Do you want to know the truth more than you want Mormonism to be true?

(From an e-mail I sent in December)


An honest question for you: Are you of the mindset that even if the LDS Church isn’t true, it still might be worth believing in?

Have you ever seen the Southpark Episode on Mormonism? I don’t watch Southpark (it’s a crass, raunchy show), but I have seen that episode (it’s popular with the Mormons and non-Mormons I hang out with). At the end of the episode the Mormon boy says (at 20m44s),

“Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the Church teaches now is loving your family, being nice, and helping people. And even though people in this town think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it.”

I bring the quote up because I think it really well encapsulates a common attitude, that a religion’s ultimate truth doesn’t matter so much as its usefulness in making us better people. Two questions my friends and I like to ask are:

1. If the Church wasn’t true, would you want to know? Another way of asking this is, “Do you want to know the truth more than you want Mormonism to be true?”

2. If the Church wasn’t true, how would you know?

To be honest, some people don’t want to know. They’re happy where they are at.

Jesus said to Pilate, “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37) He also said, “and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

C.S. Lewis once famously wrote,

“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

The same kind of high-stakes attitude can be had about Mormonism too, and has been expressed by Mormon leaders. Mormon apostle Orson Pratt wrote,

“If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments—by evidences adduced from scripture and reason.” (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p. 1)

Or as Joseph Fielding Smith wrote,

“Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false…” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 pp 188-189)

Jesus calls us to be radical disciples of the truth, to follow him at any cost, and he encourages us that it is worth it! He warns and promises:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. d a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:24-29)

I agree that Mormonism has a lot of truth in it, and it has some beautiful and moral things about it that reflect many attributes of Jesus. It provides a lot of meaning and structure, hope and direction. But couldn’t the same be said about other groups too, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Fundamentalist Mormons? The big question — which I know has a lot of painful implications — is whether any given religion’s fundamental claims are true or false.

Grace and peace in Jesus,


This entry was posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Do you want to know the truth more than you want Mormonism to be true?

  1. f_melo says:

    You could call it a parlor trick… and i think the reason why people are convinced they are being moved by the "spirit" is because those feelings are very good(when received moderately, which was not my case), feelings of peace, joy, etc. – it really imitates feelings of what i did imagine to be heavenly – that is, until it wears off… I´m positive that that´s why David Bednar gave that talk last General Conference, about "actually receiving the Holy Ghost", to try to help the LDS to become more focused, more "in tune", to help those experiences last longer and have a more life-changing effect, that would bring true "conversion" and therefore full commitment to the Mormon Church.

    I forgot to mention that, even though i was "in tune" with the "spirit" that never changed my nature, that never made me a better person, it was just some sort of momentary euphoria and it just kept the focus on myself, on me achieving higher "enlightenment", and coming "closer" to God.

    "As you probably know, I don't belong to any particular Christian denomination, but I am from the "camp" that believes that the Book of Acts could be manifested today.

    I agree with you, yet i wouldn´t expect anything quite as powerful today, because what is recorded in the Book of Acts is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy:

    Acts 2:16-21 " But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

    It is passages like those that make me lean to the understanding that the last days that were spoken of were the last days of the Jewish age, not the end of the world. Yet i´m not fully prepared to defend that position, and, as usual, it´s not a simple matter, so before i affirm anything i´ll have to do a lot more study on the subject.

    Then you have verse 37 – "Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?"

    Mormons want to convince people that being "pricked in their heart" is what they define as the Holy Ghost, but the truth is that when you consider the full context of Peter´s discourse, what happened was the Holy Ghost convincing the Jews of their sins(because they had all reasons to be angry at Peter for what he had said and they could have tried to stone him as it happened to Paul for similar reasons many times), and bringing them to repentance, and not a mystical subjective feeling of a fake spiritual realm. That´s one of the missions of the Holy Ghost, to convince people of sin, as explained by Jesus Himself.

  2. RalphNWatts says:


    Your interpretation of the Bible contradicts my interpretation of the Bible, however we both believe in Jesus as a person. The question remains – if Jesus came to you and told you that your beliefs were incorrect, would you be willing to change your religion to the one He tells you to change to – including the LDS church, JW, SDA, etc?

    This is exactly the point of the post above – are you willing to follow the truth or are you happy with what you have even if it isn't the truth?


    The same question applies to you. If Jesus came to you and told you the JW were correct, would you follow His guidance or ignore it because you have read the Bible and decided that the JW cannot be correct and that your life is better for it? Let's extend that question to would you be willing to join with the LDS church again if Jesus told you it was His only true church?

    I would be willing to change my religion and beliefs if Jesus came to me and told me, would anyone here do the same?

    And don't say that He has, it is only people on this site giving their opinions on their beliefs and interpretation of the Bible, not Jesus telling me anything. And no one here has given me anything that shows they have the truth here. But again that comes down to interpretation of the Bible, you have yours, I have mine.

  3. f_melo says:

    "The same question applies to you. If Jesus came to you and told you the JW were correct, would you follow His guidance or ignore it because you have read the Bible and decided that the JW cannot be correct and that your life is better for it?

    Ralph, you´re complicating things an awful lot. It´s a very simple matter. Let´s look at what the Scriptures tell us.

    Galatians 1:6-12 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

    We can conclude that 1)There´s only one Gospel. 2)The Gospel had already been preached, meaning that no new development in doctrine was ever to be expected 3)People had fallen away from it towards a fake Gospel, but in your reasoning, Ralph, it could be just another "interpretation" of it, even though Paul doesn´t permit that. 4)Even if an Angel from Heaven were to come down and preach something different his message should be ignored(and he should be accursed, pretty serious business here).

    So, if Jesus appeared to me and told me the JWs were right, i would tell him to go take a walk in the lake of fire. God can´t contradict Himself, and i believe His Word has been preserved in the Bible, and i don´t need a special stone to show what the Scriptures mean when it comes to the Gospel. You seem also to forget about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

    In Luke 16:22-23, 30-31 "And in hell he(Lazarus) lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 30-31 " And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

    think about that, and then come back and tell us again that the differences between the Biblical Jesus and the Mormon Jesus is just a matter of interpretation(even though you´ve stated many times that your perspective comes from Joseph Smith´s revelations).

  4. f_melo says:

    "would you follow His guidance or ignore it because you have read the Bible and decided that the JW cannot be correct and that your life is better for it?"

    I would follow the Bible, of course, it is the recorded Word of God. We don´t have your mindset that the Bible has been corrupted and nobody can come to the knowledge of God and Salvation by it.

    You also talk about it as if the Bible was so subjective that nobody could understand it – and that´s another aspect of the Mormon mindset that is completely helpless without a "prophet" to interpret and explain everything to them. I wonder how you´re going to deal with those end-times period when you no longer will be able to gather together in chapels and won´t be able to depend on the leaders for guidance, if you´re going to turn to the Scriptures and try to understand them according to the rules of Exegesis to get reliable guidance from them, instead of waiting forever for a spiritual manifestation that may never come because God already revealed what you needed to know in the Scriptures in the first place.

  5. RalphNWatts says:


    You said ”and i believe His Word has been preserved in the Bible”. So you hold to the dogma that the Bible is inerrant even though there have been proven mistakes within it. Yes, Paul said “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel”, showing that even then the doctrine had become corrupted. Wow, those taught by Jesus Himself and His apostles had already corrupted the doctrine, isn’t that amazing!

    Fmelo, the Bible has been the subject of debate for centuries, for almost 2 millennia, as to how to interpret and translate it. It was written and copied and kept by imperfect humans. It does contain God’s word, but it does contain errors as well. And since the interpretation of the Bible varies, there are contradictions between the groups that identify with believing in the Bible and the Bible itself, including the possibility of the Trinitarian Christian movement being in contradiction with the Bible. So if these errors contradict Jesus, and He came down to you to fix these contradictions and tell you where to find the truth, you’d tell Him to take a hike would you? So you are now saying that you are happy with what you have even though it may not be true. The thesis of this post by Aaron has been fulfilled by a Traditional Christian right here, right now.

  6. RalphNWatts says:


    There is only one true way to believe in God and Jesus, as Falcon likes to point out, whether it is through an organised religion or a blanket one. Any other way is incorrect and will not lead to salvation. If the LDS church, or the JW or SDA, etc hold that one truth (as these do not believe in the Trinity) then yes, Jesus would tell someone to convert to that religion rather than a blanket belief system that you think is the truth. As I said, if He came to me and told me to join in with another group, including the Evangelicals, I would do it as He knows the truth and my faith in Him is enough for me to make the change. If He came to you and told you to change religion/faith because you do not believe in the correct manner at this point in time, would you? If He told you the Trinity was a false god and that the Modalists had the truth, would you join up with them? That is the point of this posting by Aaron – are you actively searching for the truth even if it totally contradicts what you believe now, or are you happy with what you have?

    I have questioned the LDS religion twice in my life and actively researched into it and other ideologies. All of what I have read and seen has brought me back to the LDS church. If I had found anything that decidedly proved the LDS church incorrect I would have made the change. But that is my experience and my life, others like yourself have had differring experiences.

  7. f_melo says:

    "So you hold to the dogma that the Bible is inerrant even though there have been proven mistakes within it

    Why am i not surprised to read this… and this coming from someone who believes the Book of Abraham to be authentic scripture. Ralph i don´t believe there are mistakes of doctrine in the Bible. I don´t know if the Bible is inerrant as far as historic details and textual variants go, but i believe the Bible to be infallible in transmitting the Word of God. That´s the dogma i hold on to, and archaeological evidence has settled it for me.

    Between your approach of the Bible, and Jesus´ approach i´ll stick with Jesus. He held the religious leaders accountable for not knowing what the Scriptures taught, and in every reference He made of the Old Testament He held it as authoritative, and that´s more than enough for me.

    "And since the interpretation of the Bible varies, there are contradictions between the groups that identify with believing in the Bible and the Bible itself"

    Man, that´s amazing – that´s why the Christian world deny the major, most clear doctrines, right? The Christian world is in more agreement without a prophet than your church with one, all you have to do is to look at the various contradicting statements made by your prophets and apostles throughout the years.. And the reason they all agree on certain subjects is because the current prophet says so – when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done. But hey, you have the right to think that that´s a good thing.

    "including the possibility of the Trinitarian Christian movement being in contradiction with the Bible

    Amazing how you hold on to that dogma, yet you provide no substantial evidence for it except for a shady out of context translation of one passage, and your belief in Joseph Smith´s inspiration and say so.

    "So if these errors contradict Jesus, and He came down to you to fix these contradictions and tell you where to find the truth, you’d tell Him to take a hike would you? So you are now saying that you are happy with what you have even though it may not be true. The thesis of this post by Aaron has been fulfilled by a Traditional Christian right here, right now.

    Your last statement was funny. You know, if the Bible was that corrupted we would have found out about it by doing a basic historic research. When you look at the writings of the disciples of the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the archaeological evidence, there´s absolutely nothing to indicate that what you´re saying is true. But let´s say that was the case, how would Jesus manifest that to the world? Well, first of all, that would have been prophesied about in the Old Testament, but don´t hurry up to say it has, because if you dare to say that i´ll throw your words back at you claiming that yours is just a flawed unconvincing interpretation of it, and also that that passage could be wrong as you just argued for. Second, it would come through a public manifestation as it has in the past, and not in a grove of trees with the only witness being a "14"(?) years-old boy that tried to make money by conning people. Third, it would not be done through a Church which spends so much of its efforts hiding the truth about its history.

    I´m happy with what i have because i´ve investigated the matter so far and i have not found any reason to believe it not to be true, and Mormonism doesn´t even come close to presenting a decent alternative. Mormonism doesn´t present any persuasive arguments for any intellectual or spiritual alternate reading and interpretation of the Bible, especially when it shows so much disrespect and disregard for it, as demonstrated by Ralph here.

  8. I'd just like to congratulate f_melo and Aaron for their frank, but respectful, discussion – it could have turned into a pointless fist-fight with a lesser appreciation of what the other person was trying to say.

  9. f_melo wrote

    [the Creeds are] kind of like when Joseph wrote the Articles of Faith, you know, to make it clear and objective the main beliefs of the Church for the outside world.

    …except that the Christians have stuck by their creeds. Joseph seems to have forgotten his as soon as circumstances required.

  10. clyde wrote

    I see flaws when someones say Jesus christ is God and created everything

    Maybe you should read John 1:1-3

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    …or Colossians 1:15-19

    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    In John's time, the really explosive message of the Christian Gospel was actually not that there was a Divine Word (Logos) that brought the creation (that's everything that's not God) into being – that idea was already current in Greek philosophy. The really explosive part was that this same Divine Word had taken on flesh and had come to live among us so that we could witness His glory (John 1:14).

    I suggest that your difficulties stem from the fact that you are unable to hear the message of John and Paul and the other authors of the Bible, as it would have been heard by the first Christians. Your perceptions have been skewed by the speculative experiments of the Mormon Prophets, who would have you believe that God is just like them (multiple wives and all, including a rather "relaxed" attitude towards truthfulness).

    I hold the Mormon enterprise wholly responsible for this grave misrepresentation. If it aspires to be a church, it ought to know better.

  11. Sarah says:

    Yes, I'm willing to follow truth. I have that truth. But to answer your question, yes, if Jesus Christ told me something — if I knew without a shadow of a doubt that it was Jesus Christ telling me and not Satan, the master of all lies, then yes, I would change. Just — you know, letting you know that for the record.

    However, you say this: however we both believe in Jesus as a person.

    Really? You follow Jesus as a person? Or do you follow Jesus as God. There is a very, very large difference.

    If Jesus was not God then He must have been born of man and tainted by Adam’s sin like the rest of us. In that case He would have inherited a sinful nature and His crucifixion could not have paid the required price for our redemption. He would not have been an innocent, sinless person, would not have been the sacrificial lamb who takes away the sins of the world.

    Though I suppose since the LDS church teaches that Jesus's death on the cross isn't enough for us, right? Again, the LDS church is rejecting the nature of God and rejecting Jesus's divinity. Because, guess what, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so that we might live eternally in God. That is enough.

    Apparently I HAD already responded to this when I responded again. But I feel like my second response (which I have deleted the comment of) reflects better what I mean. So I'm pasting it here:

    however we both believe in Jesus as a person.

    No, I believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate. He was not a person. Just to be clear.

    As for your question, yes. I follow Jesus Christ. If there was no doubt in my mind that He tells me something, then I believe it. Have I had instances in my life where I truly feel as though Christ is leading me in a different direction than I anticipated? You bet. Do I believe He will ever tell me something that contradicts what He has already said (example, the Mormon church)? Absolutely not.

  12. Sarah says:

    are you actively searching for the truth even if it totally contradicts what you believe now, or are you happy with what you have?

    I believe that God means for us to search for truth.

    I don't know if it was on this site or not, but I came across, recently, the passage of Ephesians 4: 13-15.

    13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

    14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

    15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

    We "come into" the unity of Christ. We "may grow up into him". We should not be like children, who blindly follow and listen to every doctrine and skip back and forth and follow the ways of man.

    I believe that faith is always a living, growing thing. It can't be static because we change. We change and grow and mature, and our faith does the same. Something we are taught as a child, something we believe is true, might not be true.

    I'm really not explaining what I mean very well. What I'm trying to say is: God is not static. He is everlasting to everlasting. We are imperfect sinners. If we are not meant to grow and learn and seek Him, then what's the point? Our sins change. We repent. We draw Christ close to us and struggle with how to live a life with Him in our hearts. If we stop seeking, if we stop yearning for Christ and truth, then we are not accepting God's grace and allowing him to transform us. Transforming us into God's children is what happens when we accept his grace and His salvation. Transformation, by definition, means a change. Without activity, change cannot happen.

    In fact, Jesus says, seek and ye shall find.

  13. wyomingwilly says:

    Ralph, Concerning Jn.1:1, if you read carefully the part of the quote above that you bolded out
    you see that what it's saying is'nt that hard to understand. The Word [the Son] was not all of
    " God" , The Word is not the Father, nor is the Word all of the Trinity. That's all it is trying to say.
    This is why some translators use a word like "divine" , it's to distinquish etc. John1:1 nor any other
    one verse in the Bible contains the whole truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. But Ralph, I'm kind
    of surprised at you.All this confusion can easily be cleared up for you. How ? Because you follow
    a living prophet who claims to reveal the mind and will of God, and who also gives the correct
    interpretation of the written Word. So receive what your offical church curriculim and the Standard
    Works tell you about Jn.1:1 . Why go to any scholar who is only a member of the abominable
    church ? They don't claim the authority to reveal God's view on scripture, right? That sum this all up.
    End of confusion.

  14. Verne Brown says:

    Ralph – two verses equate the Holy Ghost to God – Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18. The Holy Ghost also has the attributes of God: Eternal: Heb. 9:14 ; Omnipresent: Psa. 139:7 and Omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10-11. Finally, you have your church history skewed. Nicea dealt with the Arian heresy regarding Jesus' nature as God. The Holy Ghost as a member of the Trinity is present was discused by Origen a hundred years before Nicea, in fact uses the form of Trinity "τριάς" in his writings.

  15. f_melo says:

    "All of what I have read and seen has brought me back to the LDS church. If I had found anything that decidedly proved the LDS church incorrect I would have made the change."

    I would definitely like to take a look at what´ve you read and seen, because i can´t possibly understand how anyone can ignore the loads and loads of evidence showing the Mormon Church to be a fraud. Usually the people who do that research and remain mormons do so to keep family relationships intact, and for fear of social pressure,(or maybe because the church is their employer) and those people don´t come to these kinds of blogs to try to "intellectually" defend mormonism. For me you take your leadership as the authority because you covenanted to do so in the Temple, and those are the lenses you´ll always see through while lying to yourself that you somehow are in a search for truth(since there are no truths of eternal consequence outside the mormon church and priesthood).

    I´ve even posted here(a while back) an example i found in FAIR where they themselves confess that the scriptures being cited as prophecy of the Book of Mormon were completely taken out of context.

    So, Ralph, i searched for truth, and mormonism didn´t present it to me, on the contrary, it presented me with lies after lies all generated by a creative young man Joseph Smith and his side-kick Sidney Rigdon.

  16. f_melo says:

    "Why go to any scholar who is only a member of the abominable church ? They don't claim the authority to reveal God's view on scripture, right? That sum this all up.

    It really does, great comment! That´s another illustration of how desperate he is to find any little thing that might give somewhat of a support to what Joseph Smith taught.

  17. Violet says:

    You are right falcon. The bible writes that we do not trust our feelings but test everything in light of scripture. Mormonism teaches to trust your feelings, trust the bom, and trust the bible as far as it is translated correctly which means, as long as it backs up the bom, it is correct. If it contradicts, throw that part away. Also, mormons pick and choose verses and from what I can tell, do not read the bible in context with the entire bible.

  18. Violet says:

    Go Sarah! Its the carrot in front of the horse. And that is all it is. Behave, conform, profess, witness. It puts the burden on its people. Leads them astray. We cannot follow men, only God. Its a corporation, organization, a total authoritarian pyramid scheme with the prophet at the top, then Jesus above him. No one can get to the God unless they go through the mormon church, which is Joseph Smith, first. Its a crime.

  19. wyomingwilly says:

    Ralph, I'm glad you feel it's important to want to know what the Bible reveals concerning the Trinity.
    It appears by your argumentation that if the Bible does indeed teach the Trinity then you may not stay
    a Mormon. I like that scenario. Let's look at what the spiritual leaders of the only true church on the
    earth have proudly presented to us concerning the three members of the Trinity/Godhead: In 1835
    they presented their doctrinal pronouncement on this topic, making it clear that only a correct view
    of God can result in salvation in heaven with God. The following was taught as truth concerning the
    Father, Son and Holy Spirit , '……these three constitute the great matchless,governing supreme power
    over all things, by whom all things were created and made…." So these three were the Creators.
    Just a few years later, the mouthpiece of God, the prophet who promised that it was his duty to
    advance correct doctrine, worked into the Temple ceremony the truth of the three Creators, they
    were revealed as Elohim, Jehovah, and MICHAEL. These three were the trinity, as it were, in
    Mormonism. [ cont…..]

  20. wyomingwilly says:

    [ cont….] part 2

    Then we see in a published testimony ,written by an Apostle, and published by your Church, he
    says , " the true Trinity" is " explained, rationally, and convincingly, by the teachings and spirit of
    Mormonism…" [ ' why I Am a Mormon" p.8 , by Charles Penrose ]

    Ralph, do you agree that Mormonism has CONVINCINGLY taught the truth about the Trinity/Godhead ?
    Can you also notice that there is a true Trinity as well as a false (imitation) trinity ? So Ralph may
    you test what your leaders have professed to be a revealment from God on this salvation issue.
    Where does the Bible clearly teach the identity of the three Creators in the Mormon trinity/Godhead
    as revealed in the above reference from a Mormon prophet ? If these men were wrong on this then
    what does that say about the way LDS sustain their heirarchy now.? Remember the promise to
    never be led astray ? Your eternal life hangs on whether you worship the correct God .

  21. falcon says:

    You know better and you are avoiding admitting what you know. That is, that the Mormon church is lying when it talks about the purpose of Nicea. It has been demonstrated to you that the Church Fathers, who learned from the apostles, taught these things regarding the nature of God long before Nicea. You know that the Mormon Church lies about this and you continue to support them in their lie.
    This is a matter of record not someone's opinion or interpretation. It is history. The signs of a false prophet are that his apostasy devalues Jesus and the Word of God. This is Mormonism. Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses are hand in glove concerning this issue.
    The Mormon god is a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination and allowed him to rationalize away his fornication and adultery. He caused others to join in his sin.

  22. falcon says:

    I applaud your attempts here. At times I get too burned out to spend the time answering, in detail, questions such as the translation of John 1:1. My experience has taught me that I can spend a couple of hours formulating a specific response, in detail, with documentation and the TBMs will just blow it off because they have a "testimony". The correct information is out there for any Mormon who wants the truth. It's really easy to access. I go by that old saying, "If I tell you something you can doubt me. If you say it, it's true."
    My experience is that Mormons who are working their way out of Mormonism, find the information they are looking for. Those who are stuck in the cult mind-set, can't be convinced no matter how well documented and sourced an answer is. At the end of the day, it is God who is sovereign and who will work His will in who's ever life He chooses.
    What was the theme of the X Files? "The truth is out there".

  23. falcon says:

    It's kind of funny that Mormons will search high and low to try and prove that Biblical, orthodox Christianity is in error and yet will accept the most flimsy of reasons to say that Mormonism is true. However when the doubts begin to arise, they can find the evidence of the falseness of Mormonism in an instant. Depending on the stage of their inquiry, they may go through shock, disbelief, anger, fear, denial but at some point in time they will come to resolution as the Mormon house of cards tumbles in a heap before them. At some point, their "testimony" is all they have to hold on to as their truth. When they finally figure out that the testimony is merely an emotional response to an idea and not communication from God, it's over.

  24. Violet says:

    Mormonism is not Christ-centered. Mormonism is church-centered. The church is true, the church is true. (Everyone will tell you its not true, but its true. . its true. Oh. . . and its true.) Thou doth protest too much.

  25. wyomingwilly says:

    falcon, concerning Jn.1:1 , Ralph needs to know that it's not a matter of looking to scholars on this
    issue, he can go to a lot higher authority than that. Fact is, there are three men who have
    actually been authorized by God Himself to disclose the truth of how Jn.1:1 should read.
    These three men were : J.Reuben Clark, Stephen Richards, and David O. McKay, the LDS
    First Presidency . They have endorsed the following rendering of Jn.1:1
    " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
    was with God, and the Word was God. "

    [ reference available upon request ]

  26. clyde says:

    You missed my last part of my comment. The Bible says we can be Heirs of God and joint-Heirs of Christ. Jesus said I ascend to my father and your Father and My God and your God. I don't see a trinitarian idea in these verses. In reading history I see that the idea became dominant because other ideas were label heresy. I believe the trinity is the heresy but you can believe if you want. I am probably too liberal because even if modalism is right we by our actions can still do good in society and do things pleasing to God.

  27. clyde wrote

    Jesus said I ascend to my father and your Father and My God and your God. I don't see a trinitarian idea in these verses. </blokquote>
    …and I see no support in these verses for the notion that Heavenly Father had a Heavenly Father, and they're all off in their own planets, busy populating them by getting their multiple wives pregnant ad infinitum.

    I was concerned at your comment, because even though you might have a problem understanding how Jesus could be wholly and fully God, who created the universe and everything in it, John and Paul plainly didn't.

    Sincerely, I'd like this to be a dialog. Can you please explain how you interpret the 2 passages I quoted?

  28. Verne Brown says:

    I can understand your burnout. I engage mormons in other internet forums and indeed there is a high 'blow off' factor. Then again, I remind myself I don't write necessarly for the individual, but to others who may be lurking. It is better to have the truth out there and have it 'blown off' than not to present it. 🙂

  29. Violet says:

    Aaron –

    Found a website that had a few things I had not considered and did not know. Out here in the midwest, St. Louis, lds was a term I had never heard of. This might be common knowledge to people out west, but here, no one really talks about mormonism. I am 43 and had never even talked to a missionary. I had seen them but didn't really think too much about their religion. St. Louis County, Missouri. Thought you might be interested.

  30. jackg says:

    I appreciate your support, Falcon.


  31. jackg says:


    You said, "If He came to you and told you to change religion/faith because you do not believe in the correct manner at this point in time, would you?"

    The answer to that question is ABSOLUTELY!! And, do you know how I am so certain I would change? Because this experience has already happened to me and I have changed.

    God revealed the Truth to me about Him and, subsequently, about Mormonism. I have shared this before, but I'll give a brief version of my experience with God: I was on my knees, weeping, and confessed that I did not know if JS, the BOM, or the Church was true. I admitted that I didn't know anything, which is the antithesis of the LDS testimony. What followed was a supernatural experience. I felt led to open my Bible. I didn't flip the pages, but merely opened the Bible and read the first thing my eyes saw: "Before me was no other god, neither shall there be any after me" (Is. 43:10). In that one moment, God taught me the truth about Him, and that truth contradicts the foundation upon which Mormonism is built–the foundation of God once being a man and man becoming a god.

    Most Mormons mock this event in my life, but I can test this against the biblical text. There is no other God, Ralph. I was believing in a false god just as you still do. But, when God revealed that truth to me, I left Mormonism for good. So, you see, I can answer your question in the affirmative. God came to me and told me to change religions. God is still wooing you, Ralph. He wants you to know the Truth, and the Truth will indeed set you free.


  32. jackg says:


    Mormons really think they have something in their quiver when they attack the Trinity. To be honest, I can't really explain it, either. The Trinity is something I just cannot wrap my brain around, and it's okay to admit that. Why is it okay to admit that? Because we will always have the element of mystery when it comes to God. We are finite human beings trying to express a finite concept.

    Though it's true that the word "Trinity" is not to be found in the biblical text, the concept has been exegeted by scholars and has become a part of tradition. The Hebrews believed in one God, and that is the basis for our belief. One God manifest as the Father, Son, and Spirit. The trick for Mormons is to make the Trinity make sense in the context of God having a body of flesh and bone. The humorous thing about this belief about God is that it is not manifest in the biblical text, but made up out of thin air by a false prophet. So, you see, the Mormon wants to argue that the concept of Trinity is not found in the Bible, then teach that God having a body is. This leads to a polytheistic view of God which Mormonism espouses. This belief is further stated in their belief that they will become gods, and that God is just one of a multiplicity of gods. Basically, the Mormons aren't qualified to argue the substance and origin of God because they have built their belief system on faulty premises.


  33. Violet says:

    Shawn McCraney talks about this exact subject from a BYU education blog. Its this week's episode, The Seat Mate, (conversation with airline passenger on a mormon-filled plane of people going to Disney.) Really interesting. 2/05/11 Episode 255. The church is true if good things happen and the church is true if bad things happen. Either way, the church is true. (from the BYU website.)

  34. clyde says:

    and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. I believe the passage is describing the preexistence of Jesus.
    Colossians 1:15-19 Equating Gods' greatness with Jesus. Both are the same.

Leave a Reply