The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah

Brian David Mitchell, the man accused of kidnapping the young Mormon girl Elizabeth Smart in 2002, has spent most of the past six years in a mental health facility. Mr. Mitchell is now in the news again as prosecutors try to prove that he is mentally competent to stand trial. reports:

“After Brian David Mitchell’s arrest for the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, investigators learned he also wrote a book of scripture. In ‘The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah,’ Mitchell seems to be saying he has powers greater than God’s.

“Psychiatric experts labeled such beliefs ‘bizarre’ and said they cause Mitchell significant distress and a decline in his ability to function in society. Their conclusion: he’s delusional and mentally ill.

“But in a pretrial motion prosecutors asked the judge to allow two expert witnesses ‘to demonstrate that Mitchell’s religious expression is not “bizarre” when viewed within context.'”

One of the expert witnesses that have been requested is BYU’s Daniel Peterson. According to the prosecutors, Dr. Peterson “will speak to the coherency of Mitchell’s writings.” Dr. Peterson reportedly told KSL “that he will testify about whether Mitchell wrote his scripture in an ‘ecstatic’ mental state or whether the writings are ‘the product of a deliberate, cool mind.'”

Brian David Mitchell was excommunicated from the LDS Church after The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah appeared on the scene. In an official statement offered on March 13, 2003 the LDS Church explained that Mr. Mitchell’s excommunication was “for activity promoting bizarre teachings and lifestyle far afield from the principles and doctrines of the Church.”

The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah is comprised of 27 pages. It contains 7 revelations as well as a “Statement of Intent and Purpose.” The prophecies in the book sound a lot like the writings found in the LDS scripture Doctrine and Covenants. The book also contains many quotes from the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. Consider the following examples.

Hearken! Oh ye inhabitants of the earth. Listen together and open your ears, for it is I, the Lord God of all the earth, the creator of all things that speaketh unto you. Yea, even Jesus Christ speaking by the voice of my servant whom I have called and chosen to be a light and a covenant to the world in these last days. (The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah, p. 1, 9 February 2002)

Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; …And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days. (D&C 1:1, 4)

…the destroying angel shall pass them by and not slay them, and they shall have health in their navel and marrow in their bones, and they shall run and not be weary and walk and not faint, and they shall have great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures… (The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah, p. 11, 27 February 2002)

…shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; and shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. (D&C 89:18-21)

…ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. (The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah, p. 12, 27 February 2002 and Mormon 8:36)

Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah, p. 14, 27 February 2002 and D&C 1:38)

The basic message of The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah is that the churches of this day are lacking in truth and authority; God has chosen and called a prophet (Mitchell) to be a light in this darkness, to gather people into the true and living church in its purified form — The Church of the Firstborn; and to call people to repentance and obedience to Christ. It speaks of the importance of the law of consecration and the Word of Wisdom, both doctrines introduced to the Church by Joseph Smith and valid in the LDS Church today. Mr. Mitchell talks respectfully about the Melchizedek priesthood, priesthood keys, and the new and everlasting covenant.

Of course, the book’s denunciation of modern leadership of the LDS Church as “false prophets who speak vain and foolish and lying words” including one who has “acted deceitfully…lifted up in the pride of his heart…” (The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah, pp. 2-3, 9 February 2002) would not be tolerated by the Church; but it should sound familiar. Joseph Smith (as well as other LDS Prophets) denounced the leadership of Christian churches, accusing priests and reverends of deception and pride. In fact, much of the teachings in Mitchell’s book, and the polygamous aspirations of Brian David Mitchell (the book indicates he intended to take 49 wives — the same number of wives some historians attribute to Joseph Smith) mirror Joseph Smith and his teachings.

It will be interesting to see how Dr. Peterson testifies, if allowed, about The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah. Does he believe Mitchell’s revelations are coherent? Does he think the book was written while Mitchell was in an “‘ecstatic’ mental state”? Or are the writings “the product of a deliberate, cool mind”? Will Dr. Peterson’s testimony about The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah and its author have any correspondence to Joseph Smith and his writings? Stay tuned…

For more information see Yet Another Prophet: Brian David Mitchell .


Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.


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 Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah

  1. Kevin says:

    Ralph, is there a place that says, ” The others perform these duties under his authority if the Prophet delegates to them a responsibility that requires these attributes. They also act as such when the current Prophet is either dead or incapacitated somehow, but only as a group, not as individuals”

    As a member, I was never taught this. I would like to know your source of knowledge on this point.

    I believe most members believe that the quorum of the 15 talk directly to God, with their real ears and words, not spiritual.

    Does anyone know the answer to this question. Are the quorum of the 12 “Special witnesses to the name of Jesus Christ”? I cannot find how the official wording goes.

  2. Ralph says:


    Here is part of an address in General Conference made by Elder Hinckley found in the November 1992 Ensign –

    ”Yesterday afternoon, we sustained Ezra Taft Benson as prophet, seer, and revelator, and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    We next sustained his Counselors and then the members of the Council of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. With fifteen men so described, endowed, and sustained, one not familiar with the Church might feel that there would be great confusion. But the Lord’s kingdom is one of order. There is no confusion in its leadership.

    When a man is ordained to the apostleship and set apart as a member of the Council of the Twelve, he is given the keys of the priesthood of God. Each of the fifteen living men so ordained holds these keys. However, only the President of the Church has the right to exercise them in their fulness. He may delegate the exercise of various of them to one or more of his Brethren. Each has the keys but is authorized to use them only to the degree granted him by the prophet of the Lord.

    Such agency has been given by President Benson to his Counselors and to the Twelve according to various responsibilities delegated to them.”

    Read especially the third paragraph where it states what I wrote in my last post. I do not remember when I was first taught this ‘difference’, but it was while I was a teenager which was well before 1992. So it has been doctrine since well before this conference address.

    And yes, they all have the calling to be a special witness of Jesus Christ. Whether that means that they have personally seen Jesus, or that it has been some special witness from the Holy Ghost, I do not know.

  3. grindael says:

    That many of the OT patriarchs practiced polygamy is not contended by any Bible Scholars. I would say this about Moses, there is no good proof, he may have remarried. He does give advice to the future king of israel in Deut 17:17 not to have many wifes because his heart would be led astray. There are even accounts that Smith wanted to do away with the doctrine because he saw the ruin of his church in it. I will defer to those that walked with Jesus, and gave these commandments: “Each man should have his own wife (singular word), and each woman her own husband (singular word). [I Corinthians 7:2]
    God’s standard of monogamy for Christians is an absolute requirement for anyone who wants to be a deacon in the church: “A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.” [I Timothy 3:12]
    Paul, (who was not married because of his close relationship with Our Lord) said he would that all would be like him, but marry if you must. Nowhere in the Bible does it give the credence to the bizarre ritual of spiritual wifeism handed out by Smith and Young. Smith could not keep it in his pants, and neither could Koresh and many of these false prophets. Smithians try and justify his teachings because they have to stand or fall by him. I do not doubt the sincerity of mormons. I do believe it is misplaced, and what I posted earlier shows that even Jesus knew many would be led astray by false doctrine. In the Smithian church, there is but one spokesman for all their seers and revelators, but his foundation was built on the lies of Smith, hence can be rejected when compared to the teachings of the Saviour. Many will say Lord, I cast out devils did mighty works in your name and he will say I never knew you. Take this to heart Smithians and leave your blind guides.

  4. grindael says:

    As to the ego of Joseph Smith, I disagree that he was not like Koresh and others. He was just like them. He did not say he was Jesus, He claimed to be above Jesus. Take this statement:

    “I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I” (History of the Church, Vol.6, pp. 408-09).

    Compare this to: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”Matt16:18

    That is the Lord himself speaking, and I will believe HIM.

    These statements are so off base that Young even carried his worship of Smith to Salt Lake:

    Brigham Young stated in the Journal of Discourses Vol 7 Page 289 “no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.”

    Now compare that to this:

    “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.” 1Tim2:5-7

    The works of Paul and his life bear testimony to this message. He never sought for single control of the church, never said only He was the mouthpiece, there was never any need. The church today has the guidelines for all, same as in the days of Paul. Smith, Young and the SLC bunch are not needed, never have been. I tell you now this is true as a witness to Jesus, the true SIMPLE Jesus, My Saviour, My God, My Mediator, My All.

  5. grindael says:

    One more comment before I go. Why did Jesus choose Judas to be one of the Twelve? There is a message here for the Smithians. Because he wanted to show the character of men. That even those who were directly IN the light, could fall. The Church at the time of Christ was special. It was set up by God himself, who told them that many men would come and try to destroy it, from the inside and the outside. The men he chose, set up His Church, and they all knew there would be those who claimed to be spokesman for God, or be God, who would deceive many on to that wide path of destruction. That is why Jesus made the gospel simple. Believe on HIM, be baptised, receive the Holy Ghost (again it does not take a special holder of ‘The Priesthood’) to dispense this, there are too many references where the Holy Ghost came on men without laying on of hands – and do the things Christ did. This is accomplished with LOVE as John has stated, and this grace working in us will provide the love, and the works will be an outpouring of the love inside of us. Jesus was the ultimate revelation. The dogs can howl all they want that they have done greater works, but none can take HIS place, or supplant HIS message, one of simplicity, love and truth.

  6. grindael says:

    “I am the way and the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father, except through me.”

    Where is Smith, Koresh, Applewhite, Jones, Manson, and that host of others in this?

    As Peter said: ” But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 2Pet2:12-22

  7. falcon says:

    I was just wondering how many women fill the role of prophet(ess) in the SLC sect of Mormonism? If there are any, I haven’t heard of them. This is another place where the SLC sect is seriously off the norm or standard of Christianity and does not reflect the first century Christian church and is one more error of SLC Mormonism.
    Acts 21:8-9 says “…..and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.” And to see how a real prophet operates we can read further in Acts 21:10-11. “And as we were staying there for some days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'”
    Now we know this man Agabus was a prophet because unlike Mormon prophets, what this man said actually happened. Mormonism has been a breeding ground for false prophets beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing on today. It’s the people within the SLC Mormon sect who give hardy approval to these false prophets and are therefore responsible for the continuation of this farce.
    Because Mormons accept a false god, they are oriented to accepting false prophets that reinforce the deception. The solution of course is to come to know God and through faith enter into a relationship with His Son Jesus Christ who a lone offers us eternal life.

  8. falcon says:

    What do I want the Mormon prophet to say at the General Conference? That’s very easy:
    “Brothers and sisters, we have these many years accepted a false gospel proclaimed by a false prophet. God has spoken to me and revealed that He is One. There are no other gods. Salvation comes through faith in His Son Jesus Christ who in His death on the Cross, secured eternal life for us. I am calling today for our temples to be shut down for thirty days and for the temple rituals to cease for all time. During the next thirty days we as a church will fast and pray and seek God’s forgiveness for our sin of not acknowledging Him. During this time our temples will be cleansed and when they reopen they will be a center of worship for all who will come to Christ in faith.”
    That would pretty much cover it!

  9. subgenius says:

    a better reference for a female prohet might have been Sarah or Esther or Hannah or……There have been 7 female prophets? Now compared to the timeline the scriptures cover and the timeline of the LDS Church, not sure i understand your point.
    Your posts seem to always be steeped in vitriol, is there a bitter Mormon experience that you harbor in your past that fuels this verbal vengeance? I don’t mean to be antagonistic, i just see a pattern forming and it is concerning.

    Have you been a successful Evangelical Missionary with this above tactic? Are Mormons clamouring to your door to hear your insights to our faith and thus be converted to this type of “angry” good news?

    What do you hope to reap with this brand of seed?
    Galatians 6:7
    Galatians 6:10

  10. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Please hang on to the original topic, which was the issue of “continuous revelation”.

    You said “What is perceived as a contradiction of the OT is God’s commands to destroy Israel’s neighbors. But God used Israel to punish those nations for their sin, and vice versa.” So I am to believe that the command not to kill and then the command to kill is not a contradiction. If Moses came to you one day and said, God says “Thou shalt not kill” and then the next day he says “God has commanded us to slay the Midianites” that that is not a contradiction? The only way to justify that behavior is on the foundation of Continuous revelation.

  11. falcon says:

    Well I see at least one of our Mormon posters is showing some personal concern for the falcon, evaluating what?….I’m at a loss. This, however, ladies and gentlemen is a characteristic of Mormonism. Mormons are always evaluating one another and don’t really have a sense of healthy personal boundaries. That’s why we get a lot of looking good on the outside with Mormons, while they’re drying-up and hurting on the inside. The message Mormons like to send is kind of a “I’m OK, you’re not OK”. “You’re defective, let me help you.” Actually I have Mormon friends and they like me. We play golf and never talk about religion. Maybe my evil twin is posting on Mormon Coffee.
    Actually the falcon’s a very nice, loving, kind, considerate all around great guy. Someone our Mormon posters would enjoy conversing with over a cup of coffee.
    Hay Kevin, are you out there? We just had lunch together on Tuesday, could you verify what a super nice, gentle and kind individual the falcon is. Was I not polite and didn’t I use the proper eating utensils. Maybe it was because my wife was along and I had to behave myself. Did your wife think I was an OK guy?
    I think our Mormon posters better get the log out of their own eye before they try to remove a speck from someone else’s.

  12. Kevin says:

    Thanks Ralph, I would consider you a member with above average insight and knowledge on the finer details of Mormonism. I have had this conversation with many of my former cell mates (Old friends still in the clan), my point, the average member does not know this delineation and fine wording. If the last time it was printed was in 1992, well thats 17 years ago, so every person who joined after say 1993 would not have heard this, maybe a few who happened to be in a lesson that referred back to that issue. I like to poke fun at the quorum of the 15 err 14, err 12 apostles because I think they are messed up.

    The real point I am getting at, along with the special witness titles, is that the church will often let the members come to their own conclusions about how things are really done. I think this is by specific design in order to create an institutionalized aww among the members. This is very specific and effective tactic in mind control. If the common consensus believes that the leadership has some special power, ability, or key, when the leadership never or rarely speaks on that topic, the members are left to their own devices to develop conclusions and answers this is how the mind control incubates.

    I don’t expect you to see this because the Mormon organization is close to your heart. What I do hope you understand is that this type of mind control is also used by the JW, heavens Gate, etc…

    I question, “Why would Gods one true church have to use any type of mind control on it’s members?”

  13. Kevin says:

    Falcon, Falcon, Falcon…. Where do I begin? First off, Mormons have to take the stance of, I am better then you, it is also part of the mind control, Lifton calls it “Dispensing of Existence” and he says, “The group arrogates to itself the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. Usually held non-literally, this means that those outside the group are unspiritual, worldly, satanic, “unconscious,” or whatever, and that they must be converted to the ideas of the group or they will be lost.”

    This is why you will often hear that type of rhetoric from Mormons, they need to try and justify their position.

    Now Falcon, you make the Mormon posters uncomfortable because your posts are very accurate and to the point, the only banter available to the Mormons is to attack you personally by questioning your methods.

    We have met on more then one occasion and I personally believe that your insight, thoughtfulness, and concern, for those who are being oppressed, as noble and valiant in your effort to expose JS for what he really is. Yes you did use proper eating utensils. My wife had a great time, she was sad she had to go back to work, next time we should schedule on a Saturday.

    I know what the LDS posters say doesn’t bother you. I do think you bring up an interesting point, which could be seen as a common character flaw, taught by Mormonism. I just wonder if it stems from a insecurity, that their best will never be good enough for their god, the impossible plan of salvation. I don’t claim to know, I just wonder.

  14. falcon says:

    Well thank you very much Kevin.

    The falcon is now feeling validated and OK again. These Mormons can be so mean to me sometimes that I have to go outside and see the goldendoodles who think the “head dog” is about the greatest guy in the world.
    You made a good point regarding the practice in Mormonism of leaving things undefined. George Will once said of Ross Perot, “His followers listen to what he says and fill it up with their own meaning.” It can be a great mind control technique.
    The one eye opening thing for me in being on this site is the glimpse into the mind of the Mormon true believer. It’s really scary, quite frankly. I can’t believe how they so easily surrender their will to the organization and the “prophet”. The one liberating moment for a Mormon comes when they conclude that the Mormon church does not hold control over their (individual) salvation. Once a person gets a hold of that concept, life becomes liberating and full of possibilities.
    Thankfully, many Mormons are finding their way out of this control factory and into liberty.

  15. subgenius says:

    well, i must say being condescending works better, because its kinda funny. i am sure you are a nice guy, i could not say one way or another. Your post is a good “deflection” as a psychiatrist might term…but i re-read my post and i don’t see where anything was stated about your character or personality…but rather only the manner of your “attack”.
    how ironic you speak of “log” and “speck”, but surely you realize that is a two-way street……john 8:15

    please, quote my “personal” attack on falcon. Obviously, as you and falcon put it, i am incapable of seeing such things for myself.

  16. Kevin says:

    I was not singling out one person, I believe my comments were general in nature regarding past and present posts. I was simply addressing a trend that I have noticed.

    Now if an individual wants to internalize or take credit for what has been present, then let that person hold the burden. For those who have not been partaking, then let them go in peace.

  17. Enki says:

    I am sure they are currently working on a statement very much like that at your request. Maybe they will mention your name specifically before they proceed with the rest of the statement.

  18. Ralph says:


    This was the only quote I could find in the time I had to do it in (I was at work). But we are taught that the Prophet is the only person that holds and is authorised to use all of the keys of the priesthood. We are also taught that the quorum of the 12 as a whole hold all these keys and use them under the authority of the prophet. It is no secret and is usually taught/referred to at least 3 times a year – each General Conference and in at least one lesson in Sunday School. And ‘prophet,seer and revelator’ are keys/positions in the priesthood – although this may not be made apparent in lessons which could be why some people don’t understand.


    In John 14:12 Jesus said that people who believe in Him will do greater works than He did. JS did not claim to be above Jesus in the quote you gave, he said that he was the only one “able to to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam” including Jesus and Peter and Paul. Now if the LDS church is correct then there was an apostacy, so the church Jesus established in His time died out. We also know that the church God established in the OT succumbed to apostacy. Then we teach that He re-established His church through JS and gave the promise that He will not remove it from the earth again until His second coming. Hence JS said that he was able to keep the whole church together because it will not go into apostacy again. However I do think JS was boastful in making this remark and should not have made it – rather like Moses when he took the glory for getting the water from the rock. He was rebuked by God, I wonder if JS was as well.

    But JS never claimed to be above Jesus.

    And there are 3 interpretations of the rock in the Christian community – Peter, Jesus and revelation. And I have seen the ‘revelation’ interpretation in a non-LDS source/doctrine, so its not just an LDS interpretation. But even given the last 2, the LDS church can be true, just not if Peter was the rock.

  19. jackg says:


    I, too, would love to hear Thomas S. Monson say what you wrote. That would indeed be a day of rejoicing in heaven.

    Also, I just want to tell you that I admire your perseverance in proclaiming the Truth to the Lost in the midst of their attempts to destroy your witness through their often immature accusations. Keep up the good work, my brother. I trust that what God says through your personality will touch the lives of those who post and lurk.


  20. Ralph wrote

    But JS never claimed to be above Jesus

    Sorry, Ralph, but your assertion does not stand up against the words of the real Joseph Smith

    I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I

    (History of the Church, Vol.6, pp. 408-09).

    Are you sure you’re following the real Joseph Smith, or just some fantasy version who conveniently affirms you in your religious enterprises?

    PS Thanks for the quote Grindael, I was looking for it earlier.

  21. Ralph says:

    Yes Martin,

    But what was that ‘work’ that JS did? Go back earlier in the quote you have and it says “I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.” That was all – nothing else. This does not mean that he is saying he is above Jesus, he is saying that there is one thing he was able to do that Jesus did not do while on this earth (although Jesus was quite capable of doing it if He wanted). And according to John 14:12 any of the true believers in Jesus can do ‘greater works’ than He. This will only be in missionary/church matters, not in the overall grand scheme of things. And the reason they will be able to do greater is because Jesus and God are assisting them. But re-read my original post and read that statement in the proper context.

    But if you have issue with my saying that JS was able to do something that Jesus didn’t do, you believe that Jesus wasn’t married – are you? Then there is one thing you are able to do that Jesus didn’t do. How about children?

  22. Enki says:

    About casting out ‘demons’. I recently read an article by Richard Dawkins in newsweek. “The angry evolutionist”. Its so smartly written, I would suggest that it casts out demons…and angels too.

    There is an interesting fact, from what I understand the word demon did have a pejoritive understanding until the christian era. I have read christian commentaries that there isn’t any word such as ‘demon’ in the O.T. There are references to idols, and perhaps unclean spirits, and spirits of the dead. But no demons. Perhaps because its greek in origin. The greeks used it in a neutral sense.

  23. liv4jc says:

    DOF, once again I must say that when cornered about contradictions between the revelations of Smith and the Bible, Smithians resort to the same attacks on the Bible that atheists use. In general Smithians seem (from my experience and perspective) to have mild contempt for the Bible and a very low view of Biblical scripture.

    You assert that Moses commanded Israel to “kill” (in spite of the 6th Commandment) as further revelation that made the commandment null and void. Radical atheist Dan Barker used the same argument in a debate with Doug Wilson. Barker claimed that the Bible could not be trusted because God had commanded “Thou Shall not Kill”, then commanded all kinds of killing. Here’s the problem: the commandment is against “murder” not killing. Killing is allowed in self-defense, protection of others, and when sanctioned by government as an act of war (Military) or civil duty (Police Force). There are many Smithians currently serving this nation in combat roles (and I work with former soldiers who are Smithians who killed others in combat), and others who serve as police officers who have also “killed” in the line of duty. Did these men violate the 6th Commandment, or did further revelation from Moses’ time forward nullify the commandment?

    I’ll say this again. The Bible contains no contradictions. If you find a contradiction it is a problem with your interpretation, not scripture. Find the clear verses which define a doctrine, then interpret the unclear verses in light of the meaning of the clear verses. And make sure you are reading the verse in context. Furthermore, much of the Bible was not written to us. It was written to an ancient culture in light of cultural norms that the reader would have understood. This is why it is important to understand the historical and societal context in which the book, gospel, letter, etc. was written. We then extract principles and apply them to our lives. How can you trust a changing god and his prophets?

  24. jackg says:


    I have been reading your words for quite some time, and your final comments to Martin seem to be a desperate attempt to cling to a faith that has been dismantled by followers of Jesus Christ on this blog site. You, as most members of your Church, feel the need to defend JS to the point that you are willing to discount the words of Jesus when He said the Church that He built on Himself (He’s the Rock, not revelation) would withstand even the attacks from the gates of hell. In order to defend JS, a member of the LDS Church has to, basically, make a decision that Jesus lied when He said what He said to Peter and/or He doesn’t have the power to preserve His Church. The truth is the Church that Jesus built on Himself has persevered throughout the centuries, and we have the history of the Church to prove it. Falcon has done a tremendous job during the time he has posted on this site to enlighten us on the history of the Church. Andy has done an exceptional job to enlighten us on the history of the LDS Church. I understand how difficult it is for someone in your position to accept the Truth. The Truth goes against the teachings of JS, and the LDS member must choose which side he/she will defend. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of pride that goes into this decision. I know that pride: it’s the pride of eating crow that’s involved with admitting you’re wrong. Wrapped up with this is the fear of telling LDS family members that your testimony about the Church is gone because it’s not true. I admitted I was wrong. I admitted it to God and confessed I didn’t know anything. None of us really KNOW anything. That’s why it’s called faith. We are all praying for you, Ralph. Jesus Christ is calling you into a true relationship with Him–but you need to believe the Truth about Him.


  25. liv4jc says:


    I want to second what Jackg said. Of all of the followers of JS that post here you are the most civil and have the clearest testimony based upon your obvious knowledge of LDS sources. You are also the most honest when it comes to proclaiming straight out, “I will be a god some day and others will worship me.”

    I have a list of verses that I call the “I am He” series from the OT (Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 41:4, 43:10-13, 48:12-13), that Jesus obviously is referring to in John 8:24-28, 13:19-20, and 18:4-8, claiming that He is God, not a god, but the same of the OT claiming to be the first, last, eternal, etc. Of all of the disciples John wants to paint the clearest picture that Jesus is God. Being a Jew, John believed in One God, Deuteronomy 6:4 being the beginning of the first daily Jewish prayer, the Shema Yisrael. John did not have the Smithian view of a plurality of gods. He understood, as is evidenced from the portions of Jesus’ words that he chose to include in his gospel, that God the Father and Jesus were two persons in unity as One God.

    Knowing this we can be assured that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus was saying that He was “the Rock”, which is what God calls Himself throughout Deuteromomy 32, while proving He is the only true God. This is another place where Jesus is claiming deity. There are so many other places that God is called the Rock throughout the OT, especially in the Psalms. One clear statement is made in Isaiah 44:8, “You are my witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

    Jackg is correct, the evidence is before you, and has been layed out. Surprisingly, you made an EV statement (and a Reformed one, at that) on the “sinless saviors” thread that the Holy Spirit is the one who accomplishes conversion. You do know that this denies the coveted “free will” position of your Smithian brothers, don’t you? Conversion is a work of choice, is it not? Praying for you.

  26. setfree says:

    “In John 14:12 Jesus said that people who believe in Him will do greater works than He did. JS did not claim to be above Jesus in the quote you gave, he said that he was the only one “able to to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam” including Jesus and Peter and Paul.”

    Just to make sure we understand something here… Joseph Smith surely did not keep his church together…

  27. Ralph asked me

    But if you have issue with my saying that JS was able to do something that Jesus didn’t do, you believe that Jesus wasn’t married – are you? Then there is one thing you are able to do that Jesus didn’t do. How about children?


    What I find most odd about your question is this whole issue of “able to do”, as if it matters. I’m trying hard to understand the question, but it doesn’t make sense to me. I can’t “map” it onto any Biblical theme I know. I’m rambling a little, but perhaps later, after I’ve thought about it more, I’ll be able to articulate my thoughts better.

    Anyway, responding to your questions directly;

    Yes, I believe Jesus was not married.

    Yes, I am married and have 1 daughter (we wanted more kids, but it didn’t happen).

    No, I don’t consider myself as having “done more” than Jesus, and I don’t even consider myself as being “able to do” more than Jesus.

    Yes, I do different things, because I don’t live in first century Israel.

    No, Jesus (on earth) didn’t do the same things as I do because He didn’t live in 21st Century Australia (posting on this site is a prime example).

    Ultimately, whatever I achieve in this life, I’m going to die and my place will remember me no more (see Psalm 103:13-16). Contrast Jesus, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Name above All Names (Rev 1:8, Rev 21:16, Rev 22:13 etc etc).

    Finally, if my life is “in Christ”, there is nothing that I do without the risen Christ. So in this sense, I can never do “more” than Him, because He is in me, and I in Him, in all I do.


    Martin does different things than Jesus on earth? Yes.

    Martin does more things than Jesus on earth? Yes, in a quantitative sense.

    Martin does more things than the Risen Christ? No.

    Martin does greater things than Christ? Emphatically, absolutely no.

    PS If you’re thinking of JS’ attempts at keeping his church together, I suggest you try a different approach, as setfree rightfully points out.

  28. setfree says:

    I have another quick bone to pick, and I’m going to do it here as it has been brought up frequently lately, scattered here and there, and I don’t know a better place to put it.

    This whole bit about ancient Israel being polytheists, so it’s okay that Mormons believe that there are many gods…


    For one thing, God in the Bible was always yelling at the Israelites to get back in line, and quit with that nonsense

    of what?

    WORSHIPING other gods

    The Bible even names some of them.

    Contrast this with Mormonism, which just ACKNOWLEDGES OTHER GODS IN EXISTENCE, but says that it ONLY WORSHIPS ONE GOD

    It is just plain old, faulty arguing to continue to try to make the case that Mormonism is somehow in agreement with ancient Israel on this issue.

    Changing places, to put it in perspective…

    Suppose Mormons were worshiping Allah (sp?) and the other gods of other religions of our day, and the Israelites only worshiped Jehovah, but acknowledged that Jehovah had a god dad and god uncles and aunts and cousins etc.

    See what I mean?

    The two are totally unrelated.

  29. I figured out what it was that bothered me with Ralph’s earlier question. Here’s the question again

    But if you have issue with my saying that JS was able to do something that Jesus didn’t do, you believe that Jesus wasn’t married – are you? Then there is one thing you are able to do that Jesus didn’t do. How about children?

    The thing that bothers me is that the question is put in the context of marriage and family. The question appears to imply that I can do greater things than Jesus because I have a family and children (which would be right in the centre of the LDS ‘focus’ on the family).

    The inference is that Jesus could not do these ‘greater things’ because he got himself killed before he could raise a family, unlike me.

    The thing is, if it was Jesus’ mission in life to get married and have kids, then, surely, he would have succeeded at doing it (he has God’s power at his disposal remember). The fact that he didn’t implies that he somehow failed, or fell short of his life’s calling.

    This is so far removed from the Gospel narratives in particular, and the NT in general, that its almost impossible to comprehend in their context.

    Jesus’ life mission was not to live a quiet life and raise a family; it was show us what kind of person God is, through his life’s teachings and, particularly, by his passion, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Jesus knew this well before his journey to Jerusalem, for example

    For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

    (Mark 10:45 and Matt 20:28).

    Jesus did not choose a quiet life and a family, but he chose to go to Jerusalem to confront it, judge it and, by his death, redeem it (see Matt 16:21-23, Matt 20:17-19, Mark 10:32-34).

    Whatever I do, it could never be greater than Jesus’ work on the cross. Raising a family and getting myself killed, I could just about manage. Raising myself from the dead? No chance!

  30. setfree,

    You’re absolutely right. When the Israelites did turn polytheistic, God was all over them, like a ton of bricks, for bad behavior.

    LDS people, don’t you know that YHWH of Israel calls you out of polytheism?

    Abraham was called out of Ur to worship the One God.

    Israel was called out of Egypt (see below)

    It was regarded as God’s judgment to exile Israel back to these places for their misbehaviour.

    If God calls his people out of polytheism, what, in heaven’s name are LDS doing by calling them back into it?

    Footnote on Matt 2:15

    Out of Egypt I called my son

    See also Hosea 11:1-7.

    This is unusual because the Gospel writer takes an OT metaphor and uses it in a tangible sense, applying it to Jesus’ literal flight to Egypt.

    Hosea uses the metaphor to describe Israel’s origins in polytheism and God’s threat to return her to it unless she repents.

    In quoting Hosea, Matthew, I think, does not imply that Jesus needed to be called out of polytheism. Rather, he is saying that Jesus has travelled the same road as a way of identifying with Israel, on her journey. We could say that the true “son” of God is defined as someone who has come out of Egypt and now lives for the One God.

    See also the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32).

  31. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    jackg said “The truth is the Church that Jesus built on Himself has persevered throughout the centuries, and we have the history of the Church to prove it.”

    Jack is obviously not a history buff! Even a brief overview of Christian history, leaves anything but clarity let alone proof. I suggest a reading of “Lost Christianities” by Ehrman. It seems that orthodox Christianity feels that the louder they scream they are right, the more we will take notice. Even Falcon would admit that 1st and 2nd century Christianity was severely split as to correct doctrine. YOur appeal to historicity does more to harm your position of divinity than to support it.

  32. liv4jc says:

    DOTF, once again my assertion holds true: Smithians run to the arguments made by atheists (such as Bart Ehrman) when they need ammunition. Ehrman claims he was a Christian at one time, but realized, based upon his understanding of the Scriptures, that they do not actually say what the church claims they say. Ehrman is an outstanding Greek scholar, but his textual criticism work is the end of his understanding of scripture. His work is severely biased toward an atheist worldview and many of his “revelations” on the history of the church have been known by Christian scholars throughout that history. The fact that he uses them to attempt to lead the world away from biblical Christianity, and the fact that you recruit him as an ally in your cause reveals a lot about you.

    Bart Ehrman hates God despite the fact that he is intimately aware of the thousands upon thousands of NT manuscripts that we posses. He has read the earliest manuscripts, and has even admitted that the textual errors contained in those manuscripts do not change Christianity, however he hides that information and chooses to instead elaborate on the number of copying errors that do not change the meaning of the text to discredit the word of God.

    Think about what your friend Bart Ehrman would say about the BoM, which has zero manuscript support, and your BoA, which has too much manuscript evidence. Are you sure you want him as an ally in your attack on historical Christianity?

  33. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    I got to hand it to you for carrying on the St. Augustine and orthodox ways of heretical-name calling.

    I suppose I don’t know Mr. Ehrman like you do (I suppose you must golf with him). Nevertheless, he brings up a point that is completely valid and he is certainly not the first or alone in his views among scholars, that orthodox Christianity as defined today, was not so (orthodox) in the first through the thrid centuries. Those brethren fought just as vehemently as you and I are today. One major difference….They both had writings from the original apostles to make their case.

    It just so happens that those who adopted the Trinitarian point of view were the ones who conviently chose which apostolic writings became the official cannon, and which ones to burn! Are you going to dispute this?

    I actually feel no need to attack historical Christianity. In my view, these brethren (besides a minor few, I’m sure) did just about all they could in the absence of revelation and apostolic authority. God be thanked for the humble Christians who lived according to the light and knowledge given to them. The bottom line is, when the living oracles have been removed(like any age in history), so goes the church and revelation with it. The only thing that remains is a vacuum of error, name-calling, heresy protest, and witch burning; all in the name of the Son of God.

    As for the BoM, I am not going to make a stand for Ehrman, he will need to do that for himself. But if anything will bring him back to Christianity, it will be that very book! “ convince the world that Jesus is the Christ…”

  34. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    I suppose I am baffled on your understanding of killing vs. murder.

    First problem: As far as I can tell if Moses intended on using two different words then he would have. You may say, this is a translation error, though you would be walking on thin ice. After all there are no error in the scriptures and one certainly would not want to admit the Joseph was right that there are errors in the Bible from “careless translations”.

    Second problem: If the record is complete then why wouldn’t Moses explain to the Israelites the difference between killing and murder? Which brings up my second question as to where in the OT text between the 10 commandments and the command to slay the Midianites are you getting you justification of killing for defense.

    Certainly, I have no problem with it because the difference between killing and murder is clearly explained in latter-day revelation in both the BoM and the D&C.

    This brings me back to something I am convinced of the more I interact with MRM. They do not believe the Bible as it stands. MRM says, The Bible means what it says and when it doesn’t mean what it says, we’ll tell you what it means. Any other interpretation is wrong!” Talk about rejecting the rock of revelation.

    No matter how we look at it, you stance does not support a belief in the way Biblical prophets operated.

  35. DoF wrote

    Nevertheless, he brings up a point that is completely valid and he is certainly not the first or alone in his views among scholars, that orthodox Christianity as defined today, was not so (orthodox) in the first through the thrid centuries.


    Its an urban myth that does not stand up to scrutiny. Its attractive in some academic circles because it undermines the Church. Its also attractive to the mind-set that fails to acknowledge that Christianity is all about Christ. Does this describe your position?

    Have you read Phil 2:5-11? Do you know the history of this text? If not, I suggest you start reading before granting Mr Ehrmans more credit than he deserves.

  36. DefenderOfTheFaith says:


    I am not sure word of ancient manuscripts recently discovered(20th century) has even reached the urban cities, nor do I see many city folk in the getto talking about their content.

    To tell you the truth, it’s not really all that attractive to me, but since MRM has taken it upon itself to attack JS and the prophets of the restoration, I mention it for completeness sake. Smith simply said there was an apostasy, long before any of these recent documents were discovered. He didn’t go into long dissertations just stating that which God revealed to him. I believe God will continue to send down evidence that will vindicate his prophets. It just so happens that Mr. Ehrman is discovering what Joseph revealed 200 years ago. That being, as the Church drifted into apostasy, so did its doctrine.

    I actually believe Christianity is about Christ as are the majority of its believers! Maybe all of you should read that again. The restoration actually gives me the freedom to believe such a doctrine and still embrace true messengers when they come.

    But I can tell you definitively that all the attacks on the Lord’s anointed on this site have absolutely zero to do with the cause of the Master.

  37. jackg says:


    Perhaps I’m as ignorant of Christian history as you are of Mormon history. Who’s to say? All I know is that Christianity has survived the ages since Jesus established His Church when Peter became the first member by confessing that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And, I would think that Falcon would support my view. Defender, the really sad thing is that you, like your LDS brothers and sisters, are clinging to a false faith based on your testimonies that you attribute to the Holy Spirit. I’m sorry, but the Holy Spirit is sent to reveal Truth, and since He worked through the biblical writers DESPITE their humanity and fallenness, there is no way that He would reveal things that contradict what He has already revealed to the World regarding salvation history. Also, your claim that “these brethren (besides a minor few, I’m sure) did just about all they could in the absence of revelation and apostolic authority” once again reveals a misunderstanding regarding priesthood, which is so beautifully characterized as the priesthood of believers in the New Testament. Ultimately, it’s not humans or a “priesthood” that work in the world to redeem the lost, but God Himself. If you had ever read any of the writings from the early church fathers, you would know that revelation did not cease. You see, God is a not God who sleeps or goes on trips, but has been working through humans from the very beginning. He didn’t work through JS or so-called “prophets of the restoration” as you falsely claim. They didn’t restore anything, but perpetrated unbiblical theology against the world.

    Peace and Grace…

  38. Pingback: Elizabeth Smart’s Courage Within the Tragedy of Mormonism | Mormon Coffee

Leave a Reply