by the prophet of God that we are to take another wife. If we are not told to take another wife but we accept polygamy as being from God then it will be counted as if we were polygamists (ie ‘polygamist in faith’ as per qoute above) and we can still acheive the CK.

    Your quotes say nothing about stopping the practise if/when God tells us to – it is talking about those who outright reject the teaching – ie those who ‘oppose’ it.

  49. falcon says:

    Yea Ralph all very interesting. Let see an angel with a big sword tells Joseph Smith to start taking more wives or he’ll kill him. He wouldn’t make that up just so he could satisfy his own sexual fantasies, would he? Oh no, not the prophet. I wonder if the angel also told him to bed married women and adolecent girls or if he came up with that all on his own. Some angel, huh.
    And let’s see this has got to be done if you want to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. But oh, oh…..redo….the prophet in 1890 get’s a message that no, no, no swtich-o change-o. Seems strange, one day you have to do it to get the brass ring and the next day it’s all called off. At least the FLDS has some integrity.
    Ralph I know we can’t penetrate your TBM hide here, but do you know how pathetic all of this is? Of course not. This is all normal understandable stuff in the wonderful world of Mormonism. The Morg is lucky to have guys like you around who do what they’re told.

  50. Ralph says:

    Well Falcon,

    I guess from your logic we need to bring back circumcision into Christianity.

    Genesis 17:9-14 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

    God describes it as an “everlasting covenant” that shall be in the flesh of the believers forever, and that anyone who is not circumcised shall be cut off from His people. Just remember here that God’s people for that time (ie the Israelites) were to come through Abraham’s lineage.

    If you want to take it as meaning just the people that are direct descendants of Abraham, how do you know you are not one? We know where the Jews are, but we are told in the Bible that 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel (who are direct descendants of Abraham) were scattered through and lost to the world. God can institute something and then change it or remove it for a time if He wants. It’s not up to me to tell Him what He san and can’t do.

    But hey, doesn’t this go with your belief that God is omnipotent and can do anything He wants? Or are you going to place a border on Him and make Him adhere to certain rules?

Leave a Reply