“Theological Cowards and Liars”

Mormon blogger Mark Paredes does not like the fact that Evangelical Christians educate one another on the doctrines of Mormonism. In an article published earlier this week at the Jewish Journal Mr. Paredes complimented the Evangelicals “in the pew” saying they are decent folk; however many of them, he wrote, “are led by pastors who are theological cowards and liars to boot.” What earned Evangelical pastors such disdain? Mr. Paredes clarified later in the comment thread, “I did not say that ALL pastors were theological cowards and liars, just those who deliberately misrepresent LDS teachings, disseminate anti-Mormon material, and don’t allow Mormons to present their own faith.”

Mr. Paredes implied that non-Mormons cannot, or will not, accurately present Mormonism — but Mormons themselves can and will. He lamented, “If only pastors would follow what I call the Jewish/Mormon Model for Interfaith Inquiry. When Jewish and Mormon congregations want to know what other religions believe, they invite leaders from those faith communities to address them and answer questions.”

Here’s one problem with Mr. Paredes’ paradigm: Mormons themselves are not immune from misrepresenting Mormonism. A case in point is Mr. Paredes himself.

In the comment thread on this blog article “lcawyer” quoted the Lorenzo Snow couplet, “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” Mr. Paredes responded, “Lorenzo Snow died in 1901, and the first part of his statement is not an official LDS teaching.”

Mr. Paredes noted the date of Lorenzo Snow’s death because he had earlier stated his rules of engagement regarding Mormon doctrine: “If you claim that Mormons believe something outrageous, be prepared to back it up by offering up a quote from an LDS leader or official source from this century (i.e., the last 12 years).” This challenger had broken the rule (although “lcawyer” had not referenced a source). It is the second part of Mr. Paredes’ response that supports my suggestion that sometimes Mormons misrepresent Mormonism.

Though Mr. Paredes said “As man now is, God once was” is “not an official LDS teaching,” President Snow’s statement has been favorably quoted in the following official Mormon Church sources in this century:

  • The Friend, March 2002, page 23
  • Old Testament Teacher Resource Manual, 2003, pages 13–19
  • Teaching of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith, 2010, pages 70-71
  • Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, 2012, page 83

Furthermore, the doctrinal concept (as found in Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse) has been taught in the following official Mormon Church sources in this century:

  • Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2000, page 7
  • Gospel Fundamentals, 2002, 200-205
  • Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual, 2003, pages 251–262
  • Gospel Principles, 2009, page 279

The Evangelicals I know make a great effort to research primary Mormon sources in order to accurately explain Mormonism to their fellow Evangelicals (and also to uninformed Mormons). Using a Mormon representative does not guarantee a more accurate presentation of Mormon doctrine than one would get from a non-Mormon who is adequately prepared. But Mr. Paredes thinks there is more to this than meets the eye. Explaining why Evangelicals will not invite Mormons to present their own faith in Christian churches Mr. Paredes wrote,

“The dynamic in play here is fear, not friendship. Lots of current Mormons used to be Evangelicals, and our church is viewed as a threat by their leaders. Fear is the catalyst for the whole anti-Mormon industry of books, videos, and speakers that have slandered and vilified our church for decades.”

I agree that fear is a driving force behind Evangelical opposition to Mormonism, but it’s not because Mormonism is viewed as a threat to Evangelicalism. The fear Evangelicals grapple with is concern for the souls of Mormon men and women. I admit it – I am afraid for the Mormon people and the coming day of Judgment each one faces. For if it is true that eternal life is knowing the only true God (John 17:3), I fear for every Mormon who holds a false God in his or her heart. On that day God will not be asking how many times you were taught to believe in a God who was once a man, or how recently the Church officially pronounced that God has not always been God. Aaron Shafovaloff put it this way:

“When Jesus looks at a person’s heart, he doesn’t see ‘official’ and ‘not official’ material. He sees truth and falsehood, belief and unbelief, righteousness or wickedness, light or darkness.

“Jesus never said, ‘That’s not official.’ He said, ‘You don’t know the scriptures,’ and, ‘It is written,’ and, ‘I say to you.’

“When Jesus criticized the religious elites for their oral traditions, can you imagine his response to a Pharisee who said, ‘But Jesus, that oral tradition, which we have fostered, perpetuated, acquiesced to, or even taught, isn’t official doctrine. Therefore you cannot hold us accountable for it.’”

Yes, I am afraid for the Mormon people who are turned away from God’s truth by the false doctrines and assertions of Mormonism. I am afraid Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you; depart from me” (Matthew 7:23).

Who is this god that Mormon prophets declare? And who are these prophets whose so-called inspired teachings only have a shelf-life of twelve years? I am driven by fear for the souls of the Mormon people to join Jonathan Edwards in crying out, “O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in!”

About Sharon Lindbloom

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

34 Responses to “Theological Cowards and Liars”

  1. falcon says:

    I kind of chuckled through this article because the fact of the matter is Mormons go to great length to hide, misdirect and obfuscate what they believe. That’s why, as Sharon says, that individuals and apologetic groups such as MRM, look at original source material. In another thread I talked about how Andy Watson would carry around actual LDS published material to show Mormon missionaries who would doubt what he had told them. The reaction was most often stunned silence because even the obligatory “taken out of context” couldn’t be used.
    Quite frankly, Christians view Mormonism as a deceitful religion. It’s not just because of the false claims of Joseph Smith but the tradition of hiding and covering up doctrines and practices. During the polygamy stage of Mormonism, Mormon leaders were practicing (polygamy) while denying (its practice). Even after the manifesto ending polygamy they continued to practice (polygamy) while denying it.
    So the blogger Sharon is writing about here tells us that the first part of Snow’s couplet is not “official”. Then we see it’s all over the place in Mormon publications.
    There is definitely a spirit of deceit in Mormonism at many different levels. Having a discussion with Mormons is also interesting because it seems they each carry with them there own understanding of what Mormon doctrine is. I keep going back to Bruce McConkie’s “definitive” tome “Mormon Doctrine”. The LDS won’t go near it today and not long ago it was thought to hold the LDS truth.
    For a religion with a “living” prophet, Mormonism is certainly a ship without a rudder.

  2. Rick B says:

    Despite the fact LDS are always claiming how honest they are, that is simply not true. As I keep saying on this blog, I will give out my home address, the LDS who post here are more than welcome to come to my house, I will have local MM show up, will not tell them them who you are and why you are over, I will do all the talking and ask questions and you can see for yourself the lies, cover up’s and what they dont say.

    It happens way more than LDS care to admit.

  3. falcon says:

    I would absolutely love to have a Mormon come to the church I attend and present Mormonism and then have an open forum with questions and answers. I think it would be very instructive.
    What would that presentation on Mormonism look like? Well first of all we’d have to find someone who could explain (Mormonism). Who would we invite? A representative of the Community of Christ, the Church of Christ (temple lot), the FLDS or the LDS Salt Lake City sect? And within the FLDS which of the groups would we have present? Then I understand that there are all kinds of fundamentalist Mormons who live in and around Salt Lake City who practice polygamy but don’t live communally.
    It’s really foolish for a Mormon to think that because they are a member of the LDS church that they can explain Mormonism. My guess is that the Christians who blog here know more about Mormonism than 95% of the people who practice the religion.
    Go and ask a rank and file Lutheran to explain Lutheranism; and they’ve all been through the confirmation process. They couldn’t do it nor could folks who belong to anyone of the different denominations of Christianity. For example what’s the difference in the theological/doctrinal position on communion between Lutherans, Catholics and Baptists?
    Being a member doesn’t endow a person with any particular insights or knowledge of a religious groups doctrines. It takes concentrated seri0ous study.
    Knowledge of Mormonism can be obtained through study. A person doesn’t have to believe it to understand it. As far as interpreting Mormonism, Mormons are no better equipped to do that than non-Mormons. Active Mormons really don’t like former Mormons explaining or interpreting Mormonism despite the fact that they were inside the sect(s) and experienced the program first hand.

  4. Mike R says:

    Falcon, you bring up some valid points to consider. I’m sure Mr Paredes is a sincere person,
    but he appears to somewhat aggitated at certain Christian pastors . Now perhaps he has good
    reason to be ,after all there are some who could have purposely misrepresented Mormon
    doctrine , but I think he needs to be careful in his accusations lest someone looks to him as
    a reliable source about doctrine. The type of rhetoric he engages in has been so repeated the
    last 20 yrs as more and more information about Mormon history and doctrine has been
    available to the public . There are just some doctrines that Mormon leaders have taught that
    Mormons now don’t want exposed to those who may be thinking about becoming members .
    Thank goodness there have been Christian ministries that can provide information to those
    looking into the claims of Mormonism so that they can make an informed decision .

  5. Rick B says:

    I agree with Falcon, I bet my church also would be happy to have LDS show up. We could have 2-3 maybe even 4 differnt LDS sect present why they are right, the others are wrong, and then allow us to ask questions. But I am also willing to bet no mormon would ever agree to this. Why? They cannot answer the questions and would come away looking foolish.

  6. falcon says:

    I’m thinking that perhaps this Mormon woman does an excellent job of explaining Mormonism. She’d be a good one to invite to present at a Christian church.


  7. erusselljohnson says:

    Great article, Sharon. Is Mormonism really so esoteric that you somehow need to become one in order to understand this religion? If so, then how do they really know mine? What right do they have to criticize anyone’s beliefs if they’re not believers of what I see as truth? In addition, the average Latter-day Saint on the street typically acknowledges the couplet when it is quoted, so why do some Mormons have to play the “we don’t know much about this idea” card. After all, if it is true that God has a body of flesh and bones, and we have the ability to progress to Godhood, then it only makes sense that God the Father did too. If this is not true, then the Mormon is obliged to criticize those quotes found in correlated standard works.

  8. falcon says:

    The woman in the video that I recommended above is sort of a breath of fresh air. Not only is she bright, articulate and deeply steeped in Mormon history and doctrine, but she’s committed to it, un-apologetically.
    I would guess that people like her are a real thorn in the sides of the establishment LDS church in Salt Lake City. Unlike many modern day Mormons, she doesn’t try to explain away, hide, nuance or obfuscate Mormon doctrine.
    Of course I don’t agree with what she has to say regarding the truth of Mormonism but I love the way she charges the modern day SLC sect with apostasy; and with good reason. It’s a five part interview and one of the (parts) that blows my hair back is when she starts talking about the Adam-God doctrine.
    Her views on polygamy are really interesting.
    What I think also makes her effective is that she’s very polite. She gives the impression of someone who is not looking for a fight but has a firm conviction of what she believes and can draw a sharp contrast between where Mormonism was in the beginning and its drift into modern day apostasy.
    There is a wide gulf between the doctrines of say the Community of Christ, which is basically Mormonism at it’s birth, and this woman’s view on doctrine which I would call Nauvoo style Mormonism.
    So can anyone explain Mormon doctrine? Well it’s really not that difficult to trace its inception and the changes over the years. What is “true” Mormon doctrine, it seems, lies in the eyes of the beholder.
    Does personal conviction make something true? To the individual it does. Oh what Joseph Smith has wrought. All kinds of people receiving the “truth” and firmly convinced of it.
    I’d suggest trying the Bible to find truth.

  9. Mike R says:

    erusselljohnson, welcome. You brought up an interesting point about how some Mormons can
    resort to accusing a non-Mormon that they don’t understand a certain doctrine taught by
    Mormon leaders because they are not a Mormon etc. This rationale usually is used just
    before personal attacks are utilized by the Mormon in an effort to reject your firm conviction
    that he or she is in spiritual danger for following a false prophet . I recently experienced
    this type of behavior . I’m glad that Sharon has stated that our ministry with those who
    don’t agree with us should be inline with the counsel of 1 Pt 3:15 .

  10. parkman says:

    “I would absolutely love to have a Mormon come to the church I attend and present Mormonism and then have an open forum with questions and answers.”

    I showed up here at your “church annex blog” and ask you questions about your religion/beliefs and all I get is what you say Mormons do.

    Another “do as I say and not as I do moment”

  11. parkman says:

    “I keep going back to Bruce McConkie’s “definitive” tome “Mormon Doctrine”. The LDS won’t go near it today and not long ago it was thought to hold the LDS truth.”

    Only in the minds of some of you. Most of us understood it was one man’s ideas and just a reference to be checked out by greater study.

    I remember that when the book was referred to we use to call it, “McConkie’s Doctrine by Bruce R. Mormon.”

  12. falcon says:

    This is a blog about Mormonism. Get it?
    I think the Christian posters here have been very patient with you and your attempts to disrupt the conversation, take us off task continually and add nothing to the exchange; hence your identification as a troll.
    If you would like to engage in a conversation regarding Christianity any one of us would be willing to meet with you via e mail correspondence and answer your questions. The fact of the matter is, you’re really not interested in securing information regarding Christianity. I think you need to examine your heart and be honest regarding your motives for posting here.

  13. parkman says:

    “This is a blog about Mormonism.” : “The fact of the matter is, you’re really not interested in securing information regarding Christianity.”

    I remind you of things that you say are bad for Mormons to do when you choose to do the very same “bad” actions. Just checking to see if it is proper for you to behave like a Mormon.

    P.S. Mormonism is NonTrinitarian Christianity.

  14. falcon says:

    The fact of the matter is, there is no definitive Mormon doctrine. Mormon doctrine is whatever someone (sometimes in authority) says it is. Mormon doctrine, at least as practiced by those of the SLC sect, is ever changing.
    Among those identified as Mormons, there is doctrine that a particular group claims to be definitive. In Christianity, there are a core set of beliefs, that those who identify themselves as Christians, endorse. That’s not so in Mormonism. Within Mormonism there isn’t even agreement as to who God is. There are those Mormons who hold to a traditional Christian view of the nature of God.
    Among these various sects of Mormonism is a group called New Order Mormons. This is what they say about themselves:
    “New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful. New Order Mormons seek the middle way to be Mormon.”
    The Church of Christ claims the following:
    “The Church of Christ grew rapidly as the gospel was spread and was accompanied by the power of the Holy Ghost and with miracles. Unfortunately the devil was also hard at work at this time, trying to destroy the Church from without and within. The tempter used the same lies, appeals to pride and temptations of power that had worked in the past and in short order there were ideas and doctrines introduced which were not a part of the Gospel of Christ. Some of these ideas and doctrines caused the Church a great deal of difficulty and divisions.”

  15. falcon says:

    So as we can see, there is a wide range of beliefs/doctrines in groups that would self-identify as Mormon. Each of these groups would say that they have the revelation. For example, this is what the Community of Christ has to say about the doctrine of the nature of God:

    “God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one God (Matthew 28:18–19, John 1, Colossians 1:15–19, Mosiah 8:28–32). We affirm the Trinity—God who is a community of three persons. The “three persons” of the Trinity are God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. To speak of God as Trinity is to speak of God as Creator-Redeemer-Sanctifier who lives in eternal love, community, devotion, mutuality, and unified purpose. God’s nature is relational and social (2 Corinthians 13:13). Our living in healthy relationships and community is a reflection of God’s eternal nature.”
    We believe in one living God who meets us in the testimony of Israel, is revealed in Jesus Christ, and moves through all creation as the Holy Spirit. We affirm the Trinity—God who is a community of three persons. All things that exist owe their being to God: mystery beyond understanding and love beyond imagination. This God alone is worthy of our worship.”
    The Fundamentalist Mormons believe, as does the Church of Christ-Temple Lot, that the Utah church has gone into apostasy. Interestingly enough these groups practice an entirely different form of Mormonism as does the Community of Christ.
    So it’s ridiculous for members of the Utah church to show-up here and claim that we Christians don’t know and understand Mormon doctrine. When you have a wide range of groups that fall under the heading of “Mormon” who disagree with one another as to basic doctrine it’s more than a little disingenuous that it should be claimed that Christians don’t understand.

  16. Rick B says:

    Falcon, it is easier for a Mormon to tell us we don’t understand, and know what were talking about, than to try and defend what they believe when so many cannot agree.

  17. falcon says:

    Mormonism is Non-Trinitarian Christianity? According to who? I think if you read my posts carefully you’ll see where the Community of Christ Mormon sect say that they “affirm” the Trinity.
    I think if you want to say that according to you Mormonism is non-Trinitarian Christianity you could do that. After all, Mormonism is wide open regarding its various doctrines. You’re as qualified as any Mormon to articulate what Mormon doctrine is. In fact just about anyone is. So, think it, pray about it and if you get an affirming feeling that means that God is telling you that what you believe is true.
    Mosiah 8:28-32
    28 And now Abinadi said unto them, I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people;
    29 And because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God:
    30 And having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son; the Father because he was conceived by the power of God: and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son:
    31 And they are one God, yea, the very eternal Father of heaven and of earth;

    Curious isn’t it that the CoC would use these verses from the BoM to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t affirm the BoM but it seems pretty plain that when it comes to basic doctrines, these Mormons, who reflect early Mormonism, are on a completely different page from you Utah folks.
    I would say then that anyone can be an expert in Mormon doctrine since all of the various sects of Mormonism are going in different directions. Even the New Order Mormons have their own personal take on the doctrine.

  18. falcon says:

    That’s true. Can you see then why Mormonism has fallen into great apostasy and is awaiting a time when all things will be restored? No doubt about it. Mormonism is in need of restoration. That’s why just about every other week another Mormon prophet comes along who has received the word of the Lord and now has the official restoration. This is really the history of Mormonism.
    Jim Spencer, in his book “Beyond Mormonism” writes about his disillusion when he found out about all the different sects of Mormonism. The “one true church” claim of the Utah church was pretty shallow. It was just one more piece of information that led him to eventually leave Mormonism and find salvation through Jesus Christ. Once the Mormon dominoes start falling the whole roll comes tumbling down.
    It is pretty funny that Mormons think they’re the only ones who can articulate Mormonism. It’s all part of the game they play.

  19. Mike R says:

    Parkman, you stated , ” P.S. Mormonism is non Trinitarian Christianity .” Perhaps this
    is your own opinion , your own individual belief , or maybe you’re not expressing yourself
    as clearly as you would like , but all I know is that your leadership has already made their
    position known on this , which is : Mormons are the true christians who teach the true trinity.
    Therefore based on this it can be said that Mormons claim to be Trinitarian Christians .
    ( I realize that Mormon authorities usually use the term ” Godhead” nowadays , but the fact
    still remains that IF you accept what your leadership has taught then you are a ” Trinitarian “.
    So the question really is whether Mormons are the true christians with the true doctrine of
    God or not . 2 Cor 11:4 ; Gal.1:8 .

  20. parkman says:

    “In Christianity, there are a core set of beliefs, that those who identify themselves as Christians, endorse.”

    That would be the answer to my original question many, many years ago when I started questioning what was taught in the many different Churches in what you refer to as The Body of Christ. I COULD NOT FIND THAT ONE SET OF IMPORTANT CORE BELIEFS.

    Please list what you think they are.

  21. parkman says:

    “So as we can see, there is a wide range of beliefs/doctrines in groups that would self-identify as Mormon.”; “After all, Mormonism is wide open regarding its various doctrines.”; “That’s why just about every other week another Mormon prophet comes along who has received the word of the Lord and now has the official restoration.”; “The “one true church” claim of the Utah church was pretty shallow.”

    The wide range of beliefs/doctrines in groups that you call Christian was the reason I started questioning the teachers I followed before I joined the LDS Church. I find your “one true” understanding of your “body of Christ” to be confusing. There are so many denominations in your “Christian” world because “every other week” a new person follows the example of Luther and is inspired by some difference in doctrine. Many of them form new congregations that follow the new teachings.

  22. parkman says:

    “…Mormons are the true christians who teach the true trinity. Therefore based on this it can be said that Mormons claim to be Trinitarian Christians .”

    I understand what you are saying, I just use your definition of Trinity as defined by the men you call true teachers. You accept the teachings of men you call inspired by much education, I follow men who I belief are called of God to speak with His authority and are called Prophets.

  23. falcon says:

    Doctrine is the most basic way by which a religion expresses its beliefs. The problem with Mormonism, as expressed by the Utah sect, is that they play games with their definitions. Thus Mike in his above post writes that this group considers itself “trinitarian”. Mormons will also talk about “accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior” because it sounds “evangelical”. It’s the game of using the same language but not revealing the actual meaning. This is basically dishonest.
    Just for “fun”, I went and read what the Church of Christ-Temple Lot has to say about this most basic of all doctrines, the doctrine of God. Very interesting to say the least.
    Lastly, it’s not the difficult to learn about and understand the doctrines of various religions. For some reason, the Utah Mormons think that a person has to have revelation knowledge to get it. In-the-end, Mormonism is a maze of confusion that even Mormons get lost in. The best we can do is study the doctrines and comment on the history and development of Mormon belief. What Mormons actually belief at breakfast can change at lunch and then back again by dinner.

  24. Mike R says:

    Parkman, you appear to always be working some angle . Your ploy at attempting to cast the
    term “trinitarian ” in a negative light has been seen to be silly because your leaders have
    even considered themselves to be trinitarians . Now, your leadership has also claimed to
    be the true trinitarian christians comprising the only true church of Jesus Christ , so any
    investigator can compare what the Bible records Jesus’ apostles taught their people with
    what Mormon apostles have taught about God , this evaluation is invaluable in determining
    the truth of who the Christian God (Trinity) is . You might try this : compare what the Bible/
    New Testament apostles wrote about God/Jesus and compare it with those men who knew
    Joseph Smith and were influenced by him and served as leaders also in Utah after his death.
    These men claimed to be officers in Jesus’ Church with His supervision to teach people.
    It is important to test those who come in the latter days claiming to be sent by God :
    Mk. 13:22-23 ; Matt 24:11,24.

  25. parkman says:

    “…attempting to cast the term “trinitarian ” in a negative light…”

    I do not cast the term Trinitarian in a negative light; I just question the authority of the men you follow to have narrowed God’s teachings in the Bible by adding your narrowing definition. I ask why you believe these men had the authority to narrow what God taught.

    You tell me to search the Bible, then you say I am wrong not to include this added definition the men you follow have added to the words of the Bible. To understand the Bible the same as you do would mean I have to accept your teachers, that have added this narrowing definition to Trinity, as if they had authority from God to speak like a prophet.

  26. Mike R says:

    Parkman , did you even read what I said ? It appears that you have constructed your own
    ideas of who I follow rather than listening to what is said . I join you in refusing to
    grant these so -called “teachers ” I supposedly follow any exclusive authority to be God’s
    mouthpiece , His prophet. Now Mormon leadership claims to be God’s exclusive channel
    of gospel truth to mankind , are their latter day “revealed ” teachings authorized supplements
    to what the Bible teaches about God /Trinity? The question becomes , is what the Bible records
    about God sufficient to come to know Him for eternal life–Jn 17:3 ? Or are the “new insights ”
    about Him as offered by various ” living prophets ” in these latter days necessary to gain a
    accurate knowledge of Him ? People in Paul’s day were encouraged to test prophets /apostles
    and his wise counsel is invaluable for people today given Jesus’ warning in Mk 13:23 and
    Matt 24:11,24 .

  27. parkman says:

    “It appears that you have constructed your own ideas of who I follow rather than listening to what is said. I join you in refusing to grant these so -called “teachers” I supposedly follow any exclusive authority to be God’s mouthpiece, His prophet.”

    You may not say the words, but your writings show that you walk their walk. You treat their teachings as if they are part of the Bible.

    “The question becomes , is what the Bible records about God sufficient to come to know Him for eternal life–Jn 17:3 ?”

    The question again arises, why do you accept the authority of the men who fought over and decided what of all God’s teachings belong in the one bound volume called the Bible?

    Did thay have prophicy power from God?

    Were the allways “prophets”, or were they only prophets when they did what you think God wanted to use them and they were just men at othet times?

    Were they just men who decided that this is what God said and not prophets?

    Like you teach, God taught, “24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”

    Now you need to ask if all these men who acted like prophets when forming the definitions added to the Bible that you accept were truly of God, or were they of the one who will lead you astray.

  28. Stanley2 says:

    ….”were they of the one who will lead you astray.”

    Like Brigham Young proclaiming, to his church members, that Adam was God?

  29. Mike R says:

    Parkman , your reply is riddled with innuendo’s on your part , and by answering a question
    with a question(s) type response that did’nt do much good either .

  30. shematwater says:

    I have to laugh a little on this point.

    First, Rick, if I was in the area I would love to come down and have a nice question and answer session at your church. I have no problems with this. I would just be a little worried that it would quickly turn into a Mormon bashing session, as that seems to be what you are fond of on these blogs.
    To put it simply, I would answer any question that is stated as a question of curiosity and not a question of challenge or mocking. I am just worried that you can’t ask anything but challenges and mocking.

    As to Mark Paredes, your complaints with him personally seem honest and accurate enough, though I really do not have enough information to make such a judgment. But either way, who cares. He is a man doing what he likes and thinks is right. From what I can tell he has not been given the authority to disseminate doctrine and declare what is true and what is false. His quality as a source is not the best one to look at.
    As to his suggestion of inviting LDS over to answer questions, I don’t think people quite understand him. He is talking about those who are the leaders of the church. When we invite one to speak to us on Judaism it is a Rabbi that we invite. If you would be honest about accept this method you would seek out one of the General Authorities to speak to you.

  31. shematwater says:

    A note on the styles of conversation from our various posters

    Parkman has obsession with the Trinity and brings it into every thread he posts on. While much of what he says is true it can, and does, get tiring at times. However, because of this desire to discuss it he does seem to frequently get a little confusing in what he is saying. He needs to work on this, and be more willing to discuss other topics as well.

    Of course, there is also the non-LDS version of this in Mike, who seems to want to bring everything back to his opinion on the leaders of the LDS church being false prophets. It’s uncommon for him to post any comment that doesn’t have something said on this point. It also seems that when he gets tired of a topic he simply stops discussing it and brings this point back as strong as he can. Honestly, this gets just as annoying as Parkman’s trinity.

    Now, Rick seems to be of the style of “If I throw enough stuff something is going to stick.” He posts several quotes at a time, frequently brings three or four points into a single post, and is not shy about throwing in several personal comments while he is at it. After loading everything as high as he can he makes the unfounded claims about why didn’t answer one of the many points he brings up.

    Falcon, on the other hand, is more the minimalist. He rarely presents quotes, and usually sticks to one point, regardless of the topic of the thread. That point is his opinion on the confusing nature of the LDS religion, and he sticks to it with just as much fervor as Parkman or Mike do

  32. shematwater says:

    As for me, I am aggressive in my writing. I do answer most points and topics, but I am certainly not afraid of telling people what I think of their comments when I think such is necessary. I do hold myself as knowledgeable regarding my religion, though maybe not as well read, and I get annoyed at those who think that reading a lot of books means they know more than I do.
    I do have a habit of sarcasm that I need to work on.

  33. parkman says:

    “Parkman has obsession with the Trinity and brings it into every thread he posts on. While much of what he says is true it can, and does, get tiring at times. However, because of this desire to discuss it he does seem to frequently get a little confusing in what he is saying. He needs to work on this, and be more willing to discuss other topics as well.”

    Thanks for the advice.
    I just want to know why these people put so much faith in the people who created the title and definition of the Trinity. If you remove their title and definition of the Trinity from the Bible, God is saying something different from what He is saying with the title and definition of the Trinity added to the Bible.

  34. shematwater says:


    I actually agree with you on this point. They claim the Bible is clear but by using this definition it becomes very confusing.
    I also agree that, despite protests to the contrary, they are all influenced by these leaders and, at least subconsciously, hold them up as true teachers and being very close to equal with the actual writers of the Bible. Now this idea is repugnant to their conscious mind and so they will always say they are not equal.
    None of this really matters a whole lot though. They are wrong and they will come to realize it at some point. If not now then maybe when Christ returns and proclaims it from the clouds to all the world.

    I just think that a few comments on the actual topic of the blog would help things out a bit.

Leave a Reply