Worth Fighting Over

Stormy Sea

The June 2008 issue of Tabletalk magazine included an article rooted in the biblical book of Jude. Noting that Jude speaks directly and forcefully to the issue of false teachers, the Tabletalk article by Niel Nielson explains,

“Notice that Jude isn’t writing to [his readers] about voices calling from outside the visible faith. These people have ‘crept in unnoticed,’ that is, they are inside the congregation of God’s people. …the deadliest recommendations [i.e., encouragement to follow a different spiritual path] may come from those who claim to be fellow believers, because they masquerade as people of the light, they use ‘Christian’ vocabulary, and they assert that their views are faithful to our most holy faith.”

Dr. Nielson continues, noting the harsh language Jude uses to describe these false teachers and their terrible, eventual end (Jude 12-16). “And yet,” Dr. Nielson writes, “Jude’s burden for his readers is to urge them to contend – to fight earnestly – for the faith once for all delivered to the saints…”

For Christians who engage in faith conversations with Mormons, Jude’s instruction to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) provides very important direction for our method and motivation. While many Mormons are uncomfortable with the idea of “contending” (indeed, most Mormons understand contention to be “of the devil” – see 3 Nephi 11:29), Christians recognize the God-revealed necessity of it.

Knowing, then, that Christians must engage in earnest contention for the faith, the question must be asked: What is this faith? Dr. Nielson writes,

“It is the ‘once for all’ revelation from God, gloriously complete in providing all we need to know about God and His plan, purpose, and expectations for His creation.

“Jude gives his readers two clues for recognizing these false teachers and their recommendations: they pervert the grace of our God into sensuality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (v. 4). While this list is not exhaustive, it provides very helpful tests.

“First, does a particular viewpoint rationalize sexual sin, in this case by co-opting the very grace of God? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that would use the grace and love of God as the means for justifying sexual sin…”

Anyone who followed the conversations here at Mormon Coffee last June might recognize Joseph Smith’s polygamy as an example of what Jude is talking about. Joseph did not merely marry multiple women illegally; he asked for other men’s wives and young daughters, promising eternal rewards for those who complied with his requests. Did this not “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality”? While the Word of God promises forgiveness of sins and eternal life freely given through His grace to any and all who surrender to Him, Joseph Smith perverted that offered gift, turning it into something gained via gratification of Smith’s own desires.

Dr. Nielson continues with the clues Jude provides for recognizing false teachers,

“Second, does a particular viewpoint diminish the exclusive glory and truth of Jesus Christ as the only King and Savior? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that undermines His deity, diminishes His uniqueness, doubts His kingly claims over the creation, or adds or subtracts from His Gospel.”

Again we can see the teachings of LDS prophets as examples of what Jude warns against. Mormonism robs Jesus of His uniqueness, teaching that He is just one of many billions numbered among the pre-existent sons of God; Jesus is Creator of some things, but not all things; Jesus is the Savior for this world, but other worlds have other Saviors; Jesus’ deity is no different than that achievable by any of us who work hard and prove ourselves worthy of Godhood (exaltation).

Using the “clues” provided by Jude, Mormon prophets are exposed as false teachers. Consequently, Mormonism is exposed as a false religion leading millions of people away from a saving relationship with the one true God. If ever there was anything worth contending over, surely, it is this.

For more information on the Jesus of Mormonism see:
Creator or Created? That is the Question.
Who is the “Living Christ” of Mormonism?

About Sharon Lindbloom

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

200 Responses to Worth Fighting Over

  1. Oops, sorry to rant on over the limit…

    I was noting that the implications of this strategy are that believers are robbed of the tools they need to interpret scripture (“just believe whatever the prophets say”), and it puts the LDS leadership in a position of unchallengeable authority.

    Now, I’m not particularly averse to a church organization wrestling with scripture on behalf of its followers and then saying, “this is what it means”.

    However, I am concerned about the psychological well-being of someone who is totally surrendered to this mind-set. You see, if you habituate someone to overlaying someone else’s communications with other, unintended meanings, where does it stop? In the extreme, this will lead to a kind of paranoid schizophrenia, for example; no matter how many times I tell you I don’t mean to kill you, you refuse to believe that I don’t want to kill you.

    I picked up a useful word from some posts here; “eisegesis”. I know that we are all subject in some part to our own acquired grid of interpretation, but the extent to which LDS block out any consideration of what exegesis is, I believe, a terrible indictment of what the LDS leadership teaches.

  2. falcon says:

    When we contend for the faith we are doing so, most likely, with reference to Holy Scripture. So what are some general principles of “interpretation”? Let me expand on what I’ve written above.
    1. Context rules!
    Context means “that which goes with the text.” Each verse needs to be considered in light of: the surrounding verses, the book in which it is found, the entire Word of God. We need to ask ourselves if the interpretation of a portion of Scripture is consistent with the theme, purpose, and the structure of the book in which the portion is found? Is the portion of Scripture consistent with other Scripture about the same subject? Is there a difference? We should ask ourselves if we have considered the historic and cultural context. Without following some simple principles/rules such as these, a person could violate a cardinal rule that a Scripture should never be taken out of its context in order to make it say what a person wants it to say. The point is that we are to discover what the writer is saying. We are not to add to the meaning.
    2. Always seek the full counsel of the Word of God.
    Knowing God’s Word in a thorough manner allows us to reject a teaching because someone has isolated a couple of verses to support it (teaching). Again, the particular verses may have been removed from the context, or perhaps important verses may have been overlooked (quite often ignored) which may have rendered a different understanding. Knowing God’s Word provides us with little light bulbs that go off telling us if a teaching is indeed Biblical.
    3. Scripture never contradicts Scripture.
    Scripture is God breathed; it won’t contradict itself. The best way to interpret Scripture is with Scripture. When examining something like the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, we may find it difficult to reconcile what appears to be a contradiction. A good rule: don’t take something to an extreme and remember we have finite minds. Spurgeon said: “I embrace the tension”

  3. falcon says:

    4. Don’t base your convictions on an obscure passage of Scripture. That is, one where the meaning is not easily understood.
    5. Interpret Scripture literally.
    The Bible is not meant to be a book of mysticism. God spoke in such a way that we could know His truth. The Bible should be taken in its natural, normal sense. We don’t have to look for hidden meanings in the Bible. We need to first look for the clear teaching.
    We do, however, need to recognize figures of speech. That is; a word, a phrase, or some form of expression that the author used in an imaginative not a literal sense. For example, the writer or speaker may have been using “hyperbole” which is a deliberate exaggeration. The Bible uses similes, metonymy, synecdoche, personification and irony. The Bible uses parables, allegories, types, and symbols. It’s important to know what these are and to recognize when they occur and how the writer was using them.
    We need to look at literary style when interpreting Scripture. Styles would include: historical-Acts, prophetic-revelation, biographical-Luke, didactic (teaching)-Romans, poetic-Psaolms, epistle (letter) 2 Timothy, and proverbial-Provebs.
    6. Look for the single meaning of the passage. What did the author havbe in mind? Avoid twisting verses to support meanings that are not clearly taught.

  4. falcon says:

    One of our LDS posters told us that he was looking at the Bible from an LDS perspective. That of course is a critical error. Could we look at Scripture from the perspective of a UFO buff? Could we look at Scripture from a Scientology perspective? Could we look at Scripture from the perspective of Jim Jones of People’s Temple who had 800 or so followers commit mass suicide? Could we look at Scripture from the perspective David Koresh who led his followers to death in a flamming inferno? Should we look at Scripture from the perspective of the FLDS or any of the other “prophets” who have little groups of followers out and about Utah? How about the guy in New Mexico that the National Geographic channel profiled? God told this guy he was Jesus and his followers believe it. He’s also the only man in the group that’s allowed to have sex with the women members. Maybe we should view Scripture from his perspective.
    We don’t apply a “perspective” to God’s Holy Word. We seek to find out what God’s Word teaches and then follow it. The LDS downgrade the Bible for a reason. A down graded Scripture allows for all sorts of “flexible” understand and creative doctrine. The LDS church is driven by revelation irrespective of what Scripture says. The revelation approach is also very flexiable allowing for revelations of the past “prophets” to be jettisoned in favor of a new and improved revelation. In this way, no revelation can ever be wrong.
    Those of us who defend the faith do so with a reverence and respect for God’s Word. We don’t try and massage it to say what we desire it to say, but seek to understand God’s meaning. We are guided by principles and rules of interpretation that have the purpose of keeping us on track.

  5. jackg says:

    Falcon and Martin,

    Excellent posts!!!

    As a former Mormon, I can testify to the fact that the LDS Church does not teach its members anything about biblical interpretation. Falcon, everything you said about stringing this passage with that passage is exactly true. This is why “topical” sermons can (I’m not saying they always do) teach unbiblical principles. Expository preaching is the better way to go. Also, the one question not to ask in a Sunday School class is: What does this passage mean to you? It doesn’t matter what it means to me…what matters is what is GOD SAYING in this passage.

    The one thing a student learns is that God uses a fallen and broken humanity to bring forth His word. As we learn in the Book of Judges, God uses the least likely source to accomplish His work here on earth. With that said, despite the frailties of humanity, God has faithfully preserved His Word through the biblical text regarding “salvation history (heilsgeschichte).”

    The problem we have when engaged in apologetics with Mormons is that we don’t share presuppositions. As you noted, Falcon, the Bible is authoritative, but for the Mormon that just isn’t the case, and this is the result of their 8th AOF. Until they can come to the belief that the Bible is authoritative, and that we measure the words of proclaimed prophets and even our own experiences against the word of God, they will continue in their walk of darkness and denial.

    Martin, I particularly appreciation your reference to habituation. That is absolutely the process to believing false teachings. I want to point out that habituation is mentioned in literature pertaining to suicide, as well. It’s the process to any self-destructive behavior. I think we see that happening in Mormonism…


  6. setfree says:

    Hey Jackg, Falcon,
    I really enjoyed the above. Thanks for articulating!

  7. Olsen Jim says:

    falcon, martin, jackg,

    Your lists of principles of Biblical interpretation- where did you get them? I don’t remember ever reading them in the Bible. Funny thing is I don’t recall prophets in the Bible using such criteria for receiving new revelations. Can you? Moses? Abraham? Isaiah? I doubt any of them sat down after communing with Jehovah to make sure the prophecies and commandments they received matched perfectly with those of previous prophets.

    I again emphasize that you do not have any additional authority or grounds to stand on or make such claims. Your interpretation is ultimately nothing more than your interpretation (or some other person’s). NOBODY GAVE YOU ANY AUTHORITY TO INSTRUCT US (OR ANYBODY ELSE) ON BIBLICAL INTERPRERATION.

    Your instruction to us dumb mormons on reading the Bible is quite condescending and self-serving. You suggest we are spoon fed everything and don’t have the same desires, skills, or means as you in learning truth. How silly. As if your “viewpoint” of the Bible is THE correct one. What an ignorant and puffed-up self image.

    And martin- you again misrepresent us in claiming we believe God was once a sinner. Yet you cannot provide one statement or verse from our cannon that suggests this is our belief. In my opinion, you are lying in saying this. I have never, ever heard that taught in any church meeting. I have never read anything to suggest that in all of my study of our doctrine, which I promise is more exhaustive than yours.

  8. falcon says:

    Olson, Jim
    You can’t be serious! I’m really at the point of wondering why we are even messing around with you. I’m being as charitable as I can to you, but you are testing my limits. As I told one of our other Mormon posters, if you were in one of the college classes I teach, I’d kick you out until you got serious. Don’t you want to think some bigger thoughts, expand your horizons?
    But being the kind, benevolent, ever patient type of person I am, I will answer you without being sarcastic and snarly which is what I’d really like to do.
    1. Principles of Biblical interpretation aren’t in the Bible you dofus. It’s a system that was established to insure correct and accurate rendering of the text. Without these guiding principles, you get goofball religions like Mormonism. Why am I even answering this? Are you really that vacant? This has nothing to do with receiving “new” revelations. Sit-up and pay attention and throw your gum away!
    2. Mormons, you are right, have no scholarly discipline. They feel things and run to and fro with every new wave of doctrine or supposed revelation. Mormons are waves driven by the wind.
    3. I don’t have “my interpretation”. You really don’t get any of this do you? Mormonism has turned you into a dunce. My guess is that you have at least a tick above average intelligence. Would you please use some of it and quit lapping up what they teach you at the wards.
    Yes, when it comes to actually doing some serious study, I do believe Mormons are deficient. You’re comments prove it. You reveal it everytime you post here.
    Well I think I handled that pretty well. I got my point across and did it in a very nice way. I think I’m growing!

  9. setfree says:

    Olsen, Jim

    Since you brought up the “authority” thing again, I would like to ask: would you or any other Mormon care to say WHY IT IS OKAY that you have so much in common with the Freemasons when it comes to the M. Priesthood and the temple ceremonies? Any one want to elaborate on the okayness of it?


    that made me chuckle

  10. setfree says:

    Olsen, Jim

    Studying passages in context is COMMON SENSE. If not, I could take your “how silly” in your entry above, and say that you meant that Thomas Monson is silly. See how that works?

    Maybe no one should have ever broken the Bible into chapters and verses, so that stealing a verse here and there would be more difficult.

    Since you brought up the “authority” thing again, I would like to ask: Would you or any other Mormon here care to explain WHY IT IS OKAY that you have so much in common with the Freemasons when it comes to the M. Priesthood and the temple ceremonies? Any one want to elaborate on the okayness of it?

    you made me chuckle

  11. setfree says:

    oops! well, maybe it’s good that that question was asked twice! how ’bout three times, and this time I’ll add just a little more food for thought.
    IF JS didn’t get the Melchesidek Priesthood from the Freemasons, how’d they get it? Do they have the authority it supposedly gives? Can anyone explain why, if JS got the temple stuff from the Freemasons, how the MP got all tangled up with it?
    If he didn’t get the temple stuff FROM them, did he give it to them? Are they a brother church to the LDS church, since they have the same MP and similar temple ceremonies? If not, then what is the dividing difference?
    One last question… if the definition of priesthood as used in the Bible is that of “the office of a priest”, used like mother-hood or father-hood to describe the things involved with “being a priest”, where and how did it become a magic power, coveted by Mormons, Masons, and witches alike?
    Ok, the floor is yours.

  12. GRCluff says:


    I think you are making great progress. Your note above was quite tolerant, even kind.

    I find your logic to be incomplete, however, because you put everything into a context of “scholarly disipline”. You completely reject any notion of truth outside of the Bible.

    What if you were born in a time before the Bible was written? What would be your foundation for truth then?

    Christ (In the Bible) gave us this approach:
    Matt 7:7
    …ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
    8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

    If you reject the concept of personal revelation to always defer to the Bible, then what does “knock” mean? It must mean that you should knock on the cover before you read. Yes, I agree, that would be quite ridiculous.

    One purpose for our life here is to learn to walk by faith. If we begin to rely on evidence and proof we are rejecting the concept of faith. God wants us to pray and receive answers to prayer.

    James 1:5
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
    6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

    The Bible also teaches about the failure to grasp the concept of faith:

    2 Tim 3:7
    Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

    My question for falcon: Does your focus on “scholarly discipline” make you reprobate concerning faith?

    It is faith that is missing, not Bible scholarship–the kind of faith that gets answers to prayer. Mormons value spirituality and personal revelation well above biblical scholarship.

  13. GRCluff says:

    Heres my problem:

    I don’t think God has changed anything as basic as the foundation for truth, just because the Bible was written. The Bible should enhance that foundation, not place restrictions on it.

    I think it is quite ironic that falcon mentioned “wave of doctrine”. The verse that speaks about waves tossed by the sea is immediately preceeded by the recommendation to “ask of God”. (James 1:5-6) It says nothing at all about “bible scholarship”.

    The proper context for those being tossed about like a wave of the sea is clearly attached to those who refuse to use faith and prayer for a foundation for truth, not those that do.

  14. setfree says:


    Wow, I ALMOST can’t believe you just wrote that.

    Everyone of those things above you took out of original context and put together to support the doctrine that personal revelation beats out knowing what’s in the Bible.

    I especially love it that you used 2 Tim 3 to try to validate your idea that those of us who try to study the Bible and see what it REALLY HAS TO SAY, instead of just grabbing out a verse here and there to prove what we think, are reprobate! Especially because a few more verses into the passage, he says:

    “You (Timothy) however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them (Paul),

    and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    All Scripture (not including LDS “scripture” since it hasn’t been born yet) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

    so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

    In other words? It’s the knowing of the Bible that gives a man the ability to teach, reprove, correct, and train. It’s the knowing of the Bible that gives the wisdom that leads to the salvation through faith in Jesus. Hardly an admonition not to study up, you think?

  15. Olsen Jim says:


    You are cute, aren’t you. I think your posts really do speak for themselves. Am I supposed to be impressed that you teach college classes? I have spent a little time on campus myself my little intellectual master. I am guessing you don’t teach physics, chemistry, logic, or statistics?

    Of course you will not answer any of my questions since I started posting here. Your M.O. is so predictable. When challenged, get personal, inflammatory, and go off on your normal, unrelated talking points.

    My point is that if you are right about the authority of the Bible, you still have no authority to tell me or anybody else what any given passage of the Bible means. I have the Bible as you do. You have your interpretation of those words, like I have mine. Your interpretation is based on what others have told you and the traditions you have inherited. You are more naive than I thought if you think you have no bias. Nobody with any credibility claims such a thing.

    Your religion is based on the absolute blind faith in the authority of the Bible. This is a big problem when you realize that I and other also have the Bible. Any superiority in interpretation you claim is based on man-made criteria. Yours is a contradictory position- you have no way around this. If there is no authority outside the Bible as you all claim, then I have as much authority as you.

    I at least claim authority from God (Priesthood and modern revelation) that is beyond what you possess. Of course, I am either right or wrong. But my claim is least internally logical. Yours will simply not stand basic examination.

  16. Olsen Jim says:


    Do you not see that your are reading into the text your bias and assumptions?

    Where in those verses does it mention “the Bible?” Do you know of which scriptures and sacred writings Paul spoke?” When was the speaker speaking, and when was The Holy Bible compiled?

    Knowing the scriptures brings wisdom which can lead to salvation through Faith in Christ. How does that contradict any LDS doctrine? It doesn’t in any way, shape, or form. But you don’t seem to recognize your assumptions in your interpretation.

    My point, and Cluff’s too I think, is not that studying the scriptures is not important. My point is that your reliance alone upon creeds and man-made methodology, to the neglect of the spirit, lead to rejection of that very power that is in the scriptures. You reject God’s prophets and words because you box yourselves into man-made constructs. And there is nothing to separate those particular man-made constructs from any others.

  17. Olsen Jim says:

    falcon said,

    “I’m really at the point of wondering why we are even messing around with you. I’m being as charitable as I can to you, but you are testing my limits….if you were in one of the college classes I teach, I’d kick you out….But being the kind, benevolent, ever patient type of person I am, I will answer you without being sarcastic and snarly which is what I’d really like to do.”

    “Principles of Biblical interpretation aren’t in the Bible you dofus. Why am I even answering this? Are you really that vacant? Sit-up and pay attention and throw your gum away!

    “You really don’t get any of this do you? Mormonism has turned you into a dunce. My guess is that you have at least a tick above average intelligence. Would you please use some of it and quit lapping up what they teach.”

    Hard to imagine a tone and self-image that more closely matched that of the Pharisees of Christ’s day.

  18. falcon says:

    WOW, I’m popular tonight. I’ll focus on CLUFF and say a few things I normally keep to myself although I think I may have shared it in some form here perhaps once or twice over the many months I’ve been actively posting here.

    While I was raised Catholic, I don’t belong to any formal denomination or Church body, I’m a born again believer in Jesus Christ. My faith in Jesus is the central focus of my life. I believe in the fullness of God’s Word. I’m fastidious and very picky about how people interpret scripture.
    There are several reasons for this but it’s primarily because I’m a believer in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as they are described by Paul in First Corinthians chapters 12, 13, and 14. This would include prophesy, speaking in tongues, word of knowledge, healing, spiritual discernment etc.
    I find that it is absolutely imperative that Christians, especially charasmatics, have a firm grasp of God’s Word and test everything with scripture. Error can creep in when people are not on guard. There have been all kinds of strange teachings proclaimed and accepted even within the Body of Christ because people were not vigilant in testing everything with the Word of God. Over the years I have become exceedingly skeptical and being so has served me well.
    Do I believe in continuous revelation? No not in the Mormon sense of the word. Does God reveal things to me? Yes, everyday but it’s all in the context of His revealed Word the Bible. It’s interesting to me that Mormons don’t pick-up on the fact that their view of continuous revelation has been nothing but trouble for the religion. But it’s a religion that was founded in error and it just perpetuates the tradition. Knowing and understanding the Word of God and seeing it as authoritative would destroy Mormonism. It is essential to it’s survival that Mormonism hold to a lower view of the Bible, that they (Mormons) stay away from any formal system of Biblical interpretation.

  19. Ralph says:

    I have a question. Many here, especially Falcon and RickB claim to have the truth and that they are ASSURED of getting into heaven and that we LDS are going to hell, and to those that make this claim it is an absolute – ie no ifs buts or whys.

    If we look at what Jesus taught in the parable of the 10 virgins I wonder how people can be so sure. The 10 virgins represent the TRUE believers in Jesus – in the Ev’s case this is the Christian denominations that believe the same as them; for the LDS it is the LDS church only. The question lies in the fact that only 5 of the virgins will make it to the party – in other words only half of the Christians will make it to heaven. So how can anyone on here say that they are saved and going to heaven when Jesus taught that they have at best a 50:50 chance? Have these people already passed through judgment and been told their outcome? If so, why do all born again Christians claim to be saved and going to heaven and that the rest of Christianity is as well. Just remember, Jesus is teaching about the TRUE believers, not the ones who go to church but do not believe, etc.

  20. setfree says:

    Olsen Jim

    I apologize, I said “Bible” when I should have said “Old Testament”.

    If you read back through 1 and 2 Timothy, you’ll see that Paul instructs Timothy, his “son in the faith” to diligently keep his (Paul’s) instructions, as well as the testimony of the Lord. Timothy has not just learned the OLD TESTAMENT since his youth, but now knows of Jesus and has been instructed personally by Paul. Thus, he is operating under the direct influence of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament (even if not in written form yet), and being entrusted as a teacher under such understanding.

    In preparing to answer your accusation, I went back and read Timothy again. This, against your assumption that I just go by “creeds and man-made methodology”. On the contrary. I read the book for myself, and compare it to itself. You should try it.

    For example, if you read through Timothy, you can find some more good stuff:
    1. 1Tim 1:17 (another “only one God” verse)
    2. 1Tim 2:5 (ANOTHER “only one God” verse)
    3. 1Tim 3:16 (another verse about how God was made flesh and dwelt among us)

    and also some missing stuff:
    1. No mention of “priesthood”
    2. No mention of temple work
    3. No mention of becoming gods

    I’m not trying to stuff my own beliefs into the Bible. If I make an error in writing, I apologize. But I also will not put Joseph Smith’s or any other LDS theology into the Bible. I’ll just read the Bible for what it is. Can we have that understanding between us?

    One more thing. Now that Jesus has gone and sent the Holy Spirit to indwell believers, what is the Holy Spirit’s job? to point you to another god, another jesus, another gospel?

    No, no, no.

    All of the above is irrelevant.

    What you’re really saying is that you don’t believe the Bible. Not any of it. Right? It’s just man-made, and you’re a man, so you’re own beliefs are just as true. That’s the main issue right there, isn’t it? Am I correct?

  21. Andy Watson says:

    Part 1


    How about this: let’s forget about the Bible being your only resource for answering the first question (Is God an exalted man?). The Book of Mormon claims to be “the most correct of any book on earth…and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.” It also contains “the fulness of the everlasting gospel.” With that said, this particular teaching by the LDS Church has to/must be in the Book of Mormon. Heavenly Father is not going to leave out this important fact about Himself regarding His nature and not tell His people about it. I’m going to get closer to Him by my knowledge and understanding of the Book of Mormon so this fundamental teaching and understanding of Him would be/must be contained in the pages of the Book of Mormon. Show me this doctrine/teaching that is the “first principle of the gospel” from the BoM.

    I asked “loaded” questions? This is pathetic – again. Just a few days ago you were ready for all 100 questions and were itching to just get the first two and this is your reply? Spare me your whining and take it up with Joseph Smith who hatched this “loaded” doctrine and peddled it to the uneducated masses who swallowed it down like bad elixir without testing this heretical so-called prophet’s teaching with the Word of God (the Bible) to see if it stood muster (1 Thes 4:1). Millions of people have died in Mormonism believing this 14 year-old farm boy’s tale from the woods in New York. They did so then and continue to now and you can’t show me from the Scriptures this fundamental teaching that you have rested your eternal hope in? Wake up! Quit making excuses for yourself and the GA’s and start searching this out.

    I can “trist the answer”? What? I asked the questions and you are the one giving the answers – not me. I can passionately and thoroughly define the nature of God from the Bible with numerous references from the Bible. I’m not LDS and I could do it from the Book of Mormon too!

  22. Andy Watson says:

    Part 2

    Shem, we are going to break it down line-by-line what you said and check it with the Bible and then with what your GA’s have put out to the Mormons in the form of “doctrine”.

    You said: “I think we can all agree that Christ was a man, that he lived a mortal life, died, was resurrected, and is now God.”

    You got it wrong on both counts – Mormonism and Christianity. Christ was fully God and fully man which is quite different than the way the Mormons present him as being only “half”:

    “There was in Palestine a couple, Joseph and Mary. She, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a half-Deity. He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal.” (The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, page 10)

    Next, Christ didn’t become God after the resurrection. He has been God from all eternity (John 1:1). He was called God before His earthly birth and when He was born He fulfilled the prophecy (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). Jesus is “The Mighty God”. That is El Gibbor – one of the titles of God.

    In Mormonism, Jesus didn’t become God after the resurrection. He is “a god” (one of billions)

    “Our Savior was a God before he was born into this world, and he brought with him that same status when he came here. He was as much a God when he was born into the world as he was before. The Savior did not have fullness at first, but after he received his body and the resurrection all power was given unto him both in heaven and earth. Although he was a God, even the Son of God, with power and authority to create this earth and other earths, yet there were some things lacking which he did not receive until after his resurrection.” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:32-33)

    “By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in the preexistent state.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129)

  23. Andy Watson says:

    Part 3

    That’s right, I do see Jesus as one being with the Father. They are two persons, but one in essence, nature and being. You can get caught up to speed by educating yourself on this very discussion on the thread topic a few weeks back entitled “Discovering the God of Christianity”. I have looked at the Bible with the LDS perspective and I’d rather not have to if I can help it because it gives me a headache in the blatant heresy the Mormons are engaged in. I also try to not openly laugh at Gospel Essentials and Doctrines classes at the wards when I come across biblical exegesis displayed by yourself with John 5:19.

    Is this really the best you have in apologetics that your heavenly father was a savior on some other planet like your jesus in the Americas? If you’re eternal hope is dangling on this sink-all verse, I’d recommend you use a life-line and call someone. You have my email address. I’ll help walk you out.

    Okay, taking your view of John 5:19 let’s look at it and see if it measures up. Verses 17-18 are talking about Jesus’ character. Jesus’ claim was a no-brainer for the Jews and they sought to kill him because Jesus had made Himself EQUAL WITH GOD. If you are going to stick with your view of verse 19, then you’re going to have to do something about John 5:23 because you are now going to have to start giving to Jesus THE SAME HONOR that you give the Father. Are the LDS people doing that? Nope! They could start by praying to Christ, the mediator, but they can’t because:

    “We always pray to our Father in Heaven, and to him alone…We do not pray to the Savior or to anyone else. To do so would be disrespectful of Heavenly Father and an indication that we do not properly understand the relationship of the members of the Godhead.” (Missionary Preparation Student Manual Religion 130, page 40).

    Has your father been the judge of those persons he died for on that other planet? I know, “it hasn’t been revealed yet”.

  24. Andy Watson says:

    Part 4

    In John 5:22 the Father has given all future judgement to the Son. Give me an LDS reference that states that your father has been given judgement from his father to judge the people on that planet where he supposedly atoned for.

    Here are some other questions that need to be answered following your conclusion of your jesus copy-catting what your father did:

    1. When your father became the risen savior of his world at one point did he marry, obtain residence near Kolob and start procreating?
    2. Is your jesus now doing this as well? If so, where is his residence and what planet are his spirit children inhabiting?
    3. Your heavenly father will reign in the celestial kingdom. Mormon doctrine states that your jesus gets the terrestrial kingdom. Why the difference? Your father should be getting the terrestrial glory from the eternal dwelling place of those that obtained that glory on the other planet. Why does your father and jesus have two different dwelling places for those that die on this planet?
    4. Your jesus will return and “set up shop” in Missouri in the Millennium with Adam. Will your heavenly father also return back to his planet for the millennium or has that already happened? If so, why did your father leave after the millennium and head for his residence near Kolob? Who took his place and what is going on there now? Wouldn’t the residents of that planet wonder where their savior went and started up another program somewhere else? At some point will your jesus “split” and go off to start his own program and procreate a savior for that next planet?

    LDS references requested!

    The questions could keep going. Our Mormon friends and the LDS Church state that they have the answers to man’s questions and that they remain Mormons because “it all makes sense”. Well, if this makes sense to you, then I beg you to help me make sense out of it. Mormons deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity because they can’t understand it, but accept this.

  25. Andy Watson says:

    Part 5

    Shem, it’s very convenient and easy for Mormons to say that their view of god being an exalted man is “very plain” to see, “but only when looking at it from an LDS perspective”. That’s real nice, but don’t expect to be taken seriously. With the LDS lenses around your eyes you approach the Bible from what you have already been taught about it FIRST before you go to the Bible to learn what it says about the subject BEFORE AND AFTER you are given the “medicine” at the ward. If you don’t test it out, you have nobody to blame but yourself. You can’t blame it on Joseph Smith when you end up in outer darkness when God’s Word is sitting on your lap and people like myself and others are begging you to look at it FIRST.

    You’re not alone. The JW’s are in the same camp and have many of the beliefs that you do. They come over every Saturday at 1 PM for hours of hearty discussions. You cite John 5:19 for your reasons. They cite 1 Thes 4:16 as a proof text that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Look at it and try swallowing that down. Taste good? No, huh? They are looking at their Bible with their JW lens on based on what their people in Brooklyn told them and they have the corrupt NWT version of the Bible. They have false prophecies just as bad or worse than the Mormons and they have to face the reality of it which they did yesterday. Their claiming to have never heard about those prophecies isn’t an excuse.

    So, obey John 5:22 – “honor the Son, even as they honor the Father”. That is in the present tense. To dishonor Jesus is to dishonor the Father. Obey John 5:18 and Phil 2:6 and give the Son equality with the Father. Call Jesus Lord and God as Thomas did in John 20:28. Call Jesus the “great God” as Paul did in Titus 2:13. Obey the Father’s command in Hebrews 1:6 and worship the Son; call Jesus “God” – not “a god”. If you want to copy-cat the Son who is copy-catting the Father, then do what both of them tell you to do which is contrary to LDS teaching.

  26. Andy Watson says:

    Part 6


    I wish I could report to you that your interpretation of John 5:19 had support from the GA’s, but it doesn’t. I can’t find anyone to back you up in this belief – officially. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie in his “Doctrinal New Testament Commentary”, Vol.1, pp. 189-193) on this verse doesn’t offer one slight hint of your perceived conclusion and position. He states on page 190 in the above resource what he said before:

    “As the Jehovah of old, he was more faithful, obedient, and diligent than any of the spirit hosts of heaven, and while yet in the pre-existent sphere, he attained that intelligence and power which made him a god” (p. 190)

    Before you blow-off McConkie as a non-credible source, be aware that at McConkie’s funeral he was called a “preacher of righteousness”. This is the same title given to Noah and Enoch in the “Pearl of Great Price Student Manual Religion 327, page 26. Ezra Taft Benson, the prophet, called on McConkie when he had a question about Mormon doctrine (Ensign, June 1985). Can you believe that? The prophet went to an apostle to learn about doctrine?

    Shem, what troubled me the most of all is that you didn’t even address question #2 asking if you knew if you had been forgiven of your sins and your confidence in knowing your eternal destiny now. That is sad and grieves me a great deal for you and other Mormons. I can show you from the Bible the confidence that I have in knowing my sins are forgiven and my confidence in having eternal life NOW. I don’t know why this doesn’t trouble Mormons more than it should. Mormons put on their “happy face”, but in reality it’s hidden anxiety or should be not knowing you have complete forgiveness and the gift of eternal life right now.

    The questions weren’t “loaded”. Mormons have “unloaded” themselves to a false god and prophet. You failed in answering two questions. You have no credibility. You should be the one converting to Christianity since I won’t be to Mormonism.

  27. jackg says:


    As I thought about responding to you, the Holy Spirit put it on my heart to remember that you are a victim of the lies of JS and Mormonism. So, rather than respond to you harshly, I will respond to you with words of hope: God is working in your life to bring you out of the bondage of Mormonism. You don’t appreciate it, today, but hopefully you will begin to respond to the Voice of the LORD as He brings you Truth through His imperfect human vessels who post here in the Name of Jesus Christ. Falcon may not be perfect, but he is bringing you unadulterated Truth. I don’t know who you are, Olsen, but God does, and He knows of whom I speak when I utter your name in prayer as I pray for your redemption. You won’t appreciate what I’m saying, today, but I’m hoping there will be a day when we rejoice in your salvation.

    Blessings to you and yours…

  28. Michael P says:

    Ralph, why do we believe with 100% certainty we are going to heaven? Because the Bible tells us nothing can take us from God’s hand.

    Why do we believe you are going to hell? Because you do not believe in Christ. Rather, you follow an empty savior who will lead you to death.

    In other words, you are among the many who will call on the name of the lord and he will say he has never known you. Or, put a third way, using that same passage you raise your question on, you are not prepared.


  29. Olsen Jim wrote ”

    And martin- you again misrepresent us in claiming we believe God was once a sinner. Yet you cannot provide one statement or verse from our cannon that suggests this is our belief. In my opinion, you are lying in saying this. I have never, ever heard that taught in any church meeting. I have never read anything to suggest that in all of my study of our doctrine, which I promise is more exhaustive than yours.”

    Olsen Jim, I don’t doubt that you have spent more time studying Mormon doctrine than me. My concern is that you have not learned one thing from it.

  30. falcon says:

    The Apostle Paul specifically warns his followers to be wary of those who come with religious bragging rights based on visions they have seen. He contrasts this with the Word of God and the proclaimed Gospel that he had revealed to him by Jesus Christ. Paul, having experienced a true revelation, which he tested by presenting it to the Apostles in Jerusalem, knew how people could be taken captive by dynamic and engaging personalities with fantastic claims of the miraculous.
    A characteristic of a cult is that they claim to have a new vision, a new revelation or a new teaching; which they say, replaces the old one which, of course, was in error. Generally speaking, this new revelation leads people to discard the Bible as being the one authoritative source for doctrine. Once having accomplished this, the cult leader can lead people on what ever nefarious spiritual journey he pleases. His revelations and visions now guide the faithful.
    Another characteristic of a cult is that they attack the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus (like the Bible) gets a down-grade from the cult leader. Jesus is not seen as God incarnate but some lesser being akin to a type of super hero.
    Salvation by faith through God’s grace is also discarded in favor of a works righteousness program where the faithful no longer have any assurance of salvation and are kept in bondage to the cult. The cult holds the keys to eternal life and slavish devotion to the cult is controled through unreasonalbe time committments and claims on the personal finances of the members.
    Through the use of thought terminating cliches, the cult keeps its members from any form of inquiry that would cause the house of cards to collapse. Mormonism is such a cult. It can be difficult to extract one’s self from such a group. The first step is honest inquiry.

  31. shematwater says:

    Sorry. I reached my daily limit of comments last time, so I will now answer the second and bonus question asked.

    2. Be the first Mormon in history to tell me and everyone here that you know that you have been forgiven for ALL of your sins RIGHT NOW and that if you died RIGHT NOW you know you’d be in the celestial kingdom with your god who resides near Kolob.

    I cannot do this, because there have been others before me. Joseph Smith declared this. He even declared it about other members.
    Me, myself, if I died right now, yes I would be in the Celestial Kingdom. I have been forgiven of my sins, as I have worthily partaken of the holy Sacrement, and thus I stand ready to accept a Celestial Glory when I die.

    BONUS: Jesus Christ is my Savior. I am born again, have forgiveness for my sins and have eternal life RIGHT NOW in Jesus Christ. What can the LDS Church offer me that I don’t already have in Jesus Christ RIGHT NOW?
    I would answer that you do not have a true understanding, for a full forgiveness of sins can only come from Baptism at the hands of one holding authority. As the LDS church is the only church that has this authority, and you have not yet been baptized, you are living with a false security taught by Satan to keep you from inheriting all that you could. As such, the LDS church can offer you the true hope of Forgiveness in Christ and exaltation in the Eternal worlds.

  32. Michael P says:


    Only those who can forgive are those whop baptize, and only those with authority can baptize, huh? I guess Jesus was lying when he said he forgave people without baptism.

    You really, really want to believe the things you say, and probably think you do. But a simple reading of scripture will show that you cannot believe in the Bible and in what you belive, because they cannot be reconciled.

    Jesus forgave many, and even claimed to have the power to forgive sin, something the Jews found blasphemous. He still can, and still does. He does not need his people on earth to do this, and in fact, we cannot forgive sin. Only Christ can.

  33. Michael P says:

    Oh, and Shem, what if you sin today? Are still worthy of the CK? If so, does that mean that you don’t have to be sin free to get in and that it is based on your works rather than being clean? If baptism by authority is required, would you have to be baptized again, each time you sin?

  34. falcon says:

    Well Shem,
    You gave a very nice recitation of the Mormon position and I’ll let Andy/Berean deal with that. I’ll address something else.
    You have the Christian talking points down and have applied them to Mormonism i.e.
    *Jesus Christ is my Savior.
    *I’m born again.
    *I have forgiveness for my sins and have eternal life right now.
    You have taken these three above points of evengelical Christianity and applied them to Mormonism. This is very deceptive and is done to mask what Mormonism really is. We’ve been down this road countless times with you Mormons and you just won’t give it up. If you’re going to use the vocabulary of ev. Christianity, please define the terms according to Mormonism so that people know the difference.
    Then you start to undo what you’ve said previously when you start adding things to the “forgiveness formula”. Now, according to Mormonism, you have to be baptized and have hands laid on you to get really forgiven. We could put this under the heading of works and sacrementalism. If that’s what you have to do in Mormonism fine, but that’s not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is, as we point out countless times, another gospel. Why don’t you add circumcision while your at it?
    Your last couple of sentences reflect the fact that you haven’t read the Bible and how totally deceived you are. The LDS church has no authority. It’s a cult. Not even a very clever one at that.

  35. jackg says:

    Again, Mormons show their lack of understanding regarding the biblical text. They are inclined to knock biblical scholarship, despite the fact that Paul commends the Bereans for searching the scriptures and not blindly accepting what was being preached. And, once again, Mormons want to make a claim for having more “faith” because they accept heretical teachings that obvious come from outside the biblical text, then ask questions like, “What if you lived in a time when there was no Bible?” This is a great example of how the Church Fathers operated–from within the biblical text. JS, on the other hand, brought things from outside the biblical text. I know I’m a broken record, but Mormons will never come to know the biblical Jesus until they can accept the Bible as authoritative for their lives. This is what we must pray for. Until that happens, we will ride this never-ending merry-go-round of quasi-theological debate until we jump off before we puke our guts out. I can remember when I was a Mormon I truly believed I worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Something to think about: Mormons believe they are following the truth because of the common grace God blesses them with, and they mistake this common grace for blessings as a result of being members of the true church. They are faithful in their religion, and have been misled to believe that the God they worship is the True and Living God DESPITE the fact that everything they believe about their god contradicts what the Bible teaches about God. They have been habituated into such a belief because of their 8th AOF, and their existential experiences trump biblical truth. When I walked in Mormonism, I truly believed I was in the only true church on the face of the earth. It took decades to respond to Truth, and another decade to be totally free from the addiction to a cult that is formed through years of use. Praying for the redemption of all Mormons.

    Peace and Grace…

  36. Olsen Jim says:

    Jack, falcon,

    Don’t flatter your own argument. I have never argued against studying the Bible. I whole-heartedly believe in and encourage Biblical scholarship in a methodical manner. Since both you and I have the Bible, your argument depends upon your claim that I somehow don’t actually use or accept the Bible, thereby giving you something that I don’t have. Sorry. Doesn’t work. I am just as much into the Bible as you, despite your apparent ownership of the book.

    But is like a 4-volume manual on military protocol- each of the 4 volumes are authoritative. But each one does not independently represent the whole protocol or body of instruction. The Bible is certainly authoritative word of God. But your insistence that it is the whole word of God, and that God cannot give any additional words is simply not supported by the Bible itself. And your belief that it is infallable and perfect, which your religion is quite dependent upon, is simply unscholarly.

    Too many here, including yourselves, are either naive to the history of the Bible, the manuscripts, and the manner of its compilation or you refuse to look at it squarely. It’s history does not threaten me. But it certainly does threaten your claims of infallability and perfection. That must be the reason you will not deal with these things.

    Your simple view and your pattern of making huge assumptions are demonstrated by your repeated appeal to Pauls warnings against false teachers. Yes indeed, there are false teachers. But you often state that simply because Pauls warns of such people, LDS are those people. It is a simple, childlike jump in logic, but unfortunately is a completely unsupported conclusion.

    Bottom line- you worship the Bible and reject the God who gave it. And you take an unscholarly approach to its history- a little ironic given your common criticism regarding a lack of LDS scholarship into our history and cannon.

  37. Michael P says:


    I am going to jump in here and make some observations on this last post. What you present is a battle that must be fought of over, or worth fighting over. You make the claim that the other Mormon manuscripts are just as authoritative as the Bible and then chastize us for not seeing that. Fair enough in the course of a discussion. But be careful to note why it is that we say the things we say about the Bible, and then about your other “authoritative” works. To do this, one must look at the whole picture, from history to the books themselves to how the books are used.

    Personally, I am no expert in Christian history, and I grant it is not all rosy, but it does present a consistency and a message that I feel more than confident in following today. Mormonism cannot say the same thing about its own faith, because if you were to follow the faith of Smith or Young, you would be living a very different faith now. Further, you cannot speak in more than generalities about the history of our faith, the compilation of the Bible and the transmission of the text.

    The appeal of Paul against false teachers is no small matter, and you seek to diminish its importance. This is interesting, because if we diminish these warnings, we are apt to fall for one of them. And yes, I believe Smith and Young were false teachers.

    How do I reach that conclusion? By reading the book you want to diminish in importance, as demonstrated by your diminishing Paul’s warnings against false teachers and your uplifting of the other sources as authoritative. You cannot make your case using the Bible alone, and if you cannot do that, you are in trouble.

    The Bible is clear, and the Bible is the word of God. We are to test all things we hear, we are to go to scripture to test, and we are to rely on the word of God as the ultimate source of authority. Remember, the word of God was written in the Bible (I think you’d agree on that) even if he also speaks to us as well.

  38. Michael P says:


    If the Bible is the word of God, then everything he tells us must be found in the Bible. Otherwise, it cannot be said to be the word of God, but at best a partial word of God. But that’s not what it is, is it? The Bible is indeed the complete word of God.

    If you believe that it is but a partial revelation, not even a distorted revelation, you cannot trust it as authoritative. You admit this is the case in your analogy above, but to reach your conclusion you must some assumptions on your own, assumptions that cannot go beyond assumption.

    For example, you claim that Christ came the America’s to reveal his word to the American people. But the word that was revealed is not the same as it was in the old world. Why is that? It is your assumption that this is true, but have nothing to offer except that the spirit told you so. And if you believe the Bible is authoritative, then you would look at it and follow its words and test the claims made. It would fail based on the Bible alone.

    You, I am guessing, would support the claim by saying the Bible has been perverted through transmission errors, but as has been said several times, nothing changed has been changed enough to change interpretation. This is a problem for you, but you will make the claim anyway because your faith depends on it and the spirit tells you so. But you are to test what you see, right? You are to look to scripture to confirm what you are told, right?

    Another problem with history is that you claim to be a restoration of Christianity, but the more I have thought about it, the reality is that you even correct Judaism. You say that there are multiple Gods (even if you worship but one) but the Jews believed in but one. The Lord you claim to be Jehovah and Jesus is to the Jews the one God they said existed for ever and ever, unless they were wrong, too.

    I could go on, but have gone on enough, and hope you consider what has been written by me and others.

  39. falcon says:

    Olsen, Jim
    As ususal, you offer a lot of opinions but nothing to back it up. You say something about the Bible not supporting the notion that God will not give additional words of scripture. If you’re going to make a claim like that then you’d better supply substantiation for it or it’s just more Mormon sloganeering. The “you worship the Bible” line is pretty childish and unfortuately another slogan you’ve been taught down at the wards and repeat as needed.
    So you’re a scholar when dealing with the history and transmission of the sacred Biblical text. So just what do you know about that topic? That’s quite a boast. Can you tell me what you’re using for references. I’m guessing you’re making a false claim or perhaps you think you’re knowledgable based on your Mormon training on the topic.
    I’m guessing that your attitude about the Bible and desire to downgrade it is based on the fact that the BoM has had several thousand changes in it since the original version and that the BoA has been proven to be totally bogus. Don’t judge the Bible by the Mormon “scriptures” which have been proven to be a toal hoax.

  40. shematwater says:

    I would now like to respond to what ANDY said:

    “The Book of Mormon claims to be “the most correct of any book on earth…and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.” It also contains “the fulness of the everlasting gospel.” With that said, this particular teaching by the LDS Church has to/must be in the Book of Mormon.”
    You really are being rather idiotic here, and showing a very low understanding of the English language (even worse than mine, which is impressive). Yes the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, however, this does not mean it has all truth in it, but that what is in it is correct.
    As to the fullness of the Gospel, what exactly does that mean? The Gospel can refer to all truth, which is what Joseph Smith was referring to in his sermon. However, it can also reference only that which is necessary for our salvation. This doctrine is not necessary for our salvation, and thus would not have to be included in the Book of Mormon.

    “I asked “loaded” questions? This is pathetic – again. Just a few days ago you were ready for all 100 questions and were itching to just get the first two and this is your reply?”
    I was ready, and I did answer. That does not mean this was not loaded. You might as well have challenged a contractor to build a house, but demand he start with the roof and work his way down. It is impossible. The same is true of this doctrine. Without the foundation of the Gospel, as taught by the LDS church, without all the rest of the LDS doctrine understood, you will not find this doctrine in the Scriptures. Of course, this is a common tactic of people such as you. You demand an explanation of those truths that require one to know so much more beforehand.

  41. shematwater says:

    “I have looked at the Bible with the LDS perspective and I’d rather not have to if I can help it because it gives me a headache in the blatant heresy the Mormons are engaged in.”
    Then you have never truly looked at it from the LDS perspective. You have never truly tried to understand the LDS, only how they differ from your belief, so that you could fight against them. This is not looking at the Bible from the LDS perspective, but looking at the LDS from your perspective while you read the Bible. It is very different.

    “If you are going to stick with your view of verse 19, then you’re going to have to do something about John 5:23 because you are now going to have to start giving to Jesus THE SAME HONOR that you give the Father.”

    Nowhere does it say to give the same honor to the Son, only that they should honor him. I give the Father the honor of being the Father, the Great Eloheim. I give Christ the honor of being the Son and savior, the Great Jehovah. Thus, I am fulfilling all that has been said in John 5.

    “Give me an LDS reference that states that your father has been given judgement from his father to judge the people on that planet where he supposedly atoned for.”
    You ask for things that you know do not exist. The actual relation and history of the Father is not fully understood. I do not know everything, and I do not need to know everything. What I need to know has been revealed. If I want to know more I can always ask God, but that is no guarantee he will tell me, nor does that give me permission to tell the unbelieving what he does tell me.

  42. shematwater says:

    “Well, if this makes sense to you, then I beg you to help me make sense out of it. Mormons deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity because they can’t understand it, but accept this.”
    If you really wanted to make sense out of it I would. However, you do not desire to know the truth of the doctrine, or the pure logic behind it. You want only enough to allow you to twist it, to make it a weapon against those who do not have an understanding. The doctrine of the LDS church is such that I have very few questions left unanswered, but you will never except that, and it would take too long for me to explain it all.

    “If you don’t test it out, you have nobody to blame but yourself.”
    I find it highly annoying that [name-calling removed by mod] like you assume that the members of the LDS faith have not tested everything that is taught by our leaders. It seems the only way you can justify what you say is to assume that all members are fools are only you can set them strait. I have tested everything I believe in. I have come to some conclusions in the past that I have discarded because they did not hold up. But this is not one of them. This is one that rings true by every standard that I can find, but most important, it rings true with the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which cannot lie.

    “I wish I could report to you that your interpretation of John 5:19 had support from the GA’s, but it doesn’t. I can’t find anyone to back you up in this belief – officially.”
    That would be because it has never been officially stated. However, we are not dependant of the “official statements” to support our belief. It is doctrine that the Father was once mortal. It is also doctrine that the Son was once spirit. When you understand this it is simple logic that makes my interpretation of this verse possible. If you can find where the leaders state that my interpretation in wrong, please do so. But the fact that they don’t say it is right is hardly evidence of anything.

  43. setfree says:


    You ask: “As to the fullness of the Gospel, what exactly does that mean?”

    Here, does this help? This is from the official website of the LDS church.

    Gospel: “The “good news” of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind. At the center of His plan is the Atoning sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ, in whom alone salvation is possible. In its fulness, the gospel includes all of the commandments, principles, ordinances, and covenants whereby human beings can be forgiven of sin, overcome the world, and attain immortality and eternal life in the kingdom of God.

    K? So the “fullness of the gospel” “includes all the commandments, principles, ordinances, and covenants” acknowledged by the LDS church.

    Now, where are they in the Book of Mormon?

  44. shematwater says:


    I assumed the person I was speaking to directly understood what I meant. For clarification, let me put it this way.

    Christ is my savior: Through the Atonement he made it possible for me to return and live with my Father.

    I am born again: This phrase is only used once in the Bible, in John 3: 3. In verse 5 Christ clarifies this and says “Except a man be aborn of bwater and of the cSpirit, he cannot denter into the kingdom of God.” Thus, to be born again means to be baptized (born of water) which I have been.

    Forgiveness of my sins: Part of the Baptismal covenant is that god will forgive all previence sins. The Sacrement is a renewal of that covenant, so that when I partake of the sacrement I am again receiving the clensing of my sins.

    If there is anyone reading this who did not already understand this please tell me so that I know I didn’t waste a post.


    Christ did forgive sin, but he also taught that you have to be baptised to be saved “He that abelieveth and is bbaptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be cdamned.”
    I guess he was contradicting himself on this point. However, with an understanding of the degreesin heaven you could say that in forgiving sin he assured these people a place in the Terrestial Kingdom, but still required baptism for the Celestial.

    As to sinning again this week, that is what the Grace of Christ is for. I have done all that I can do, and if I should slip a little this week, and die before I can agian renew my covenants with the sacrement, Christ’s grace will still have hold of me and I will be saved in the Celestial kingdom.

  45. Michael P says:

    using one verse to make a sweeping conclusion is not how to come up with a biblical answer. You must also look at verses like Matt 9:5, or Mark 2:5. What of Zechariah’s song talking of salvation through the forgiveness of sin and not baptism? There are others that you can look up, if you so choose.

    I know you don’t like this idea, but your reliance on baptism for the salvation moment puts the salvation on baptism, not forgiveness of sin.

    And returning to part of my question, the act is what is important, not the state of the heart? Is this correct? I ask because it seems you are very confident of your status once you are baptized, and sin is covered by the grace of God. Sounds like you could be quite lazy after you are baptized. (Only brought up because that is a criticism you like to put on us, but your description sounds exactly the same, so the same criticism exists.)

    Back to the baptism. If we are to reach any conclusion, we must define what Christ meant as to being baptized to be forgiven. Clearly, there is a problem in saying forgiveness is based on baptism if he didn’t say it in every instance. It rests on what batpism really means…

  46. falcon says:

    You need to understand that “born of water” is referring to physical birth not baptism. We’re born twice; once physically and then spiritually. This is why proper interpretation of the Bible is so important. People begin to form false doctrines based on erroneous interpretations of the Biblical text.
    If Mormons want to believe that they are cleansed of their sins via the sacrament that’s simply Mormonism and it’s simply false. That’s really not much different than when I’d go to confession and the priest would give me absolution and my penance. God forgave us our sins, we believed, but confession formalized the process.
    There’s no Biblical basis for getting forgiven of your sins by taking the sacrament. But that’s Mormonism and just one more reason why it’s not Christianity.
    I must remind our readers that Mormonism proclaims a different god, jesus and spirit. It has a different plan of salvation. My gripe isn’t that Mormonism believes what it does. My problem is with Mormonism claiming to be something that it isn’t and deceiving folks by the use of Christian sounding language.
    As we see from the above post, “born again” to Mormons means something entirely different in Mormonism than Christianity.

  47. jackg says:

    I’m glad shem brought up John 3:5, because it shows where Mormons lack in biblical interpretation. The focus of the pericope is on spiritual rebirth–not water baptism. Once again, this falls into the Mormon category of faith in Christ PLUS something else equals salvation. Peter tells the crowd in Acts 2 to repent and be baptized. The word for repent is in the imperative, which means it is necessary to do; the word for be baptized is NOT in the imperative, but in the aorist tense, which means it does not carry the weight of repenting. Then, in Acts 3, Peter tells the crowd to repent–and makes NO mention about being baptized. Again, the focus is on REPENTANCE. Now, should one be bapized? Yes. Why? Because it is the sign of the New Covenant just as circumcision was a sign for the old covenant (Abrahamic), and Jesus Christ is the New Covenant. Does one need to be circumcized to be saved? No. Judaizers tried to make the Gentile converts become circumcized, but Paul especially fought against this heresy, because to depend on the law in any fashion made the death of Jesus Christ on the cross null and void. As a born again Christian, I was baptized to show the world my faith in Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior. But, will being baptized save me? Absolutely not. Jesus Christ saves me on His merits, and I am justified by my faith. This is all biblical, and if Mormonism goes against that, then what is there to conclude other than it is a different and false gospel–and by the grace of God I have come to that conclusion.

    Peace and Grace!

  48. falcon says:

    jackg nails it! That is why I keep pointing out that Mormonism is a different gospel. The Bible doesn’t support Mormonism. That’s why our Mormon friends have introduced the tag line “…from the LDS perspective”. There is no “perspective” when interpreting the Bible. We also here, “as far as it (Bible)is translated correctly” which I find really funny considering the total faux of the BoA.
    Mormonism, as Martin has pointed out, is based on “revelation”. Where the Bible doesn’t support the “revelation” then the conspiracy theory that Mormonism was left out of the Bible kicks in. Mormons have a thousand and one explanations, but they don’t have the truth.
    The Bible doesn’t support Mormonism and neither does Church history. The only way Mormonism “works” is through the development of fantastic tales that explain away the obvious. All that’s needed is a willing and ignorant participant. It’s really difficult to overcome the desire to believe with rational thought and compelling evidence.

  49. setfree says:


    In the Miracle of Forgiveness, concerning our sins, Kimball says that where we think we are wearing a white shirt, God can see every itty bitty little piece of dust on it, and thus in His eyes, it’s not as white as we think. Are you SURE, POSITIVELY SURE, that you are WORTHY?

    I’m really hoping you can find all of the LDS principles, commandments, ordinances, and covenants in the BoM or Bible. Lots of stuff to do perfectly.

    I think each of us knows (even if only deep down) that we are not perfect. When we think then, of whether or not we will be accepted by God, we can do one of three things. One, we can live in denial, claiming that we are “worthy”. Two, we can claim Jesus’ perfect Atonement for ourselves, and believe in Him to be our Advocate before the perfect Judge. Three, we can claim that God does not exist, and pretend that that has settled that problem once and for all.

    Christians, you (and the other LDS) keep asserting, don’t try to be good. On the contrary. We want to honor God, to let others see how wonderful He is through our lives. But we know, and are freed up by the truth of it, that we will never be perfect. God knows we can’t do it. And He knows you can’t either.

    So. Will you continue in denial, telling yourself that you have removed every piece of dust from your white shirt, and that if you were to die suddenly, you would still qualify?

    Do you think that God doesn’t know your hidden places? You might, if you really believe he is just an exalted man, and therefore not omniscient nor omnipresent. But can you honestly look at yourself (not in front of anyone here) and say “yes, I’m perfect”?

    Jesus longs to live in your heart, direct your life, clean up the mess that you are. Will you let Him in?

  50. Andy Watson says:


    I’ve told you before that anytime you engage in name-calling or personal attacks that are demeaning to one’s character or intelligence, you lose credibility and nobody will take you seriously. For example, when I say:

    “LDS scholarship here is pathetic. I ask ‘loaded questions’? This is pathetic – again.”

    That isn’t a personal attack nor is it name calling. However, if I say:

    “You are pathetic. You are a pathetic idiot.”

    That is something much different. The moderator censored you. We’ve been down this road before. I’ve warned you of mocking from Alma 5:30-31. You apologized, but continued to do it again. This means you truly did not repent of your sin and forsake them (D&C 58:43). Therefore, the former sin returns (D&C 82:7) because you did not abandon the sin of mocking. Therefore, you are not going to the celestial kingdom if you died right now because of what D&C 1:31 states. Consider this authoritative reference from your Church:

    “Abandonment of Sin: The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again.” (LDS Pamphlet “Repentance Brings Forgiveness; 1984)

    Also lacking in your posts were any references to support your conclusions from LDS sources. You will notice that I gave you an abundance from both sides. You have no scholarship. I’ve done my homework and have studied. I suggest you do the same and enroll in institute for the Fall 2009 semester.

    In regards to my two question challenge on what it would take for me to convert, like Crispin – you blew it. I’ve given you a good block of my time, but my time is very important and I must move on to other “callings” where the people have different attitudes than you appear to have now. I would recommend you check out Alma 5:27-28. I can only pray that a Mormon who is truly seeking answers for his/her issues within Mormonism got something out of my 6 posts. I can be reached at:

    [email protected]

    Andy Watson

Leave a Reply