The American Spectator : Mormons and Demons

Jack in Wi.| 5.21.12 @ 6:33AM

What a pile of hooey! Mitt Romney just this week had a big fund raiser at the home of the manufacturer of the Morning After pill. If you believe Mormonism is not a cult, just read Fawn Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith and study his corrupt and crooked life, with other sources. It is a particular kind of American thing. After all America has given the world Prophets and Prophetess' like Jim Jones, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, Herbert W Armstrong, and Amy Semple Macpherson. None of them, including most of all Smith, were Christians and all of them were and are cults.

Publius Xereb | 5.21.12 @ 6:46AM

Polygamy: Democrats don't want to go there..
Obama's father was a polygamist who had at least one wife in Kenya when he came to the US and married Barack's Communist mother. Since he was already married, that makes BHO the bastard son of an African polygamist and an American Communist. His dad was kicked out of the US after Harvard said he had too many wives and revoked his enrollment.

Pseudo-Intellectual | 5.21.12 @ 6:48AM

Good article, but Jeremy is wrong about Huckabee.
He used anti-Mormon prejudice to appeal to Baptists and won Iowa and the South, causing the nomination of Johnny McAmnesty, the worst Republican candidate for President in history.

Willis| 5.21.12 @ 9:58AM

Future SAT question:

Biden:Democrats=______:Republicans

Ans. Huckabee

TLP| 5.21.12 @ 2:52PM

If you look around, you see that we've got so many who sound like they're willing to, not only hack off their Nose to spite their face, but Blow off their Heads to spite their Hats.

We didn't get the guy or gal, we wanted.

No sh*t. Get in line. Maybe that's because, nobody threw their hat in the ring.

He's a Mormon, but the Church he goes to is NOT run by a White Hating, Jew Hating, America Hating, Farrakhan Loving, Marxist Pastor. He's never been raised in the Muslim Schools and Mosques of Indonesia, and he's never knelt on his very own Prayer Rug, facing Mecca, and Prayed to a God of Murder. In fact, I also know that he has never told anyone that The Muslim Call to Prayer is the most beautiful sound in the world. And, then go on to RECITE it.

His parents didn't consist of an Atheist/Communist/Whore, and a Muslim/Marxist/Whore Chasing/Drunk, who ran out on his Family, and died Drunk, in a Gutter, in Africa.

His Grandparents weren't Communists. Nor does he have any Mentors, in his Closets, who were Communists or Marxists.

He hasn't surrounded himself with Self Proffessed Marxists, or Communists, or Maoists, or Anarchists, his entire Adult life.

He's not friends with Unrepentant Domestic Terrorists.

He's never been a Coke Head. Never shook down businesses, with the threat of violence, while leading ACORN on Kamikaze Attacks, on the Banks in Chicago.

He's never Taught SAUL ALINSKY Workshops. Never bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. He's never put any of The Muslim Brotherhood in positions of Power at Homeland Secutity, or the TSA.

Never pissed away $1,000,000,000,000 meant for Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs, on Public Sector Union Pals.

Never ran around the World, APOLOGIZING for the United States.

Never Socialized our Health Care, Forged Documents, to put in place an ILLEGAL Drilling Moratorium, Shut Down a Pipeline from Canada, that would have provided a STABLE flow of Oil from a Friendly Ally, never RAN GUNS to the Mexican Drug Cartels, and NEVER had The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Organization to the White House, for Tea, and $1.5 Billion, Cash.

And, if that's not enough for you?

He's never EATEN his dog.

He just put him on the roof of the Car.

Wake Up. Shut Up.

And, do what needs to be done.

Elle| 5.21.12 @ 3:56PM

Spectacularly wonderful summary and Amen also to Publius Xereb on the subject of polygamy in Obama's family.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 11:41PM

IOW hate is your standard for politics.

Rollin L.| 5.21.12 @ 5:04PM

Indeed, nicely done. And like Elle, my hat's off to Publius Xereb as well for just telling it like it is.

Kumar | 5.21.12 @ 6:04PM

All this Obama bashing is great, but bottomline is Obama is a puppet. Blood sucking Jewish parasite is the puppetmaster.

Faces change, puppets change, but puppetmaster remains the same. Parasite puppetmaster lurks behind the scene.

Why does the Jew supports Isreal as a Jewish ethnostate, but pushes massive 3rd world invasion to America and Europe.

Why does Jew push interracial marriage, housing, schools for Whites, but not for Jews?

You are afraid to face Jewish hypocrisy. You cannot face the truth.

Whitey fights and dies in Iraq/Af-Pak. Whitey is aging, shrinking, dying. Whitey gets poor and less free every day and then Whitey wonders why?

RCV| 5.21.12 @ 7:06PM

Get lost, you anti-Semitic scumbag.

Quartermaster| 5.22.12 @ 7:08PM

Mostly correct. Also correct was Huckabee's statement that Mormonism taught that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers.

J| 5.23.12 @ 11:31PM

Oh, here is my rude rude boy!
Still not tired of spreading false belief?

Hi people! Please excuse my little boy Tim!
He has his reason to be that rude, because I am his mommy, but I don't remember which one is his daddy.

Years ago, I had a blast one night with the town of Republicans. Wow, it was some night! I was having a time of my life with all Republicans. Two at once!

So please understand this bastard boy of mine!

Sorry for the disturbance!

Alan Wood| 5.26.12 @ 11:23AM

No - his church does believe that the Lord Jesus Christ and satan are brothers. They believe that if you follow their heathen teachings you get to be a god and have a planet full of women to breed. They believe that the US will be in a period of great economic distress and one of their heathens will take over and declare a heathen mormon therocracy. Do the research - rombama is every bit as dangerous as Obama! I am writing in Jesus Christ for president this year, He is our only hope to turn this country around!

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 11:40PM

Your bigotry and general hate says more about you than your target.

Purp| 5.21.12 @ 10:52AM

McCain was too old ... but Richie Romney is too Mormon.

chuck| 5.21.12 @ 12:00PM

Gee, sounds a lot like....Obama is too black.

Showing your bigotry, purp?

W| 5.21.12 @ 1:48PM

Purp
Are you also a religious bigot?
If you criticize Romney's religion then fair disclosure requires you inform us of your religion. Or is your religion the lefty-liberal church?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 8:45PM

"Are you also a religious bigot?"

To "W", anyone who doesn't believe in the Pope is a Religious bigot.

W| 5.21.12 @ 10:10PM

Good old Margie returns with a false name. Weren't you also banned from Weasel Zippers? How many sites have you been banned from?
So now you defend Purp and his anti-Mormon rants.

W| 5.22.12 @ 10:50AM

As usual, Margie lies. You are a religious bigot because of your own words showing your intolerance and bigotry towards anyone who does not agree with your version and interpretation of the Bible.
I don't care what you believe or your religion, and I never said or believe anyone not a Catholic is a bigot.
You are obsessed with the Pope. Get help, see a shrink.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 12:32PM

Say W, Pope worshipper extraordinaire: Preach YOUR Religious bigotry to someone else, I'm not buying.

The Bible is my Authority, not your Pope, the false Christ on Earth.

Get right with God, liar.

One Mediator, Jesus| 5.23.12 @ 11:19AM

And God must be a Religious bigot as well, because after all, He said this:

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My Words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when He comes in His Glory and the Glory of the Father and of the Holy Angels." Lk. 9:26.

Those are the Words of Christ. You know, the One you believe is God?

I am not ashamed of His WOrds. You are taught by your Popes to reject His Holy Words, and to replace them with perverse things.
You will be judged for what you choose to believe.

And the God of the Bible also says this about those who reject His Words:

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

Your "Pope" can't save you.

May the God of the Bible, and His Son Jesus Christ have mercy on your filthy, lying soul.

One Mediator, Jesus| 5.23.12 @ 11:14AM

"As usual, Margie lies."

Where?

"You are a religious bigot because of your own words showing your intolerance and bigotry towards anyone who does not agree with your version and interpretation of the Bible."

God must be a Religious bigot, then, as He has a Judgment Day coming soon for those who bear false witness against His Own, and seek to destroy them with false accusations, such as yourself. You do it as a way of life, it's your SIN life, and you continue to live it.

God thros liars into the Lake of Fire. Those are HIS Words, not mine, just as I quote Scripture, and I agree with Scripture, and not the words and teachings of men whose words do not agree with Scripture, such as you accept.

Yur Apsotate Religion that you believe in teaches you to reject God's Holy Words, and to take part int he destroying of biblical Christians as best you can.

As I said, you will be judged by God for this.

May He have mercy on your lying, perverted soul.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 11:45PM

I am a Roman Catholic, and I say until Mormons will give honest answers to questions about their religion I will not consider it true Christianity.

Purp| 5.21.12 @ 9:31PM

Well, let's see, if you think old people are being oppressed, ya. If you think Mormons are being oppressed, ya. But you have to believe both to think bigotry, dontcha?

W| 5.21.12 @ 10:13PM

Purp
Logic is not your strong point. Stick to repeating the lefty talking points.
Mormons have to be opressed for your bigotry to be called bigotry?
Collect your thought and try again.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 11:38PM

Wrong! The worst republican candidate for president in history was George W. Bush.

Alan Brooks| 5.21.12 @ 5:41PM

Okay, okay, perhaps Romney will be elected six months from now, he is a better candidate than McCain, but you DO know he wont reduce the size of government, right? and reducing the state is what you want, right? it is the common denominator of the Right.

If you do elect Romney this November, what good will it do you?

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 11:37PM

So what?

Moe Blotz| 5.21.12 @ 8:22AM

For that matter, all religions are cults: a system of worship of a deity. Mormons wound up in Utah because they fled persecution in the western part of the USA. Lynched for their abolition views on slavery, they packed up and moved. Crossing the Wasatch Range in Utah territory, Joseph Smith decided,'This is the place." The mountains behind them were a wall between the Mormons and the USA until Utah became a state. BTW, Jack, America has given us Rev. Billy Graham and Rev. Martin Luther King as well. Our fellow commentators could add a few names I expect.

Bruce| 5.21.12 @ 8:44AM

Moe;
Read a little more history before posting. Joseph Smith was killed (martyred) on Jun 27, 1844. The first wagon train to Utah left on Apr 5, 1847. Brigham Young is the man who made the statement "This is the place."

Moe Blotz| 5.21.12 @ 9:25AM

Thank you, I dinna' read history and was ad libbing. Was Joseph Smith killed for his abolitionist views?

Poqui| 5.21.12 @ 5:27PM

Joseph Smith was killed by a mob of over 200 people with painted faces (called the Carthage Greys) while under the protection of Governor Ford in Carthage Jail. The main reason given was that Joseph Smith authorized the destruction of a newspaper in Nauvoo IL that was printing libelous material that he, as mayor, deemed to be inciting violence and a public nuisance. They considered the destruction of the press a violation of the First Amendment.

J| 5.27.12 @ 9:37PM

What Mormons Believe.

JESUS WAS A POLYGAMIST
Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde said, "Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 210.) Brigham Young said, "Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers" (Deseret News, vol. 12, no. 6, 1862.) Since God ordained for two (instead of many) to become one flesh, Brigham Young accuses God of robbing Mormons of their polygamy.

POLYGAMY WILL NEVER BE DONE AWAY
Mormon President Heber C. Kimball said in 1855, "The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away" (Deseret News, November 7, 1855.) Kimball also said, "You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them will be damned" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 203.) But in 1890 Mormon President Wilford Woodruff issued a manifesto cancelling polygamy, but many Mormons still practice it in violation of their church's law and their nation's laws.
But I Corinthians 7:2 says, Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. I Timothy 3:2 requires that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and verse 12 says, Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quotes Genesis two as to what God said about marriage in the beginning. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. And Romans 7:3 says that marriage to another person while the first partner lives is called adultery.

NON-POLYGAMISTS WILL BE DAMNED IN HELL
Joseph F. Smith said, "I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 31.) Orson Pratt said, "I want to prophecy that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness, the Spirit of God will withdraw from them from the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they finally go down to hell and be damned" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, p. 225.)
But Jesus commanded two (not many) to become one flesh (Matthew 19:5.) The apostle Paul in I Corinthians 7:2 commanded every man to have his own wife (not wives.) Bishops and deacons (as examples to the church, I Peter 5:3) are to be husbands of one wife (I Timothy 3:2, 12.) And Romans 7:3 says, So then if, while her husband liveth, she shall be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. \ Corinthians 6:9, 10 teaches that no adulterer shall inherit the kingdom of God. Isn't it strange that the Bible clearly teaches that all polygamists today are adulterers and will be lost in Hell, while Mormonism has so long taught that all non-polygamists will be lost in Hell?

CELESTIAL MARRIAGE BINDS POLYGAMISTS FOREVER IN HEAVEN
The Doctrine and Covenants states, "Verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, . . .it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world" (page 241, verse 19.) Orson Pratt said, ". . .if plurality of marriage is not true. . .then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain. . .for as sure as one is true the other must be true. Amen"(Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 296.)
But when the Jews asked Jesus about a woman who had had seven husbands, therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? He answered them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (Matthew 22:23— 30.) Jesus taught that marriage in heaven was false.

J| 5.27.12 @ 9:43PM

SMITH FORGIVES SINS AND SAVES MEN IN HEAVEN
Smith claimed that God said to him, "Whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven" (Doctrines and Covenants, page 243, verse 46.) Brigham Young said, ". . .no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. . .Every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are— . . .1 cannot go there without his consent. . .He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289.)
Surely the strangest Mormon doctrine of all is how thinking people can swallow these words of blasphemy and base their eternal salvation upon the imaginary claims of a teenaged boy!

LATTER-DAY REVELATIONS
The whole system of Mormonism is based upon the need for "latter-day revelations." This is another way of saying that the revelations God gave in the Bible were not enough. It means that the Bible's revelations are insufficient. It means that the Bible was outdated and needed updating. It means that the Bible cannot do what God said it can and must do.
But the holy scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3 : 1 5 . ) T h e B i b l e thoroughly furnishes us unto all good works (verse 17.) The Mormon claim of the Bible's insufficiency contradicts the Bible's claim of its sufficient completeness. The Bible's completeness denies any need for additional books.
Instead of promising newer revelations in "latter-days," the Bible promised that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (I Timothy 4 : 1 . ) The Mormons are among those who have departed from the faith. They have given heed to seducing spirits (like seducing harlots) who have spoken doctrines of devils.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 says that God has sent them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie. Verse 12 says that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Joseph Smith began a long line of believers in the Mormon delusion (deception) and will be damned, because he believed not the sufficiency of the Bible's truth, but had pleasure in polygamy and other forms of unrighteousness.
2 Corinthians 1 1 : 1 3 says that Mormon apostles are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. Verse 14 says that this is not surprising, since Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Verse 15 says that Satan's ministers (like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) have counterfeited themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.

THE REAL QUESTION
These Bible warnings make the real question to be this: Do you want to listen to the apostles and ministers of Jesus or those of Satan? Do you want latter-day doctrines of devils or the first century doctrine of Christ? Will you swallow the Mormon delusion and believe a lie, or will you stand firm with the faith once for all delivered to the saints? May God help us to love and obey the truth of Jesus and to reject the false Gospel of Joseph Smith.

J| 5.27.12 @ 9:49PM

STRANGE MORMON DOCTRINES
(What Mormons truly believe)

Hebrews 13:9 says, Be not carried about with different and strange doctrines. Doctrines are teachings, and different and strange doctrines are teachings different from the truth of the Bible. They are strange to those who know the Gospel, Here are some of the strange teachings of Mormons:

THE CURSE ON CAIN WAS THE NEGRO'S FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN
Brigham Young (second most famous Mormon founder) said, "Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin" (Brigham Young: Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290, 291.)
But Genesis 4:11— 15 explains that the curse upon Cain was that the earth (which had drunk in his brother's blood) would not yield fruit for Cain (verses 11, 12.) He would be a wanderer on the earth and pursued by men. But to make Cain's punishment continue, God put a sign upon him that would warn pursuers not to kill him (verses 14, 15.) The Bible says nothing about this sign being a flat nose and black skin, and the sign applied to no one but Cain.

THE CURSE ON HAM WAS UNENDING SLAVERY FOR NEGROES
Brigham Young also said, "Ham will continue to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle (American Civil War over slavery) free the slave? No." (Brigham Young: Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 250.) But Genesis 9:20— 27 explains that Ham's punishment was to serve his brothers Shem and Japheth (verses 26, 27), because he had sinned against his father Noah, but they had not. Ezekiel 18:20 says that a son will not bear the sin of his father, so Ham's sons have not carried this curse made only to Ham. The curse on Ham was not unending slavery for Negroes.

DEATH TO A WHITE MAN MARRYING AN AFRICAN WOMAN
Brigham Young said, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If a white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10. p. 111.)
But Exodus 2:21 says that Moses, a Jew, married Zipporah, a Midianite, and Joseph married Asenath, an Egyptian (Genesis 41:45.) Neither of these men was killed on the spot, because God does not forbid racially mixed marriages. Mormon whites have a racially superior view of themselves and a racially inferior view of blacks. James 2:9 says, If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. Mormons commit the sin of respect of persons against blacks.

BLACK MORMONS CANNOT BE PRIESTS
Mormon President Harold B. Lee on December 15, 1969, said "From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents, Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood," but "sometime in God's eternal plan the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."
But I Peter 2 : 9 says that all Christians are God's chosen generation and royal priesthood. Revelation 1:5, 6 shows that all Christians washed from their sins in Christ's blood are kings and priests unto God. Galatians 3:28 says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek . . .for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Mormons say blacks cannot be priests, but the Bible says that all Christians are priests, black or white.

SLAVERY IS GOD'S INSTITUTE NOT TO BE ABOLISHED
Joseph Smith said, "We do not believe in setting the negroes free" (Joseph Smith: History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 29.) Brigham Young said, "We consider slavery of divine institution and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants" (Brigham Young, quoted in History of Utah, by A.L. Neff.)
But I Corinthians 7:21 says to slaves, if thou mayest be made free, use it rather, and verse 23 says, Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Slavery came from
men, not from God, and has no connection whatever to Ham's sin. Christian slaves were instructed in many New Testament verses to be faithful and good slaves, not to look upon slavery as a curse handed down from an ancestor's sin. Mormon founders taught that
Negroes must always be slaves.

J| 5.27.12 @ 9:53PM

GOD IS AN EXALTED MAN, AND MORMONS BECOME GODS
Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form— like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man... he was once a man like us" (Discourses of Joseph Smith, p. 263.) Brigham Young said, "He is our Father. . .and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.) Mormon President Heber C. Kimball said, "for our God is a natural man" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 211.) Lorenzo Snow said, "As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may be" (Church News, December 27, 1952, p. 16.) Mormons do not make the difference which the Bible makes between God and man, the Creator and the creature. They say that God was a man and that they become Gods.
But Numbers 23:19 says, God is not a man that he should lie. Job 4:17 asks, Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker? Isaiah 45:12 says, / have made the earth and created man upon it. Romans 9:20 asks, Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Creatures are not creators.

GOD IS NOT FROM ALL ETERNITY, NOT ETERNAL
Joseph Smith said, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was from all eternity. I will refute that, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Discourses of Joseph Smith, p. 263.) Mormon President Orson Hyde said, "Our heavenly Father was perhaps once a child and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress. . .until he arrived at the point where he now is" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1. p. 123.) But even the 1835 edition of Doctrines and ness of the everlasting gospel" (page 10.) Many similar Mormon statements show their belief that Christ's gospel in the Bible was incomplete until Joseph Smith's gospel was revealed to him in America in the 1820's. This means that no Christians, even those in the New Testament, had the full gospel until Smith's gospel was given to him.
But I Corinthians 15:1— 4 says that the Corinthian Christians had been saved by the gospel which Paul had preached to them. And Paul also said in Galatians 1:6— 9 that the Galatians had been called into Christ's grace by the gospel Paul had preached. Verses 6 and 7 say that they were already removed unto another gospel, which was not truly another gospel, but troublemakers were perverting the gospel Paul had preached. Verse 8 then says, 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. This clearly says that Christ's gospel had been preached in Galatia. It had already been perverted by men preaching another gospel. And Paul solemnly warns that even an apostle or an angel which preached another gospel would be accursed. Both Joseph Smith and his imaginary angel preached another gospel and will be accursed.

J| 5.27.12 @ 10:01PM

THE STRANGEST DOCTRINE OF ALL:
MORMONS BASE EVERYTHING UPON A TEEN-AGED BOY'S WILD CLAIM!

The official Mormon book, The Prophet Joseph Smith's Testimony, claims:
1. At age 15 the Father and Son appeared to Joseph to tell him all churches were wrong.
2. At age 18 the angel Moroni told him of the gold plates of The Book of Mormon.
3. The plates were hidden on a hill under a stone, but he could not get them for four years.
4. After four years Joseph began translating the plates into The Book of Mormon.
5. Mormon President David O. McKay said, "The appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith is the foundation of this church."

But I Corinthians 3:11 says, Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. I John 4:1 says, Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. I Corinthians 14:37 says, If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. Just thinking one is a prophet does not make him one.

GOD IS SMITH'S RIGHT-HAND MAN
Smith said, "I know more than all the world put together" (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 266.) He said, "I solve mathematical problems of universities with truthdiamond truth, and God is my 'right-hand man.'" (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 78.)
He said, "God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be God to you in his stead, and the elders to be mouth for me: and if you don't like it, you must lump it" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 319-320.) He said, "I have more to boast of than any man ever had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. . .Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 408-409.)
But Paul said, / labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was in me (1 Corinthians 15:10.)
But 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. And the scripture Paul referred to and used himself and often quoted from was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament called the Septuagint. Jesus quoted from this same translation and said, Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35.) God gave us the Bible and has preserved it through its translations.

THE BIBLE IS NOT NECESSARY
Mormon Apostle Lee Grand Richards said, ". . .the 'everlasting gospel' could not be discovered through reading the Bible alone. . .this is the only Christian church in the world that did not have to rely upon the Bible for its organization and government;. . .if we had no Bible we would still have all the needed direction and information through the revelations of the Lord 'to his servants, the prophets' in these latter days" (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, 1966, p. 41.)
But Revelation 22:18 s a y s , / testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Mormons have added and will be added God's plagues.

A MAN IS A FOOL WHO SAYS WE NEED NO MORE BIBLE
The Book of Mormon says, "Thou fool, that shall say: a Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible" (page 101.) Brigham Young said, ". . .the testimony establishing the Book of Mormon is far superior to that establishing the Bible in its present form" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 36.)
But Jude 3 commands Christians to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. The original word for once means once for all, and the faith is the Gospel. Therefore, the Gospel had already been once for all delivered to the Christians in New Testament days. This means that no more revelations of the Gospel were to come in "latter days," as claimed by Mormons. A man is a fool who says that we need more than the Bible.

WOE BE TO HIM WHO SAYS WE NEED NO MORE THAN THE BIBLE
The Book of Mormon says, "Woe be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough" (page 100, verse 29.) It also says, "Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that I have not caused more to be written" (page 101, verse 10.)
But 2 Timothy 3:17 says that scripture throughly furnishes the man of God unto all good works. 2 Peter 1:3 says that all things that pertain to life and godliness are given to Christians in the knowledge of Christ. And John 16:13 says that Jesus promised his twelve apostles that the Spirit of truth would guide them into all truth. These verses, therefore, mean woe be to him who says we need more than the Bible.

CHRIST'S GOSPEL WAS NOT COMPLETE
Doctrines and Covenants, 1835 edition, says, "I have sent forth the fullness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph" (page 117, verse 4.) Joseph Smith's Testimony states that the angel Moroni told Joseph Smith that the hidden plates contained "the fullCovenants says that God is". . .without beginning of days or end of life." This whole 74 page section has been deleted from present editions because it contradicts present Mormon teaching. Mormon doctrine opposes the Bible and opposes itself.
But Psalms 90:2 says, . . .even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Psalms 93:2 says, . . .thou art from everlasting. Romans 16:26 calls him the everlasting God. Isaiah 57:15 says that he inhabiteth eternity.

J| 5.27.12 @ 10:06PM

THERE ARE MANY GODS
Joseph Smith said, "Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in grand council. . The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world" (Discourses of Joseph Smith, p. 265.) On page 27 he said, "I will preach on the plurality Gods. . .when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the elders for fifteen years/Tour pages of Pearl of Great Price (pages 38— 41) speak of "the Gods" 46 times. Brigham Young said, "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.) Orson Pratt, one of Mormonism's Twelve Apostles, said, "If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345.) But Mormon doctrine contradicts itself in the Book of Mormon, Alma 11:27— 29: "Is there more than one God? and he answered, No." Isaiah 44:6 says, / am the first and the last; and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 45:5 says, There is no God beside me. I Corinthians 8:4 says, There is none other God but one.

MORMONS WILL BECOME GODS
Joseph Smith said, ". . .you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves. . .the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another" (Discourses of Joseph Smith, p. 264.) On page 32 he said, "In the resurrection some. . .are raised to become Gods." Brigham Young said, "The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself. . .we are created for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 93.) Young said, "The God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children" (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 22.) Orson Pratt quotes Isaiah, "There is no God before me, nor shall there be any after me." He then says, "How can we believe this, when we believe in the revelation given through Joseph Smith, which says there are many Gods. . .and that all good men in this Church shall become Gods?" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345.)
But a progressing series of men becoming Gods contradicts the changelessness of God. Malachi 3:6 says, For I am the Lord, I change not. James 1:17 says that with the Father of lights is not variableness. Exodus 20:3 warned Israel, Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and I Corinthians 8:5, 6 says that there are many that are called gods, but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things. Romans 1:23 says that idolaters changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man.

J| 5.27.12 @ 10:20PM

Mormon Teaching: Three Different Heavens

DO MORMONS BELIEVE IN THREE DIFFERENT HEAVENS? YES.

We have seen that Mormon belief includes a concept of three different heavens, also termed “degrees of glory,” and that the lower telestial and terrestrial kingdoms are not the true salvation that Mormons seek for. As noted, a person’s good works and personal merit determine forgiveness of sins and which heaven or “kingdom of glory” he or she inherits after death.

The lowest kingdom of glory is called the TELESTIAL KINGDOM. It is the place of the wicked, where much of humanity will reside. Such persons will be excluded from the actual presence of God and Christ.

The kingdom above this is called the TERRESTIAL KINGDOM OF GLORY. This is where lukewarm Mormons, good non-Mormons and those who accept Mormonism after death go. In other words, this means many people have a chance to accept Mormonism after they die, a doctrine the Bible says is not true in Hebrews 9:27, which teaches that “man is destined to die once, and after that to face [eternal] judgment.”

As laid out in the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants Sections 131 and 132, and in Mormon theology, the highest kingdom of glory is the CELESTIAL KINGDOM, the heaven most coveted by Mormons, and this is gained by absolute, complete and total obedience to gospel law. In fact, as we will see later, it is only secured through achieving actual sinless perfection. This kingdom itself has three parts, but it is only in the highest part of the celestial kingdom that true salvation or becoming God in the full sense is found. (Again, this is also referred to as “exaltation” or securing “eternal life.”)

In Mormonism, salvation in its truest sense is attaining absolute godhood, ruling one‟s own planet and having an eternal family with eternal spirit children produced through physical sexual procreation with one or more (typically more) celestial wives. These spirit children then have their own opportunity to assume physical bodies on a planet and work to become Gods themselves and have their own spirit children, with the process continuing forever.

Put another way, the most worthy Mormons sooner or later attain deification in the highest portion of the celestial kingdom and have the right to an eternal family. All other people are said, by comparison, to be “damned,” which is, in effect, to inherit a restricted and servant status in lesser “kingdoms,” never having the opportunity for eternal progression. “This full salvation is obtained in and through the continuation of the family unit in eternity, and those who obtain it are gods... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation.” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 670.)

Thus, according to official Mormon teaching, “Salvation in the celestial kingdom of God, however, is not salvation by grace alone. Rather, it is salvation by grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 671.) And, “With three or four possible exceptions, all of the [presumably Mormon] revelations of all the ages speak of salvation as being wholly, completely, and totally synonymous with eternal or everlasting life, with exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world, with attaining Godhood and being like God the Eternal Father.” (Bruce McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Volume 3, 284-285.)

Teaghan| 5.21.12 @ 9:05AM

Wrong. I, a presbyterian, do not belong to a cult. Way off base dude.

Moe Blotz| 5.21.12 @ 9:26AM

Look up cult in your Funk and Wagnall.

Ryan| 5.21.12 @ 10:46AM

There are varying definitions - the literal usage, and the practical (which, in a sense, is "deviation from orthodoxy."

Moe Blotz| 5.21.12 @ 12:12PM

So I was applying the literal in response to Jack's rant and Teaghan read into that a variation. Personally I do not consider religion to be a cult as the word is now used.

Ed Norris| 5.22.12 @ 10:46PM

Christianity started off as a cult, and started off in obscurity to hide from the serious persecution and borderline genocide that the Roman Empire condoned or even ordered on and off for centuries. I don't agree with Mormonism, but considering both their size and duration, I would consider them a sect or a denomination at this point.

KyMouse| 5.21.12 @ 9:49AM

Counterfeit Christian groups, pseudo-Christian cults, have one or more of these traits:

They believe that their particular writings, added to or substituted for the Bible, are required for true faith; that their leader or leaders speak directly for God; and that theirs is the only true Church.

At www.lds.org, anyone can read an official LDS book called "Gospel Principles" (I refer to it in another comment about Mr. Lott's article).

Among its interesting points:

Chapter 9 says, "We should do those things the prophets [Mormon presidents] tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray...We raise our hands to sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator...We should follow his inspired teachings completely.We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult...The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray...We are blessed in this insecure world to have a prophet through which the Lord reveals his will..."

Chapter 10 says that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price...In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us..."

Chapter 16 explains that after the death of Jesus, "more and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy...On April 6 1830, the Savior again directed the organization of his Church on earth. His Church is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints...The Lord has said that it is 'the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased'."

According to the Association of Religion Data Archives, the fastest-growing group that considers itself to be Christian is Mormonism, based on statistics gathered every ten years. In the past decade, the association reports, Mormonism added 2 million American members, for a total of 6.14 million.

The greatest danger that Mormonism presents is that its "Jesus" is not the Jesus of the Bible and cannot save anyone.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 10:33AM

Well said, KY Mouse. A cult is any Religion that obeys the words of a man instead of the Words of God, and of His Son, Jesus Christ.

"And there is Salvation in no one else, for there is no other Name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12.

RCV| 5.21.12 @ 12:47PM

Margie? If so, welcome back!

JohnnyLingo62| 5.21.12 @ 12:53PM

Were not the prophets that WROTE their epistles and gave their speeches "men" of God? Did not Jesus command his 12 apostles to go out into the world and declare their testimony of Christ as the Savior of the world? Were not these "men" speaking to other "men".
Weren't the prophets in the Bible usually killed by or shunned by their contemporaries, but these same people revered the "dead prophets" of old?
Weren't Christ's 12 apostles also killed by various means by those that rejected their message as blasphemy?
If mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God, then they also believe, as you quoted, Acts 4:12.
Now, tell me why are there so many different Christian denominations on the earth today? Which one is 'true'? Can they ALL be true, but just not the Mormons? If yes, then why don't all Christians belong to "that one true denomination"?
Hmmm, just thinkin' outloud

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 7:43PM

Yes, but the Apostles taught what Jesus taught, nothing less and nothing more. Just as I shall do, and as all biblical Christians do.

Mormons do not believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, they are buying into the lies of a false gospel, as taught by a false prophet named Joseph Smith.

As to denominations, it isn't the Will of God. As it is written, there is one Lord, one Faith and one baptism. Eph. 4:5.

All else is deceit by which the Devil leads you to Hell.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:46PM

Reverand Jeffress said. "And I still maintain there are vast differences in theology between Mormons and Christians."

This seems to be a common view among many Christians and actually they are right to say that there are some major differences, although there are more similarities than differences. . However, there are also vast differences between current Christianity and Early Christianity.

If Christianity means “historic orthodox mainstream Christianity” of today then I would agree that Mormonism is not historic Christianity; at least not in every doctrine. Although Mormons have much in common with other Christians Mormons also believe differently than historic Christians in some key areas. But the real questions to ask are 1) What is original Christianity? 2) Is mainstream Christianity of today the same as original Christianity? It turns out that Joseph Smith was right. Mormonism is a restoration of Original Christianity. It is not my intent to criticize Christians of today. However, with all the criticism of Mormonism it is important to notice that in many areas of belief Mormons are closer to original Christianity than are most Christians of today.

Mormons believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. However “Trinity’ is a word that is not found in the Bible. Nor are the definitions and wording formulations in the extra-Biblical creeds found in the Bible. In 325 AD a council of about 300 (out of 1800 serving) bishops gathered in Nicea at the request of the pagan Emperor Constantine and formulated a creed that tried to reconcile the Biblical statements that there three persons called “God” and yet there was “one” God. They then forced all Christians to accept their solution as “gospel”, with varying results. Theological debates and other councils continued to tweak the concept for centuries which produced additional creeds.

Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups is the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on.

For example; in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that "there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions," thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.) Contrary to the creed Jesus taught: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).

It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.

The Bible is then viewed through the lens of these creeds causing certain interpretations to be favored and other biblical teachings to be minimized or ignored. Interestingly, if you look at the doctrines of the early church fathers before the creeds, they are very Mormon-like. In a number of doctrinal areas the early Christians were good Mormons and would be rejected as non-Christian by many Christians of today.

In many areas of belief (probably the majority of areas) Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe the same as most other Christians. It is true that in some limited areas – some very critical ones – the beliefs of Mormons differ from other Christians. Likewise there are some major areas of difference between Catholics and Protestants and likewise between one Protestant group and the next. Every denomination could make the claim that the other groups are not Christian because those other beliefs differ from their own.

Joseph Smith taught “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).

The central belief of Mormons is that Christ came into the world as the Son of God. He healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and restored life to the dead. He commissioned twelve Apostles to whom he gave authority. He suffered in Gethsemane, died on the cross, and was resurrected and will come again. He, and only He, provides the means for us to be washed clean in his blood from our sins, which sins we can never correct on our own or through our own works. If that is not Christian I don’t know what is. Christ never taught the need to believe in anything like the creeds. Those came later.

Mormon belief is very much like the teachings of the earlier Christians – before the creeds – and also matches the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The further back in time you go the more Mormon-like Christian doctrine becomes. Mormons are often portrayed as non-Christian when we don’t believe in the later extra-Biblical creedal formulations.

The early Christians did not have the extra-Biblical creeds of later centuries. Were they then not Christian? The ontological debates and the wording formations of later centuries are not found in the words of Jesus or the words of the Apostles or in the words of the pre-creedal Christians . There is not a word about a one substance god in the Bible or in the early beliefs. If believing in the creeds is necessary to be Christian then that makes the earlier Christians not Christian – it even makes Christ not Christian.

One other interesting aspect of this topic: Some Christians claim that we must get our beliefs and doctrines from the Bible only. It is claimed that God finished his work and no longer has prophets or gives revelation. They say the Mormons are wrong to have prophets and extra scripture. Consider this: If the Bible is sufficient and no post-Biblical revelation is allowed, then the post-Biblical creeds are not necessary and are not authorized by God. If God authorized the creeds then why aren’t they in the Bible? How could they be from God if the Bible is complete, if God has finished his work, and if there is no more revelation? They are extra-Biblical and no one should be held to them as a requirement to be Christian. It is so ironic that Mormons are criticized for having extra-Biblical revelation by people who themselves believe in extra-Biblical creeds. Once one puts on the glasses of the creeds then everything in the Bible is filtered to match the creeds.

Mormons believe in original Christianity restored to the earth through revelation to new prophets. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has finished his work, that the cannon of scripture is closed. It seems ironic to us that we Mormons are accused of adding to the Bible by people who have done just that – added creeds and metaphysical definitions to the Bible. We advocate for believing original Christianity.

Ryan| 5.23.12 @ 4:38PM

The creeds are not revelatory, and have no new doctrine in them. Most (if not all) are intended as a clarification on debates of the day of what scripture actually states.

Creeds were not made in a vacuum. Most were used to address controversies.

Dwight Rogers| 5.24.12 @ 12:10PM

There is much in the creeds that is not in the Bible. the Bible says nothing of a one-substance god.

For another example; in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that "there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions," thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.) Contrary to the creed Jesus taught: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).

Poqui| 5.21.12 @ 5:37PM

Oh you poor ignorant fool.

Do you not realize this history of the Christian religion?

Do you not know how the Bible came to be?

Your accusation of a cult fits perfectly the description of First Century Christianity. They added to the scripture cannon (Old Testament). They received revelations and changed/interpreted the doctrine Christ taught them.
The Jesus of "Orthodox" Christianity is not the Biblical Jesus. It is a Jesus invented in countless hours of debates in councils. "Orthodox" Christianity is really Creedence Christianity because that's where it was born, in the Creeds that were the result of debates and heretical teachings. Creeds are superimposed on scriptures, not the other way around.

As a former student of Liberty University, I thank the Lord that He has let me see the light and returned me to His flock, away from "Orthodox" and Creedence Christianity.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 7:39PM

So now you believe in Joseph Smith?

Ryan| 5.22.12 @ 8:32AM

What early creed is scripturally wrong?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 12:33PM

Whichever ones do not agree with Scripture.

Ryan| 5.23.12 @ 2:40PM

Are you willing to point out specifics?

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:51PM

The study of Christianity prior to the fourth century AD reveals that the LDS doctrine of the Godhead was the prevailing doctrine among Christians. The present-day doctrine of the Trinity was not developed, or at least did not receive wide acceptance until later. Early church fathers Ignatius, Hermes, Justin Martyr, Origin, Athanasius, and others, argued that the Godhead consisted of physically separate beings. See the following:

J.N.D. Kelly, Early Church Doctrines, San Francisco, 1978, Harper and Row, pp 93, 96, 129, 233.

H.I. Marrow, A History of Education in Antiquity, Trans. George Lamb, New York: Mentor Book, 1956, pp 424-429.
Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, New York; Harper and Row, 1957, p 49.

James L. barker, Apostacy From the Divine Church, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960, pp 229-235.

The Confessions, V, x:19-20; VII, 1:1. In Great Books of the Western World, vol. 18, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, pp 32,43.

The Confessions, IV, xvi: 29, 32; VI, Great Books, vol. 18, pp 26,32,36,267-269.

Ensign, July 1987, pp 56-59.

Ensign, March 1988, pp 7-11.

Documentary History of the Church, vol 1, introduction.

There is a big gap between what the average Christians and their ministers believe and what the truth of history and early documents indicate. Christian scholars often know facts about early Christian history and teaching that are at odds with popular "orthodox" Christianity as taught today by the minister or priest. Much of what is popular among Christians and Ministers comes from traditions rather than fact. Christian scholars are usually reluctant to go against the popular "orthodox" viewpoints of their own ministers and clergy and so they often soften the truth of facts and real history. However, scholarship and intellectual honesty forces them to make admissions. This "Big Gap" exists in regard to a number of Christian doctrines and traditions. For instance, concerning the current topic:

"Indeed, there exists an abundant evidence that Christians between the time of the Apostles and the council of Nicea, continued to believe in a doctrine of subordinationism and separate, albeit like substance, within the godhead. " [Linwood Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought_, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995,) p. 54.]

Harper's Bible Dictionary states: "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." [In P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), p. 1099

In a major treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesuit scholar Edmund J. Fortman, notes that "there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts." He also states that in the New Testament "nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead," and that "in John there is no trinitarian formula." [Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), pp. 14, 16, 29.]

Wiles syas "The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas." (Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 144

And: "It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty." (Wiles, Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 4.)

Fortman states concerning Paul's writings: "These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula. . . but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine. . . [Paul] has no formal trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a trinitarian problem, but he furnishes much material for the later development of a trinitarian doctrine. (. Fortman, Triune God, pp. 22-23.

After examining all parts of the New Testament, Fortman concludes: "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there . . . .The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Fortman, Triune God, pp. 32, 35

Among textual experts and also Biblical theologians, particularly Roman Catholics, there is a growing recognition that one should be careful when speaking of Trinitarianism in the New Testament. They recognize that the Trinity doctrines of later centuries contain much that is simply not found in the New Testiment. (R. L. Richard, "Trinity, Holy," in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.

According to Fortman, the classical doctrine of the Trinity wasn't a part of Christianity in the apostolic period or in the early second century, either. Speaking of the Apostolic Fathers, he writes, "There is in them, of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem." (Fortman, Triune God, p. 44.

The best scholars in the field, agree. For instance, in his work Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes of the second-century Apostolic Fathers: "Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere." [J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (New York: Harper 1978), p. 95.]

Elsewhere in this same work, Kelly states, "The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified." (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 87-88.)

According to R. L. Richard "the formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:299.)

Adolf Harnack in his text "Das Wesen des Christentums", trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders, "What is Christianity?", notes that in the 2nd century, Christianity adapted wholecloth Greek philosophy and readily ascribed to Hellenism and the philosophical view of God. (p. 145f). "...Hellenism as a whole and in every phase of its development was established in the Church." (p. 146). They went so far as to even equate Jesus with the "Logos" itself, "The identification of the Logos with Christ was the determining factor in the fusion of Greek philosophy with the apostolic inheritance." (p. 146).

Karen Armstrong recognized this in her 1994 book "A History of God", wherein she notes "...the God of the Greek philosophers was very different from the God of revelation: the Supreme Deity of Aristotle or Plotinus was timeless and impasible; he took no notice of mundane events, did not reveal himself in history, had not created the world and would not judge it at the end of time. Indeed, history, the major theophany of the monotheistic faiths, had been dismissed by Aristotle as inferior to philosophy." (p. 171).

Here is a book review taken from the Biblical Archeological Review of March/April 2001:

The following are excerpts from a discussion on the absence of the Trinity Doctrine in Biblical writ taken from the Oxford Companion to the bible:

"TRINITY. Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.

"Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as a god (Pliny, "Epistles" 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity—one God subsisting in three persons and one substance—ultimately prevails.

"While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do."
(Metzger, Bruce M.; Coogan, Michael D.; editors. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, [Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993]: 782-3. Author of entry: Daniel N. Schowalter, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Religion, Carthage College, Kenosha, Wisconsin).

The article then gives some examples of biblical references where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are mentioned and discusses them:

2 Corinthians 13:13, Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, John 10:30, John 14:15-26, John 20:28.

The article continues:

"For the community of John's gospel, these passages provide assurance of the presence and power of God both in the ministry of Jesus and in the ongoing life of the community. Beyond this immediate context, however, such references raise the question of how Father, Son and Spirit can be distinct and yet the same. This issue is debated over the following centuries and is only resolved by agreement and exclusion during the christological disputes and creedal councils of the fourth century and beyond.

"While there are other New Testament texts where God, Jesus, and the Spirit are referred to in the same passage (e.g. Jude 20-21), it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." (Ibid)
For more information on the historical development of the idea of Trinity, see the excellent summary written by Chris Bolton: http://www.inficad.com/~cbolton/trin.html

"'Subordinationism', it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy." [Bettenson, _The Early Christian Fathers_, p. 239, 330.]

Richard Hanson gives us this: "Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology." (Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, p. 153.)

Furthermore, subordinationism seems to have been considered quite orthodox even AFTER Nicea! JND Kelly has a good discussion of the debate at Nicea in his book.

Yet for many Christians the current "One Substance" doctrine is a major, if not the major yardstick, for admittance into the circle of "true Christianity." If you don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, by which they really mean the doctrine of the "one substance" god, then you cannot be a true Christian. We wonder, then, what will they do with those early Christians, such as Tertullian and many others, who believed only in the "like substance" god? It should be noted that Tertullian is commonly considered an "orthodox" Christian, yet his orthodoxy is different from the orthodoxy of later Christians. What will they do with him and other Christians who had a different doctrine than the current Trinity belief?

The early Christian leaders, sometimes called the Early Church Fathers, also wrote of early Christian belief before the Trinity Doctrine became widely accepted:

Hippolytus, the disciple of Irenaeus writes against Noetus, a false teacher, who was trying to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity into the Church. He writes the following in his book De Antichristo (The Anti-Christ):

"If, again, he alleges his own word when he (Noetus) attends to the fact, and understands that he did not say, 'I and the Father am one, but are one.' For the word re (esmen) is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons and one power. He has himself made this clear, when he spoke to the Father concerning the disciples, 'The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me.' What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect to substance, or is it that we become one in the power and disposition of unity of mind:...A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these therefore are three." (James L. Barker, Apostacy From the Divine Church; Salt Lake City, Utah: 1960; p. 44)

Early Church Father, Origen said: "Those who entertain false notions about Christ under pretense of doing him honor are not to be thought of as 'for' him: Such are they who confuse the conception of Father and Son who suppose that the Father and Son are one in individual being and only admit distinctions of function in the identical subject." (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers; London: Oxford University Press, 1956; pp. 16-17)

Origin also wrote: "And they are two separate persons, but one in unity and concord of mind and in identity of will; so that he who has seen the Son, 'radiance of the glory' and ' expression of the being' of God, has seen God in him who is the image of God." (Ibid, p336)

Early Church Father, Tertullian, in his book Against Prayeas, writes against Preyeas who was trying to introduce false doctrine into the Church:

"In various ways has the devil rivaled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it. He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed, was Himself Jesus Christ." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm B eardmans Publishing Company 1885; vol 3, p. 597)

Tertullian also wrote: "He himself, they say, made Himself a Son to Himself. Now a Father makes a Son, and a Son makes a Father; and they who thus become so related to themselves, that the Father can make Himself a Son to Himself, and the Son render Himself a Father to Himself...Now all this must be the device of the devil." (Ibid., Vol 3, p. 604)

Tertullian writes against those who think that the Father came as the Son rather than the Son coming in the name of the Father:

"They more readily suppose that the Father acted in the Son's name, than that the Son acted in the Father's; although the Lord says Himself, 'I am come in my Father's name;' and even to the Father He declares, 'I have manifested Thy name unto these men;' whilst the scripture likewise says, 'Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,' that is to say, the Son in the Father's name." (Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 612-613)

Tertullian again: "Now, observe, my assertation is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they are distinct from each Each Other." (Ibid., Vol 3, p 603)

These teachings of early Christian leaders indicates what early Christian doctrine really was - good LDS doctrine. THe closer you are in time to the time of Christ and the Apostles, the more Mormonlike the doctrines were. As time went by the doctrines were changed. Doctrines like the trinity doctrine, and others - different doctrines than what Christ and the Apostles had taught - were developed by extra Biblical councils and creeds.

It seems that, from about the third century on, Christian theologians felt it necessary to define God above and beyond the teaching and terminology found in the Bible. In scripture it is often stated that there is only one God. (See Deut. 6:4; John 17:3; 2 Ne. 31:21.) Yet many other passages discuss three distinct persons as God. (John 17:3; 1:1; 5:18; 8:58; Rev. 22:7-16; Acts 5:1-4; Acts 13:2.) Each Christian, or each group of Christians, explains this in different ways. This is true today and it has been true throughout Christian history. There have been a variety of interpretations that, at one time or another, were put forth as the "orthodox" doctrine. It is claimed that mainstream Christian doctrine has never changed but one look at Christian history tells even the casual student otherwise. The doctrine of the nature of God, and the interpretation of Bible passages regarding God, have changed over time. Therefore, if one groups' viewpoint should become prevalent, we would want to know the process by which this occurred. We would want to know on what basis one interpretation is chose over another? Is an interpretation correct just because it is popular today?

Tertullian is accepted as an Orthodox Early Church Father by the major Christian groups of today. Tertullian didn't begin writing till around 200 A.D. This makes him one of the earliest witnesses of Post-Apostolic Christianity. He says:

"...in this way also, that they are all of the one, namely by unity of substance, while nonetheless is guarded the mystery of that economy which disposes the unity into trinity, setting forth Father and Son and Spirit as three, three however not in quality but in sequence, not (three) in substance but in aspect, not in power but in its manifestation, yet of one substance and one quality and one power..." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas" section 2)

Here, Tertullian speaks of the "unity of substance" and of the "one substance" nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since Tertullian wrote before the Nicene creed, some apologists claim that this proves that Christianity did not change with the Nicene creed after all.

It may appear that Tertullian, writing before the Nicene creed, also believed in the "one substance" doctrine of later Christianity. However, the Greek word used in the earlier writing is homoiousios which means "of like substance." Later Christian councils began using a similar, but different word, homoousious, which can mean "of the same substance." This throws a different light on the matter. Tertullian used the earlier term which indicates he believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were of like or similar substance but not that they were the identical same substance as later Christians claimed. This would make Tertullian consistent with other Christians of his time who believed in the separate identities of the three persons in the godhead and in the hierarchical model of the godhead.

It should be remembered, as previously pointed out by Linwood, that these pre-Nicene writers believed in the hierarchical Trinity or Godhead; there being three persons in the godhead whose attributes or substance are not absolutely identical. But post-Nicene Christians came to believe that there can be no hierarchy since the three persons of the trinity are of one indivisible substance. So, it is clear that the doctrine concerning the nature of the godhead did change over time.

It should also be remembered that neither the word homoousios (same substance) or homoiousios (of like substance) are found in the Bible in relation to the Godhead. Both of these terms are later insertions into Christian doctrine. In fact the whole controversy of "substance" in relation to the Godhead is not found in the Bible at all.

We have just discussed the Greek term "homoiousio" which means "of like substance." But even the term "Homoousious", may not always mean "of one subtance," as is often thought. The well known Christian scholar J.N.D. Kelly explains that "homoousios" was not an exact term, and indeed, had more than one definition:

"The root word ousia could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such.... Indeed, the doctrine of numerical identity of substance has been widely assumed to have been the specific teaching of the Nicene council. Nevertheless there are the strongest possible reasons for doubting this. The chief of these is the history of the term homoousios itself, for in both its secular and its theological usage prior to Niceaea it always conveyed, primarily at any rate, the 'generic' sense. Christian writers seem to have borrowed it from the Gnostics, for whom it signified the relationship between beings compounded of kindred substance." [Kelly, p. 234-235]

So here we have one of the most recognized Christian scholars, J.N.D Kelly, telling us that even the term homoousios, the term used in the Nicean creed to mean "same substance" did not necessarily mean same sugbstance at that time. It may not have been intended to mean same substance as is thought today. We will discuss this again.

Scholar F.F. Bruce admitted that the word "homoousios" (of the same substance) which was judged heretical, later became the very hallmark of orthodoxy! (F.F Bruce, "The Spreading Flame," Eerdman's, 1958, p. 255). In fact, this word was not even in the Bible! (p. 306).

Many Biblical scholars admit that Biblical and early Christian doctrine was different than the doctrines developed and accepted later by the Church. Adolf Harnack in his text "Das Wesen des Christentums", translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders as "What is Christianity?", notes that in the 2nd century, Christianity adopted wholecloth Greek philosophy and readily ascribed to Hellenism and the philosophical view of God. (p. 145f).

..."Hellenism as a whole and in every phase of its development was established in the Church." (p. 146). They went so far as to even equate Jesus with the "Logos" itself, and " The identification of the Logos with Christ was the determining factor in the fusion of Greek philosophy with the apostolic inheritance." (p. 146).

David Fideler has recently written a very fine text entitled "Jesus Christ Son of God". He describes what was left out of later Church doctrine - the anthropomorphic nature of the Biblical God! In its place a more spiritual God and philosophical viewpoint on God was adopted. While it satisfied the doctors of the Church from the Fourth century on, it was not the Biblical God at all.

Karen Armstrong recognized this in her 1994 book "A History of God", wherein she notes "...the God of the Greek philosophers was very different from the God of revelation: the Supreme Deity of Aristotle or Plotinus was timeless and impasible; he took no notice of mundane events, did not reveal himself in history, had not created the world and would not judge it at the end of time. Indeed, history, the major theophony of the monotheistic faiths, had been dismissed by Aristotle as inferior to philosophy." (p. 171).

HOMOOUSIOS, USEFUL WITHIN THE CHURCH
The group which proposed the term "homoousios," lead by Athanasius, appears to have believed in the "one substance" definition of the word. This is sometimes called the "numerical unity of substance" definition of God. [see Kelly, pp. 240-247]. But the great majority of believers still believed in a "generic" unity. For the majority of Christians "homoousios" meant "the same kind of being." There were at least several types of theology found in the Church at various times which opposed the Nicean interpretation. One of these was the great conservative "middle party." This group was somewhat ambiguous on some of the major issues but of the three members of the godhead they clearly believed that there are three divine hypostases [i.e. persons], separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will." [Kelly, pp.247-248.]

Therefore, at the time, using the term "homoousios" in the Nicene creed, was convenient because it could be, and was, interpreted in the generic sense and therefore was useful in uniting most of Christianity which still believed in the hierarchical viewpoint and in the separateness of the three members of the Godhead. For most Christians of the time, the term was understood to mean that that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were separate persons, with separate albeit similar substance, with differences in rank and glory, but united in will

HOMOOUSIOS, USEFUL OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
The term homoosios, while satisfying traditional Christians of the time, could also be given the meaning of "identical substance" which interpretation would pacify influential Christians apologists who were trying to make the Church respectable to the intellectuals. The term was useful in satisfying non-Christian critics of the Church. Christians were dealing with the heavy influence of Hellenism and pagan philosophies from outside the Church. Christian theologians were not only attempting to defend Christianity in a way that was effective against factional groups within the Church but they also wanted to make the Church credible to philosophers outside the Church.

Many of these outside influences were very intellectual and philosophical in nature. Theological debates on the nature of God where taking place at a time when Neoplatonism, had become the predominant intellectual system. Neoplatonism was both a revival and an amplification of the philosophy of Plato (427-347 B.C.). Christian intellectuals of the fourth and fifth centuries felt that the biblical language was too unsophisticated and inadequate for the task at hand, and so they attempted to supplement and improve it. The terminology of the trinity doctrine was formulated to answer, in philosophically respectable terms, the questions and objections posed by Hellenistic thinking against early Christian doctrine. [See Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 19, 24-28.]

The Hellenistic philosophies of the time included, the idea that matter was inherently evil or at least imperfect. Therefore, anything that was supposed to be all good or perfect, such as God, could not be made of physical matter. Furthermore, anything that was perfect had to be one complete indivisible essence or idea. Anything that could be divided could not be perfect.

These ideas, which were very popular at the time, were based on the views of Plato. Plato speculated that true knowledge was not obtainable through observation of natural phenomena because the world is changing all the time and is imperfect. However, he did believe that true knowledge existed in the higher world. He said that a higher realm existed which is perfect and unchanging. He called this realm the world of "Ideas" or "Forms." These "Ideas" were considered to be the perfect essences of various objects or attributes.

For example, a waterfall and a person can both be said to be "beautiful" although they seem to have no physical attributes in common. Plato suggested that there must be an "Idea" or essence in the world of Forms - perfect and unchanging - called "The Beautiful", in which both the person and the waterfall participate. (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 15-16.)

Thus, it was perfectly acceptable in the popular thinking of the time to say that there are three, distinct persons who participate in a single "Divine essence or substance". But these three persons cannot be said to be three Gods, because the divine essence must be indivisible. And God cannot be said to be a material being, for matter is imperfect, and is in a constant state of change, and exists in a lower reality than a pure "Idea". In this manner, the authors of the Nicene Creed drew on the popular philosophy and terminology of the time to explain that the Trinity consists of three equal but distinct persons who participate in a single, indivisible "Divine Essence or Substance."

This made the use of the term "homoousios," convenient, for while it often generically meant "of like substance" and therefore satisfied the conservative "middle party" within the Church, it could also mean "of the same substance" and therefore could satisfy the intellectuals of the day as well. This helped to make the doctrine of the Church respectable to the intellectuals.

At this point it is important to remember what has already been pointed out by JND.Kelly. Attestation of actual usage of the word "homoousios" before Nicea indicate a generic definition of the word, often meaning "of like or similar substance," as well as the specific meaning of "one substance." [Kelly, pp.247-248.] Kelly also points out that Christians before Nicea believe in the likeness of the three members of the trinity rather than their exact unity of substance. They believed in three separate persons who are united in will. [Kelly, p. 234-235].

However, over time, and starting with the intellectuals, thinking within Christianity began to shift towards the Hellenistic definition of God. The Nicene party, led by Athanasius, gradually won over the middle party during the next century or so. The Nicean solution was the only real way to make the Church respectable to the Hellenistic intellectuals. It was used to refute the arguments of the Arians, who believed in three separate persons in the godhead who are not identical in substance and who were hierarchical in power and authority. Actually, there were 13 councils between 325 and 381 A.D. that endorsed various solutions to the problem before Athanasius' concept was finally endorsed in Constantinople. [See JWC Wand, _A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500_, pp. 279-280.]

J.W.C. Wand, the historian and former Anglican Bishop of London, admits that the terminology employed in the Nicene Creed was directly borrowed from the Greek philosophical systems:

"It has often been pointed out that with the Council of Nicea Christianity had entered upon a new stage in its development. It was now officially linked with Hellenic [Greek] philosophy. Metaphysics had been brought in to assist religious faith, and in an authoritative formula it had been found necessary to employ a terminology coined in paganism." (Wand, J.W.C., A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, (New York: Routledge, 1994,) pp. 159-160.)

Xenophanes [570-475 B.C.], a predecessor to Plato conceived of "God as thought, as presence, as all powerful efficacy." He is one God - incorporeal, "unborn, eternal, infinite,... not moving at all, [and] beyond human imagination." [Jaspers, K., The Great Philosophers, vol.3, (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1981,) p. 13.]

And Empedocles [ca. 444 B.C.] claimed that God "does not possess a head and limbs similar to those of humans ".... [He is] a spirit, a holy and inexpressible one...." (Empedocles, in Jaspers, The Great Philosophers, vol.3, p. 51.)

Christopher Stead writes that the early Christian writers Irenaeus [A.D. 130-200], Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 150-215] and Novatian [ca. 250] believed in a God who is: "simple and not compounded, uniform and wholly alike in himself, being wholly mind and wholly spirit... wholly hearing, wholly sight, wholly light, and wholly the source of all good things." Stead points out that this is almost identical to the philosopher Xenophanes' assertion that "All of him sees, all thinks and all hears." And "since Clement elsewhere quotes Xenophanes verbatim, we have good grounds for thinking that Clement's description, and indeed the theory as a whole, derives from Xenophanes." (Stead, C., Divine Substance, [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977,] pp. 187-188; see also: Hatch, E., The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957, p. 124.)

The creeds and terminology adopted by the Christian Church during the third and fourth centuries, and beyond, turned out to be very similar to the ideas and terminology of the philosophical ideas that were very popular at the time.

Even the later creeds, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, written in 1646 as a creed for the "Reformed" churches, which had their origin in the work of Zwingli and Calvin, defines God as:

"infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible...." (The Westminster Confession of Faith in Creeds of the Churches--A Reader in Christian Doctrine From the Bible to the Present, {New York: Anchor Books, 1963,} p. 197.)

The Vatican Council of 1871 explained that God is "eternal, immense, incomprehensible,...who, being a unique spiritual substance by nature, absolutely simple and unchangeable, must be declared distinct from the world in fact and by essence...."(Brantl, G., Catholicism, [New York: George Braziller, 1962,] p. 41.)

There are relatively late creeds but they suffer from the same error as the earlier creeds. They are extra-Biblical. Their definitions and terminology is not found in the Bible nor in the earliest Christianity. They are very much like the teachings of the popular Greek philosophers but wholly unlike anything found in the Bible.

BEFORE THE NICENE CREED
Christianity did not always appeal to Greek philosophy to explain its doctrines. Edwin Hatch, formerly a professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford, explained that: "The earliest forms of Christianity were... outside the sphere of Greek philosophy,... [and they appealed] to a standard which philosophy did not recognize." ( Hatch, Edwin, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, [New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957,] p. 124.)

And: "If the doctrine of God now espoused by the various sects is foreign to the thought of the primitive Church, what was the Godhead of the early Church like? Indeed, we find in the early Church the true doctrine of a Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are completely separate in substance, but one in will - the Father presiding over the Son and the Son over the Spirit. For example, Justin Martyr [ A.D. 100-161] wrote that God abides 'in places that are above the heavens:' the 'first-begotten,' the Logos [Christ], is the 'first force after the Father:' he is 'a second God, second numerically but not in will,'doing only the Father's pleasure." (Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, p. 268.)

Hatch also says of Justin Martyr: "He also maintained that the Son is 'in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third.' (Justin Martyr, First Apology 13, in Davies, J.G., The Early Christian Church, [New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995,] " (Hatch)

Here, Hatch point outs the teachings of Justin Martyr as another example of pre-Nicene Church doctrine being different than post-Nicene doctrine. Again, this is a case of an Early Church Father, who is still accepted as a good orthodox Christian by most Christian groups today, yet his "orthodoxy" was different than the current doctrine.

Biblical doctrine, which is also LDS doctrine, states that there are three supreme beings or three gods who - working together in the kind of unity spoken of by Jesus in John chapter 17 which form one unified Godhead. This is what the pre-Nicene Christians taught.

The First Article of Faith in the LDS Church is "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

At Jesus’s baptism He is in the water. The voice of the Father comes from heaven, and the Holy Ghost descends upon Jesus. Was Jesus was a magician and a ventriloquist, who was trying to confuse and deceive the people? (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21,22)

In Matthew 17:5 the Father speaks from heaven and the Son is on the earth. Was Jesus just a ventriloquist or did the Father really speak from heaven to the Son on earth?

Christ was begotten by the Father. Did Jesus beget himself?

The Father sent Jesus into the world. (John 3:16-17; John 8:18) Did Christ beget himself and is he his own Father?

Jesus prayed to the Father. (Matthew 26:39; Luke 23:46) Was the Lord praying to Himself?

The Father is greater than Jesus. (John 14:12,28). What? - Is Jesus greater than Himself?

After his resurrection, Jesus says that he had not yet ascended to his Father (John 20:17).

Jesus is on the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55-56; 1 Peter 3:22) Is this a trick with mirrors or should we believe the Bible for what it says?

The Father does not judge. The Son will judge (John 5:22).

We should believe in the honesty of the Lord and accept his teachings. We should accept the Biblical record of events concerning the Lords life and teachings. If the scriptures say that Jesus was on the earth, and that he prayed to the Father, who was in heaven, then we should accept this. This is the word of the Lord to us. It is recorded in the Holy Bible. Jesus was not praying to himself. The Bible says He was praying to the Father. This is easy to understand and accept. We should accept it.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:48PM

For example; in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a non-Biblical creed, we read that "there is but one God, a most holy spirit, without body, parts or passions," thus denying the resurrected Christ, for if Christ is not risen and we do not believe him when he tells us that he has an immortal body, we can then have no hope of a resurrection (Phil 3:21.) Contrary to the creed Jesus taught: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).

Ryan| 5.23.12 @ 4:41PM

Wow. You completely removed one small line in the WCF and took it out of context...when the remainder completely affirms the resurrected Christ.

Von Mises Jr| 5.21.12 @ 9:58AM

Moe, socialism is a cult. The French Revolution was very similar to the Reformation and the Thirty Years War. This post explains how the Reformation was due to radicals pushing their brand of religion, while today we see socialist pushing crony capitalism, fascism, Marxism, Black Liberation Theology and statism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....f_religion
It is Obama, the Marxist and Alinskites that are the religious radicals. Their religion is slavery.

Vern Crisler| 5.21.12 @ 10:25AM

French Revolution was like the Reformation? I doubt Luther or Calvin would have supported the radicalism of the French Revolution (after the king and queen were killed). There were some socialist anabaptists who were like the French, but the Reformation was about freedom primarly, whereas the second part of the French Revolution was about the denial of freedom.

Von Mises Jr| 5.21.12 @ 11:32AM

The religious wars involved villages being wiped out by neighboring villages due to religious beliefs. While freedoms may have been won in the end, it was brutal and bloody from my understanding and it lasted over a century. Catholics murdered Protestants and Protestants hunted down Catholic Priests: http://atheism.about.com/libra.....mation.htm

While the French Revolution may have been fought for equality that I think both you and I disagree with, it was also to end serfdom and slavery to Aristocrats and Nobles.

My point is not that one side was moral and the other immoral. My point is that they were both horrendous and violent based on ideology. And because man is flawed, probably both were completely unavoidable at least in some form, and a solution not possible by civil debate.

Religion and socialist ideology, while not comparable, are sometimes very violent because socialism is a religion (see Le Bon "Psychology of Revolution").

Vern Crisler| 5.21.12 @ 11:40AM

Hmm, the mere presence of war or violence does not invalidate a position. This reminds me of Senator Douglas arguing that Lincoln's "house divided" concept would bring about war -- which it did. Still, there are some things worth fighting for, including liberty.

Also, it's not as though atheists haven't done their share of killing in the name of their religion.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 11:53AM

Your author there begins immediately with an untruthful premise. He states, "Attempting to abandon several centuries of developed church tradition," which is utterly false.

What Christians (not Protestants, as they are liked to be called by some) actually did was to reject (not abandon), the false and unbiblical teachings of Catholicism. What they did was to stand on the teachings of the Bible, and were slaughtered for it.

Your author then goes on to do the typical "equal blame" game thing, and ends with lumping both Catholic Religion and Christianity together, claiming both are just as evil.

First of all, Catholicism isn't Christianity, both proven by the Murdering they did for centuries of their supposed brethren as they stood on Scripture, and BECAUSE they reject Scripture themselves.

Secondly, anyone who Murders their brother has not God in them, nor are they Christian. They may call themselves Christian, but they are not.

RCV| 5.21.12 @ 12:48PM

It IS Margie, indeed!

W| 5.21.12 @ 1:51PM

I thought Margie was banned because of bigoted anti-Catholic comments?

Drunken Sailor| 5.21.12 @ 2:57PM

I think RCV has nailed it. Re-read the post and note the Anti-Catholic tone.

Al Adab| 5.21.12 @ 4:22PM

Ahhh, is that what happened to Margie?

When the DEM attack machine starts in on Mormon theology and the role of women, watch out. Also one could ask if Mormons believe they have a moral obligation to fair dealing with "gentiles"?

All that aside, Does Mitt reject the positions his father took regarding the Conservative Movement and candidates in '64 and '68? George and his wing of the GOP, now represented by his son, opposed Conservatives from the beginning and felt Nixon (no Conservative he) too conservative to support. Are we really going to follow another such to defeat again?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 12:05PM

Al Adab,

W is a liar.
I wasn't banned, I was told by Quin Hitler that if I said one more thing against Catholicism he'd erase my posts, so I left.

And he said if I did, "Good riddance!" His "patience" he said, had "run out."

Let's see if he erases this, now.

Freedom of speech for the attackers of biblical Christianity, but not for the biblical Christians!

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 12:09PM

Oh, and that I wasn't allowed to call anyone an anti-Christ, even though they fit the description according to the Bible~ that of denying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." 1 Jn. 2:22.

Quin doesn't like the Bible. Maybe that's why he's an Episcopalian.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:54PM

Mormon doctrine is comparatively women-friendly. Mormonism rejects the post-Biblical Augustinian doctrine of original sin, which held that humanity inherits the sin of Adam and Eve in which they ate the forbidden fruit. This sin was historically blamed on Eve, and was thought to be the source of women's submissive and dependent state. Mormonism rejects this doctrine of original sin which relegates women to an inferior position and which is a post-Biblical doctrinal development.

In 1842 (when women were usually constrained to home and hearth), Joseph Smith encouraged the women of the church to form their own organization, and said the church could not be correct until the women were organized. Women have always had a say and a vote in church affairs. The first women to vote in municipal elections were women in Mormon settlements, and women voted in Utah Territory until the Federal government disenfranchised them in 1887. Advanced education for women has always been encouraged. Some of the best formative writing about our faith sprang from the pens of erudite and educated women, such as Eliza R. Snow and Emmeline B. Wells. Brigham Young and other early leaders not only encouraged university education for women, but sent their own daughters to eastern universities. The assumption that Mormon women are subservient lacks factual foundation.

In his counsel to the bretheren of the Latter-day Saint Church, Brigham Young (the 2nd President of the church) said the following," Bretheren if you must choose beetween educating your son and educating your daughter--Educate your daughters for it is they who will raise up the next generation. You sons can earn their way through the toil of their hands." (late 1800's).

Brigham Young, President of the LDS Church, also taught: "As I have often told my sisters in the Female Relief Societies, we have sisters here who, if they had the privilege of studying, would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; and we think they ought to have the privilege to study these branches of knowledge that they may develop the powers with which they are endowed. We believe that women are useful not only to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or physic [medicine], or become good book-keepers and be able to do the business in any counting house, and this to enlarge their sphere of usefulness for the benefit of society at large."( Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1997, p. 135)

In 1869, Utah gave women the vote. In 1887, the federal government took the vote away from Utah women (Edmunds-Tucker Act)

Below is a typical example of what I have consistently been taught all my life (over 50 years) as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Speaking of men in the church Gordon B. Hinkley said taught the following (from July 2002 Ensign Magazine)

“Section 121 goes on to say: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
“By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:41–42).

“Our behavior in public must be above reproach. Our behavior in private is even more important. It must clear the standard set by the Lord. We cannot indulge in sin, let alone try to cover our sins. We cannot gratify our pride. We cannot partake of the vanity of unrighteous ambition. We cannot exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion upon our wives or children, or any others in any degree of unrighteousness.

“The wife you choose will be your equal. Paul declared, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11).

“In the marriage companionship there is neither inferiority nor superiority. The woman does not walk ahead of the man; neither does the man walk ahead of the woman. They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey.

“She is not your servant, your chattel, nor anything of the kind.

“How tragic and utterly disgusting a phenomenon is wife abuse. Any man in this Church who abuses his wife, who demeans her, who insults her, who exercises unrighteous dominion over her is unworthy to hold the priesthood. Though he may have been ordained, the heavens will withdraw, the Spirit of the Lord will be grieved, and it will be amen to the authority of the priesthood of that man.

“Any man who engages in this practice is unworthy to hold a temple recommend.

“I regret to say that I see too much of this ugly phenomenon. There are men who cuff their wives about, both verbally and physically. What a tragedy when a man demeans the mother of his children.

“My brethren, if there be any within the sound of my voice who are guilty of such behavior, I call upon you to repent. Get on your knees and ask the Lord to forgive you. Pray to Him for the power to control your tongue and your heavy hand. Ask for the forgiveness of your wife and your children.” (Gordon B. Hinkley, Ensign, July 2002)

The following is from a talk given by the president of the LDS Church and is typical of what I believe and typical of what I have been repeatedly and consistently taught all my life in the Church:

Gordon B. Hinkley
Now, we have a very diverse group to whom I am speaking. This includes young women who are still in school or who are working. You are single. You are hoping to catch that perfect man. I have yet to see one who is perfect. Aim high, but do not aim so high that you totally miss the target. What really matters is that he will love you, that he will respect you, that he will honor you, that he will be absolutely true to you, that he will give you freedom of expression and let you fly in the development of your own talents. He is not going to be perfect, but if he is kind and thoughtful, if he knows how to work and earn a living, if he is honest and full of faith, the chances are that you will not go wrong, that you will be immensely happy. (To The Women of the Church, Ensign, Nov. 2003)

Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Because their potential for good is so great and their gifts so diverse, women may find themselves in roles that vary with their circumstances in life. Some women, in fact, must fill many roles simultaneously. For this reason, Latter-day Saint women are encouraged to acquire an education and training that will qualify them both for homemaking and raising a righteous family and for earning a living outside the home if the occasion requires.

We are living in a great season for all women in the Church. Sisters, you are an essential part of our Heavenly Father’s plan for eternal happiness; you are endowed with a divine birthright. You are the real builders of nations wherever you live, because strong homes of love and peace will bring security to any nation. I hope you understand that, and I hope the men of the Church understand it too. (The Influence of Righteous Women, Ensign Sept. 2009 )

J| 5.23.12 @ 11:38PM

We Mormon are totally women-friendly.

So, we only allow Mormon women to 1) have white babies, 2) stay home & only do housework 3)must obey their men 4) 'volunteer' to serve anyone 'only at Mormon church.'

Yeah, we Mormons love women so much so we made them white baby making machine!

Hahaha

"You Molly Mormons can NOT fool people any more!"

RCV| 5.21.12 @ 5:49PM

It's not just the blatant anti-Catholicism. It's her quick response that the Trinty is "unbiblical", her sprinkling of inapposite Bible verses, her bristling at people using "Christian" when they mean "Catholic", and most especially her new moniker: a reiteration of her vehement opposition to Catholic reliance on priests and Popes and on veneration of the Blessed Mother.

Having said all that, I'm glad to know that Margie is alive and well. I was actually concerned that something had happened to her.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 8:43PM

RCV says all of this, and yet he knows absolutely nothing.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 8:44PM

"Re-read the post and note the Anti-Catholic tone."

One cannot be a Christian and not be anti-Catholic. It's doctrines are unbiblical.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 11:04AM

"Reformation was due to radicals pushing their brand of religion,"

Only a "good" Catholic would say such an ignorant thing.

The Reformation was about insisting on Scripture, and millions of Christians lost their lives for it~ at the hands of the Papists, and for centuries.

The Christians "brand of Religion" is not a Religion, it is the Way of Life. Jn. 14:6.

W| 5.21.12 @ 1:52PM

Margie, are you voting for Romney?

RCV| 5.21.12 @ 8:03PM

Yes she is. She hates Obama more than she loves religious purity. She was willing to have Gingrich and Santorum welcome the Pope to the White House and spread Catholicsm, so she surely isn't going to mind the giant boost to Mormonism that Romney's election would bring. God love her.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 8:42PM

"She hates Obama more than she loves religious purity."

What would you know of religious purity?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 12:11PM

"God love her."

He does, indeed, and in spite of all of my enemies!

Lyneuss Fields | 5.21.12 @ 12:53PM

Your first mistake, Moe was failing to reference your statements. As documented in Mormonism's Journal of Discourses and Comprehensive History, Mormons started 3 wars--one being fought in Illinois and another in Missouri. More than anything else though, it was polygamy (not abolitionist views) that set people off against the cult of Mormonism--just picture your 14 year old girl being seduced by a 65 year old Mormon zealot.
As for Mitt Romney, his great-great grandfather (Parley P. Pratt) was shot and stabbed to death after he stole Hector McLean's wife to add to his stable of wives. 120 innocent settlers from Arkansas (McLean's home state) were murdered in retaliation for Pratt's' death by Brigham Young at Mountain Meadows. Young used the loot taken from the Fancher wagon train to fund Mormonism's 3rd war against the United States in Utah Territory. Again, this is all documented in Mormonism's own history by their own historians. Please, no more of your apologist lies!
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html

Jody| 5.22.12 @ 2:41AM

"This is bigotry, buttressed by irrelevance, and fortified with invincible ignorance." John Mark Reynolds.

Invincible ignorance is a perfect description.

Lyneuss Fields | 5.22.12 @ 10:29AM

Your Mormon zealots couldn't hide the truth from the analytical historian Juanita Brooks (see: Mountain Meadows Massacre), and Romney will not hide the truth about the filthy abominations of his religion during the 19th and 20th centuries from the American people. Your leaders are parasites!
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......rated.html

Jay| 5.22.12 @ 2:11PM

It appears you are quoting someone else. I, on the other hand have read Brooks' book. She cites a lot of facts and opinions to support her game attempt to pin the massacre on Brigham Young, rather than the actual perpetrators, and ends up very slightly admitting that it is her opinion. Most of the so-called facts you cite are the opinions of others, so often repeated that they assume the status of facts in the minds of the prejudiced. What do those questionable, ages old, opinions have to do with Romney, the candidate?

Lyneuss Fields | 5.22.12 @ 3:40PM

Right you jackass! Even B.H. Roberts, Mormonism's greatest historian, is lying too, huh? You child molesters and murderers will burn in hell.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:57PM

In 1857 an adulterous federal judge told lies to Congress after being kicked off the bench in Salt Lake City, and the US government sent one-third of the entire Union army to Utah to put down a supposed “rebellion” by the Mormons.  In the midst of this charged atmosphere a company of travelers in southern Utah several days journey away from Salt Lake and Church headquarters were joined by some ruffians who were bragging about how they had raped and murdered Mormons in Missouri. The California-bound wagon train was attacked by a group of Indians and Mormons and most of them were killed.

There is substantial evidence that neither Brigham Young nor other church leader ever ordered the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Authors who are critical of the church take diary entries and other evidence out of context to make it look like high Church leaders, particularly Brigham Young, ordered and/or condoned this atrocious act. But the evidence does not support that conclusion. Most of their arguments are a re-hash of anti-Mormon propaganda from the time period. For instance, Will Bagley's “Blood of the Prophets” interprets an alleged conversation between Brigham Young and some Indians as proof of a planned attack. However, as pointed out by attorney Robert Crockett, the conversation is was actually about an effort to enlist the help of the Indians to slow down the approach of Johnson’s Army and had nothing to do with the immigrant party in Southern Utah. (Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 199–254)

James Holton Haslam acted as a messenger/courier between Brigham Young and the area in Southern Utah. Haslam carried messages to Southern Utah intended to smooth over relations and prevent violence with instructions that "the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants." After reading a message warning of impending trouble Brigham Young asked Brother Haslam “if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime.” President Young “said that ‘the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them.’ He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.” (Improvement Era (August 1951))

Eye witness accounts describe Brigham Young’s sorrow when he learned that his message had arrived too late to avoid violence.

After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Scholars generally recognize that there was a cover up at the local level. The dispute, often raised by critics of the LDS Church, is that the massacre was authorized or, at least condoned, by leaders of the Church in Salt Lake. However, the best evidence is that Brigham Young in Salt Lake counseled to let the travelers pass by without molestation and that he did not know of the details of the massacre until after the fact and was much grieved over it.

In the words of Mormon leader B.H. Roberts:

“The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.” (Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 4:156.)

In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

“One instance I will name here: A man. . . .He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.” (Wilford Woodruff, "The Law of Adoption," in Brian H. Stuy (editor), Collected Discourses: Delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others, 1868–1898, 5 vols., (Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987–1989), 4:72–73. [Discourse given on 8 April 1894.] )

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it. (Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219)

Local Church leaders, particularly John D. Lee, were held accountable. Others who may have been involved, will, no doubt, be held accountable by God.

The horrible actions of Judas in betraying Christ do not make Christianity false. Nether do the horrible actions of some misguided local Mormons make the Mormon Church false.

"The movie 'September Dawn' is fictional. It’s claims of careful research are laughable. All Carol Whang Schutter did was look at anti-Mormon literature and use old stereotypes and half-truths.

You can see a detailed critique of the movie and book at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.ed.....m=2&id=665 . The article is titled, "Massacring the Truth."

For a straightforward, scholarly account of the Mountain Meadow Massacre, you should read Walker, Turley and Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows. This book has been acclaimed by both non-Mormons and Mormons for its accuracy.

The Haun's Mill Massacre occurred when a protestant mob of 55, after agreeing to a peaceful settlement and accepting the weapons of the Mormons who voluntarily gave them up, then with faces painted black to hide their identities came back and slaughtered 17 Mormons, including an unarmed 10-year old boy shot at point blank range in the forehead. A 78-year old man was shot dead *after* he surrendered his musket and mobbers dismembered his body with a corn knife. Women were raped, houses were robbed, supplies and clothing were stolen, and horses and livestock were driven off, leaving the survivors totally destitute

But you don't see the Mormons slandering protestant churches because of that one event that occurred about 175 years ago. Why not? Because Mormons are smart enough to separate a religion from the actions of a few adherents who act contrary to its principles.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:58PM

In 1857 an adulterous federal judge told lies to Congress after being kicked off the bench in Salt Lake City, and the US government sent one-third of the entire Union army to Utah to put down a supposed non-existent “rebellion” by the Mormons.  In the midst of this charged atmosphere a company of travelers in southern Utah several days journey away from Salt Lake and Church headquarters were joined by some ruffians who were bragging about how they had raped and murdered Mormons in Missouri. The California-bound wagon train was attacked by a group of Indians and Mormons and most of them were killed. Shortly afterward a fast rider arrived from Salt Lake with instructions from Brigham Young to “let them go in peace”, but it was too late. It was an isolated human reaction to extreme circumstances and in no way reflected the doctrines or practices of the Church. The main LDS leader of the attack was tried for murder and executed.  A more complete description of the incident is here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.ed.....m=2&id=726

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:59PM

Studies show that marriage of teen age women, often to men significantly older, was normal among the general population in the early and mid 1800’s. Teens made up 36.0% of married women, and only 2.3% of men; the average age of marriage was 22.5 for women and 27.8 for men. (Data from Steven Ruggles, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, Patricia Kelly Hall, Miriam King, and Chad Ronnander, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor] (2004), accessed 14 July 2007.)

Even when the men in Joseph's age range (34–38 years) in the U.S. Census are extracted, Joseph Smith still has a lower percentage of younger wives and more older wives than do non-Mormons. Marriage to teen-age women was entirely normal for this era. Marriage of older men to teenage girls was fairly common.

One hundred and eighty Nauvoo-era civil marriages have husbands and wives with known ages and marriage dates. The data shows that wives were generally younger than their husbands. Almost all brides younger than twenty married men between five and twenty years older. (The data is from Susan Easton Black, "Marriages in the Nauvoo Region 1839–1845," op. cit. as originally extracted by David Keller)

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:00PM

Hector McLean was a drunken and abusive husband. He and Eleanor had first separated a decade before she was introduced to Parley, and the situation did not improve over time. The marriage was broken long before she was introduced to the Mormon church in 1851. It is very clear from the court records in Van Buren that she no longer considered herself to be Hector's husband in either a legal or spiritual sense. After Parley's very public trial (and quiet release by the judge), Hector and his friends chased him down, caught up with him several miles outside town, shot the unarmed man six times, and fatally stabbed him.

J| 5.27.12 @ 8:10PM

@ Lyneuss Fields,

Yes, Molly Mormon is one of the worst cults in the United States of America.

Your description is totally right.

Americans don't really know how c.raz.y Molly Mormon is, because Mormon keep whatever they do so tight.

Mormon's twisted ambition of taking over the US is quite sickening.

I am glad that people finally have chances to get to know what Molly Mormon really is.

J| 5.24.12 @ 1:01AM

@Moe Blotz,
You know a lot of truth!
I agree with what you said.

Out of all cults, Mormon cult is a bit different.

Fist of all, Mormons think their Jesus is White.
I have been to Mormon church and temple and it is true they have many painting showing Jesus is blue-eyed, blonde hair White dude.
They just use Christianity to build up their Racist Cult.

Mormons still discriminate other race people to this day. You don't get kind of "White Power" stuff from any other cult.

In their teaching that exists only in their church and temple, they teach Mormons that Mormons will take over and rule the US.

Every two Molly Mormon missionary position boys might be so kind in their face, Mormon has the most secret in their Cult organization.

Other than Mormon is a dangerous cult, this Mitt Robme dude has serious character flaws.

Glad to share with you!

PCC| 5.21.12 @ 8:54AM

Firstly, I'm not a Mormon.

Secondly, anyone who claims to "know" religious truth is talking hooey; whatever one's belief, it is only belief and faith, not fact.

Finally, Romney follows a faith that leads to strong family values, no drinking or smoking (or caffeine, either), and gives over 10% or more of their earnings to charity.

That's good enough for me.

chuck| 5.21.12 @ 10:25AM

And, most importantly, he's not Obama.

He's got my vote.

Vern Crisler| 5.21.12 @ 10:26AM

"anyone who claims to "know" religious truth is talking hooey; whatever one's belief, it is only belief and faith, not fact."

Of course, this would apply to your own statement as well.

darcy| 5.21.12 @ 5:18PM

Nicely done, Vern.

Purp| 5.21.12 @ 10:51AM

So does Islam... so what?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 11:57AM

So...? I'll say so what- The fact is that whatever Religion is not based upon the Bible is not of God.

The Bible is the authority for Christians, and should be for MAnkind, but sadly, it isn't. And that's why we're in the mess that we're in!

Purp| 5.21.12 @ 9:32PM

You do know that Islam and Christianity are brother religions, don't you?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 12:01PM

That's what you folks (RCV & ilk) try and say, but it's a lie.
Have you ever heard of being regenerated from Above, Purp? Jn. 3:3.

You and RCV desperately need spiritual regeneration.

chuck| 5.21.12 @ 12:04PM

Islam leads to strong family values??????

HAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA

Yeah, family values like "honor killings", where you kill your daughter who had the misfortune of being raped.

Purp, are you REALLY, REALLY, THIS DAMNED STUPID?????

Yes.

Purp| 5.21.12 @ 9:41PM

While much of the Islamic world is caught in the 14th or 15th century, that isn't because of Islam. ... but it seems to me the Bible dictates that if a woman gets married and is found not a virgin she is to be stoned to death. Do you take that literally too? The Bible is filled with that type of dictate.
Perhaps if you more interested in actually following the teachings of Jesus, you could understand the world better.

chuck| 5.21.12 @ 10:05PM

That is one lame reply, even for you purp.

J| 5.27.12 @ 8:17PM

Yo! chucky chuck!

White people doing it with siblings and cousins is not good, too, just like your mommy.

So, it makes sense Mormons have several wives.

BayouKiki| 5.21.12 @ 12:59PM

Amen!

J| 5.24.12 @ 1:23AM

@ PCC

There are reasons why Mormons seem ok.

Mormons seem to have strong family values, because, in their polygamy community early on, they had to survive so "tight family" and "tight neighbor" are the only way they could survive.

Mormons get excommunicated if they are bad Mormons (drinking, smoking, caffeine, or asking too many questions WHY!) Mormons even turn their back against their parents, children, siblings, cousins and so on. It is quite scary!

That is why Mormon church own Financial Group, Hukilau Beach Park, 35 Radio Stations, La'ie Shopping Center, Water Company, Restaurant, Security Corporation, Deseret Farms of California (Modesto,CA), Trust Company, Brigham Young University, and more.

Mandatory 10% tithing is not giving to charity.
It is Molly Mormon require all members to give 1o% or more to church every month.

I have never seen or heard any religious cult group owning this much. The main reason is that they had to survive from Polygamy persecution.

I hope you study more of who they really are.
http://www.exmormon.org/

Have a good day!

James Jones| 5.21.12 @ 10:30AM

Oh, my, you really should pick up some stuff on Mormon history a bit more substantive than Brody, whose psychohistorical book on Jefferson was panned for the same defects she showed in her Smith book. There's a lot of good stuff out there, which simply cannot fit into the easy superficiality that seems to have influenced your conclusions.

Vern Crisler| 5.21.12 @ 10:34AM

These are the people who've invented a whole pre-history for America, for which there isn't a shred of evidence. They've never repudiated this bogus history, including Romney.

Romney is too much like he was after his crash in France: unresponsive, in a coma. The best thing is for Romney to minimize his Mormonism, but stress whatever conservatism he has, then we might think he was alive and not just a political mannequin.

JohnnyLingo62| 5.21.12 @ 1:18PM

When you say "no shred of evidence" you may want to reconsider. There is actually a good deal of evidence, but not well-published. You might want to do some research on the "Hopewell Civilization". It's quite interesting... and here's an interesting website: firmlds.org/feature.php?id=23
Also, where did the Toltecs and Olmecs come from?
but I don't know how much of this pertains to the Book of Mormon...
Granted, the Book of Mormon has to be taken on Faith, but the principles it teaches coincide with those taught in the Bible - if you have time to read the whole book, you can find some great insight into the unchanging nature of God and the Divinity of Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Vern Crisler| 5.21.12 @ 1:49PM

No one denies America had a pre-history. However, no competent archaeologist has found any evidence that it matches anything described by the Book of Mormon.

See Mark Twain's discussion of the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism, in his book *Roughing It*. An eye-opening discussion.

BTW, do you agree with the first six ecumenical creeds with respect to the nature of God (Trinity) and the divinity of Christ (of the same substance with the Father, begotten not made)? Curious.

Poqui| 5.21.12 @ 5:54PM

It's interesting to note that Joseph Smith put his whole reputation on a book based on a yet-undiscovered civilization. Yet just a few years later news started coming out of Central America about this grand civilization that used to live there. And unlike all of the other American civilizations, this one had the capacity to read and write, and they even left records behind. Now if that wasn't a lucky guess, I don't know what it was. Or maybe, just maybe, there might be a shred of truth in the Book of Mormon. And that would make Joseph Smith either a prophet of God, like he claims, or a very incredibly smart man who guessed correctly and then proceeded to con the people around him. There is no middle ground here. He was either one or the other. And if he was a con, he was sure a good con man as people are still flocking to the Mormon Church and discovering answers to life-long religious questions.

As far as creeds go. They are the result of man's opinion on what they should believe. They are far from Biblical. The more you study about the making of these creeds the more you realize that they were formed in very un-Christian fashion. Even to the point of jailing those who disagreed with the creeds so they could not vote against it. Even the Nicene Creed was voted with less than the necessary quorum present because of disagreements. If you are a Creedence Christian, that's fine, but don't impose the creeds on the rest of us who are Biblical Christians.

Vern Crisler | 5.21.12 @ 11:59PM

The creeds -- at least the first six for the most part -- are summaries of biblical teaching. Also, South American archaeology has nothing to do with Mormon pseudo-history.

Ryan| 5.22.12 @ 8:34AM

Nice attempt at generalization. Mormons have been digging in Central and South America for years...and never really found anything, contrary to what you assert.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 12:35PM

"Thar's gold in them thar hills!"

J| 5.24.12 @ 2:11AM

As far as I know, Mormons are worse than KKK.

At least, KKK doesn't hide who they are.
Mormons claim Adam and Eve from Jackson County, Missouri!
Their Jesus is blue-eyed, blond hair white dude.

Joseph Smith started Mormon from Many gods just like Scientology. One of the gods's son is Jesus. Mormon god physically had sex with Mary. and if you are good Mormon, you will get your own planet with many wives.

It is quite ridiculous!

Mormon books keep changing their story as time goes by.

Mormon is nothing but the worst White Supremacist group.

J| 5.27.12 @ 8:47PM

FAMILIES HELD HOSTAGE
ARZA EVANS
(AUTHOR OF THE KEYSTONE OF MORMONISM)

Karl Marx, the infamous prophet of world communism, demanded communal ownership of everything including wives and children. This, of course, would abolish not only private property but also the traditional family. Everything and everyone would belong to the community.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and other communist leaders, soon learned that abolishing the family was a big mistake. It even threatened their communist party security. These leaders found that strengthening the family unit also strengthened their control and power over people. Anyone who spoke against the party or party leaders were not only placing their own lives and fortunes in jeopardy, but also those of their family. Very few men or women were willing to do this. Also, when any communist leader traveled abroad to another country as an ambassador or even as part of a ballet company, they were never allowed to take family members along with them. If a traveler should defect and ask for asylum, their family back home in the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba would pay a very high price including possible execution. Again, very few men or women were willing to subject their families to this much trouble.

Early Mormon leaders were also quick to see the power of family ties. They did everything they could to strengthen Mormon families including inventing the non-Christian doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families. Jesus did not teach eternal marriage and families nordid any of the Biblical prophets. (see Matt. 22:23-30 and Luke 20:27-35) Strangely, this doctrine is not found in The Book of Mormon either! However, LDS Church services often include sermons, songs, poetry, and dramas depicting the doctrine that “families can be together forever.”

At first, the concept and slogan “families can be together forever” may sound like a harmless, romantic notion; but in reality it is perhaps the most controlling and stifling doctrine taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It effectively creates fear of ostracism, closes minds, and regulates personal behavior. Questions about this and other Church doctrine can cause serious family problems including divorce. A strong and brave man who is willing to face an enemy’s bullets often melts and becomes compliant when faced with his mother’s tears when she says, “Son we all love you so much, please stay active in the Church, pay your tithing, and go to the temple often so that we can all be together in the celestial kingdom of God. It would break my heart if you were not there with the rest of our family.” This awesome power, a mother’s pleading and tears, is at the disposal of the LDS Church!

Sometimes Mormon missionaries become disillusioned with missionary work, with Mormonism, or both. Most of these missionaries however, stay on their missions because they do not want to embarrass their parents and other family members. It would be too humiliating to leave their missions and go home. They believe that they would not be welcomed at home. Fear of their family’s reaction forces these missionaries to continue with their missions whether they want to or not.

A man or a woman who comes to the conclusion that Mormonism is based upon deception and who then decides to leave the LDS Church must also be willing to give up his or her family. It may turn out that the doubter is able to persuade some family members to change their minds about Mormonism, but the odds are against this happening. Instead, a person usually learns that family members have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that their highest loyalty is to the Church, not to a husband, wife, son, daughter, or even to the truth. And a Church member who associates or sympathizes with an “apostate” risks failing his or her temple worthiness interview. (This is one of the questions.)

LDS Hypocrisy:
Even though some very expensive media advertisements depict Mormonism as family oriented, it actually breaks up many families and causes a great amount of pain and suffering. As a missionary, I helped break up a number of families when one person (usually the wife) became converted and then divorced the unbelieving spouse. I am very sorry for this and wish that I could go back and undo all of the damage that I have done. Missionaries are still breaking up the families of nonmembers while at the same time claiming to be “family oriented.”

The LDS Church not only breaks up non-Mormon families, it also breaks up many LDS families. Utah has one of the highest divorce rates in America. Some of the causes of these divorces include: (1) Overwhelming financial pressures that can result from having large families, payment of tithing, sending sons and daughters on missions, and contributing time and money to other Church programs. All of this can cost many thousands of dollars. A husband or wife is often forced to take extra employment outside of the home just to pay all of the bills and send a son or daughter on a mission. (2) Arguments about tithing, about Church doctrine, about going to meetings, and about temple attendance can cause alienation and serious marriage problems. (3) Feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and even depression can result from perceived failure to live up to the many demands, rules, and requirements of the Church.

Although claiming to be family oriented, Church policy does not allow parents to witness the marriage of a son or daughter in a Mormon temple unless those parents are full tithe payers in good standing with the Church. This ticket to the temple can cost thousands of dollars. And 2 since I refused to say that I believed in Joseph Smith and pay this extortion (about $5,000), I was not allowed to see my own son get married. Also, young Mormon siblings (usually under 18) are not allowed to see an older sister or brother get married in an LDS Temple even if the younger person is a full tithe payer. This is not family orientation nor is it Christian. It is another cruel anti-family policy of the LDS Church. The following true stories are not exact word-for-word quotations:

A Heartbroken Mother
I am a 55 year old woman who grew up in a prominent LDS family. I tried my best to be a good wife and mother and to accept all of my Church callings. I took my children to Church and taught them to believe in Mormonism. After many years of abuse, I ended my “eternal marriage” and divorced my husband. This was not an easy thing for a woman who has been taught since childhood that marriage is eternal and that she needs a husband who holds the Melchizedek priesthood in order to enter into the highest degree in the celestial kingdom of God.

After my divorce, I started to do some serious research into Church doctrine and history in order to strengthen my faith and testimony. The more I studied, the more I came to believe that Mormonism is based upon deception. This heartbreaking discovery has been even more painful than my divorce. My parents, my brothers and sisters, and also my children have turned against me. They are all still active Church members. My married children will not even let me be alone with my grandchildren. They are afraid that I may try to turn them against the Church. Adding to my pain is the guilt of knowing that I am the one who taught my children to believe in Mormonism and to act this way.

An Angry Father
I am a Catholic who married a Mormon woman. I have always tried to be understanding and supportive of my wife’s religion. I even agreed to allow our children to go to her Church and be brought up as Mormons. My oldest son and I have always been very close. When he decided to go on a two year mission, I agreed to support him even though I would need to work a lot of extra hours. When he came home from his mission, he married a Mormon girl in an LDS Temple. Her family and my wife were able to see the wedding but I was not “worthy” to attend. I had to wait outside the Temple even though I had paid for his mission and part of his wedding. This made me very angry with the Church. Since the wedding, my son and his wife don’t want much to do with me because I won’t convert to Mormonism. The Mormon Church has destroyed my family!

A Temple Wedding
I still agonize over how deeply my wedding day must have hurt my parents. I am their only daughter. I refused to drive to the temple with 3 them for fear of smelling like my dad’s cigarette smoke. I have grieved many times since then about my decision to get married in a Mormon Temple with my parents standing outside shivering in the December cold. My grandparents and my brothers stayed home, as did my aunt, my uncle, my cousins, and almost all of my friends.

We walked into the sealing room. Who was there for me? Not any of my family or people who really knew me, cared about me, or loved me throughout my life. The room was full of people that I didn’t know. The temple sealer gave a short talk and then recited some memorized words about us becoming kings and queens in heaven. There were no flowers, no music, no ring ceremony, nothing like the wedding I grew up looking forward to. I had no way of knowing all of this until it was too late.

We were pushed out of the room to make way for the next couple. The cycle time for weddings is only about thirty minutes. We walked out of the temple to where my parents were waiting. My mother was crying. My dad said I looked pretty. I felt horrible. I will never forget that sick feeling in my stomach as long as I live.

My wedding broke my heart and that of my family. I eventually left the Church and my husband but not before my children were taught that temple marriage is the only marriage truly acceptable to God. Today, I face the prospect of one or both of my children being married in an LDS Temple surrounded by strangers while I stand outside and wait. Jesus said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have loved one to another.” Ostracism of friends and family members isnot loving and not Christian. It has broken many hearts including mine.

The Mafia
What organization can claim a stronger family orientation than the Cosa Nostra? Right and wrong, legal and illegal, and moral or immoral mean very little when compared with family loyalty. Powerful family pressures suffocate individual conscience. Then why should a controlling family orientation be considered something for Mormons to brag about? Better Relationships With Some Other Family Members

Almost everyone has a husband, wife, son, daughter, or some other family member who no longer believes in Mormonism. When a person decides to leave the LDS Church, they are often surprised by how close and even intimate their relationships with inactive, non-believing, and non-member relatives can become. Just brewing some coffee often helps!

Note: There is no copyright on this paper. (Feel free to make copies.)

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:02PM

There is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon. Dr. John Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation has compiled a list of sixty items mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The list includes items such as "steel swords," "barley," "cement," "thrones," and literacy.

In 1842, only eight (or 13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not generally support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. By 2005 forty-five of those sixty items (75%) have been confirmed. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon. (John Clark, "Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon", presentation at the 2005 FAIR Apologetics Conference (August 2005). Co-presenters, Wade Ardern and Matthew Roper. S. Kent Brown, "New Light: 'The Place That Was Called Nahom": New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 66-68.)

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:03PM

The Book of Mormon was published in the year 1830. Joseph Smith (and Mormons ever since) claim that it is a true historic account that really happened. We will call this claim one.

The anti-Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is false and that it was fabricated by Joseph Smith and/or some of Joseph’s associates. We will call this claim two. Let us, therefore, set up a very simple and common sense guideline for evaluating these two positions:

If the claim one is true, then we would expect, over time, that science and various branches of archeology, language studies, cultural studies, etc… would produce a convergence of data and evidence that supports the book. Even if there was no, or little, evidence to support the Book of Mormon in 1830, we would expect now, after 181 years, that at least some significant discoveries would have been made which verify or support different parts of the Book of Mormon. These would have to be discoveries or information that was not available to Joseph Smith in 1830 which were discovered since that time and which verify or support various parts of the Book of Mormon. These would be things that an author, who was fabricating a book, could not get right by guessing

If claim two is true then we would expect the opposite of the above. We would expect that more and more details in the Book of Mormon would be shown to be false as more discoveries in archeology and other fields are made.

It turns out that the longer we go, the more evidence is discovered which confirms parts of the Book of Mormon. There are literally scores and scores, probably several hundred, Book of Mormon details that are now confirmed or supported by evidence that was not available in Joseph Smith’s time. Because of the large amount of evidence which has been discovered we can only look at a small amount at any one time. Let’s start off by looking at just one area which is known as the Lehi’s Trail information.

Lehi’s Trail

The Book of Mormon tells us about how Lehi and his family left Jerusalem in about 600 BC, went down by the Red Sea and traveled in a south-south east direction (1 Nephi 16:13), roughly parallel to the east side of the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:5, 1 Nephi 16:14), until they reached Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34), where Ishmael was buried. There was considerable mourning at Nahom. They then traveled nearly due eastward (1 Nephi 17:1) until they reached a place they called Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:5) which is on the coast of the Arabian peninsula. Bountiful is described by the Book of Mormon as rich, green garden spot with trees, abundant fruit, water, honey, and a mountain. At this wonderful site they stayed at least long enough to construct a ship from the abundant timber. Metal obtained from ore was also used to make tools.

The details of Arabian Peninsula geography, travel routes, water and food sources, etc… were not known in Joseph Smith’s day. Maps on the Arabian Peninsula were marked as “unexplored territory.” Books and maps described Arabia as waterless barren sand and rock. One book claimed that Arabia was so hot that animals were roasted on the plains and birds in midair. If someone were to make up a fictional story about a family traveling through this area they would have to guess as to where the safe travel routes were and where they could find food and water because the information was not known in the days of Joseph Smith.

Valley of Lemuel

In the Book of Mormon we read about one of the first travel stops Lehi’s party made after three days journey as described in 1 Nephi Chapter 2. After thee days journey they stopped at a valley by a river or stream which emptied into the Red sea which ran continually. The Book of Mormon stresses that they named the river and the valley after the two eldest sons.

Modern critics having far more education and knowledge of the Arabian Peninsula than Joseph Smith had scoff at the Book of Mormon's description of the impressive Valley of Lemuel with its "river, continually running" into the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:9-10). "Everyone knows" that there are no such rivers. The critics chuckle that there are NO RIVERS flowing into the Red Sea, at least not anything that could be said to be "continually" flowing. Sure, a few wadis might get a momentary trickle during a rainstorm, but nothing that could be the basis for Lehi's lecture to Laman. Yet the Book of Mormon has Lehi and his family stopping in an impressive valley with a river that continually (year round?) flows into the Red Sea.

An excellent candidate location for the River of Laman and the Valley of Lemuel has been found in an entirely plausible location at about the right distance for a three day journey as described in the Book of Mormon. Photographic evidence and other documentation is provided in George D. Potter's article, "A New Candidate in Arabia for the Valley of Lemuel," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999, pp. 54-63.

Potter reports that in looking for a well in Arabia, about 8 miles north of Maqna on the Gulf of Aqaba, he stumbled across a magnificent narrow canyon that ended in a palm-lined cove on the coast of the Red Sea. The canyon actually has a small stream that flows continually, throughout the entire year, and is surrounded by very tall mountain walls. This valley is known as Wadi Tayyib al-Ism ("Valley of the Good Name"). The article is available to FARMS members online.

In both location and description this valley seems to be an exact match to the one described in the Book of Mormon which was published in 1830 – a time when no one in the western world knew anything about the geography of this area. This discovery was not made and was not known to the western world until about 25 or 30 years ago – at least 150 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

Nephi’s Bow

1 Nephi 16:18, 23 describes how Nephi broke his steel bow, made a new one. Details of this account, turn out to be quite authentic from the archeological evidence now shows that they did have the capability to make steel bows in that time and area. Also of interest is the current knowledge that the area does support animals that can be hunted – a belief not adhered to in 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published. Also of great interest is the fact that Nephi makes new arrows for his wooden bow. Why not use the ones he already had? Archery experts know that arrows have to be made to match the strength and tension of the bow being used. Arrows that are right for one bow will not work with another bow. This is a touch of authenticity that most people would not know about and which Joseph Smith is very unlikely to have known. The Book of Mormon is full of such details that prove to be authentic, and yet, would be impossible for even an educate author to get consistently correct in a work of fiction. Joseph Smith had only three years of formal education. Yet the Book of Mormon is full of authentic details, many of which were not know in Joseph Smith’s day to even the most educated - let alone to Joseph. The bow and arrow information is just one example of many.

Nahom

1 Nephi 16:34-35

In this account Here we learn that Ishmael died and was buried “in the place which was called Nahom.” From this we learn that Nahom was a place that was already named when Lehi and his party came to it. The place “was called Nahom” it was not named Nahom by Lehi’s party. Here we have a place name given in the Book of Mormon that was already in existence when Lehi and his group arrived. If Joseph Smith (or anyone else in 1830) made up the Book of Mormon that means that the place name of Nahom was also made up. Therefore, can we find a place in the Arabian Peninsula with that name in about the right place? Even if such a place with that name does not exist now, could there have been such a place when Lehi went through the area in around 600 BC?

Starting in 1988, A German archaeological team under the leadership of Burkhard Vogt has been excavating the Baran temple in Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom that lies about 70 miles due east of modern Sanâ€˜a, the capital of Yemen. Burkhard Vogt is a non-Mormon archeologist. Once excavation of the temple was completed in 1997, four seasons of restoration work followed, ending with the formal opening of the site to the public on 18 November 2000.

An altar was discovered by Vogt’s team that has the tribal name of NHM carved into it. The altar is located in the same vicinity in which the Book of Mormon describes the Lehites stopping in Nahom to bury Ishmael. Not only does Nehom actually exist in the location specified in the Book of Mormon but it also and dates to the time period when Lehi passed through that area. Remember that the Hebrew language doesn't use vowels, and thus NHM could very likely be "Nahom." This location has been dated and it existed at the time Lehi went through the area and is in the right place as described by the Book of Mormon.

Two more altars were found with the name NHM (Nahom or Nihm) on them. A 1999 article by S. Kent Brown in the Journal noted that an altar recently uncovered at the excavation of a temple near Marib in Yemen bore the tribal name Nihm, apparently a variant of Nahom, where Ishmael was buried while Lehi’s group was en route to Bountiful (1 Nephi 16:34).

On 12 September 2000, Warren P. Aston and fellow researchers Lynn Hilton and Gregory Witt identified and examined one of the two additional altars at the site. In.May 2001, David Johnson, a BYU archaeologist working in Marib as part of an excavation team, identified the tribal name Nihm on one of those altars (altar 3).

The Book of Mormon gets an exact location with the right name correct. Could Joseph Smith have made that up?

Nahom - a Traditional Burial Site

1 Nephi 16 states that Ishmael died but does not say where he died. He could have died anywhere along the route taken by Lehi. However it does say he was buried at Nahom. Why would the Lehi group take Ishmael’s body to Nahom and bury it there if he died somewhere else along the trail? Scholars have found that the origin of the name Nahom is connected to a place of burial. Nahom is a traditional place of burial along the travel route. A French team conducted the first archaeological examination of a huge area of ancient burial tombs in the area. This vast cemetery covering many square miles and numbering many thousands of tombs is the largest burial area known anywhere in Arabia.

Scholars have recognized for some time that the Semitic roots of the name Nahom closely relate to sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning, obviously very appropriate for a place of burial, and may therefore reflect the origin of the Hebrew name used for the site..

1 Nephi 16:35 states that “the daughters of Ishmael did amourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father, and because of their bafflictions in the wilderness.” This also fits perfectly the meaning of Nahom as a burial site and place of morning.

How many things could Joseph Smith make up only later to have them confirmed in discoveries made over 150 years later? This could not be done by guessing or by fabrication.

Bountiful

After burying Ishmael at Nahom The Book of Mormon has Lehi turned nearly due east and traveled until reaching the coast of the ocean. Although it was not known in Joseph Smith’s day this is exactly where the travel routes turn east. How did Joseph Smith guess that right?

We also read that the following things were available at this site called Bountiful by Nephi:

• A place of much fruit and Meat and wild honey ( 1 Nephi 17:1,5-6; 1 Nephi 18:6)
• A place suitable for camping on the shore (1 Nephi 17:5,6)
• A place suitable for launching a ship (1 Nephi 18:8).
• Enough timber existed to build a durable ship (1 Nephi 18:1,2,6).
• Freshwater was available year-round to enable a prolonged stay.
• There was a nearby mountain that Nephi described as "the mount" (1 Nephi 17:7; 18:3).
• Cliffs were available from which Nephi's brothers could threaten to cast him into the sea (1 Nephi 17:48)
• Ore and flint were available (1 Nephi 17:9-11,16).

In Joseph Smith’s day none of this detail were known. The southern coast of the Arabian peninsula was thought to be completely barren and composed of rock and sand. The most complete general guide to Arabia that was likely available to Joseph described the whole southern coastline as a "rocky wall," as "dismal and barren," without so much as "a blade of grass or a green thing."

Even into the late 20th century one anti-Mormon scoffed at the Book of Mormon for describing Bountiful as a land of "much fruit and also wild honey" (1 Nephi 17:5). Even after Europeans explored Arabia and discovered that it truly was a barren, desolate desert; where could possibly be the forested area Nephi used to build his ship? The very idea was preposterous. "Arabia," claimed one critic, "is bountiful in sunshine, petroleum, sand, heat and fresh air, but certainly not in 'much fruit and also wild honey.'" This same critic found it objectionable that 1 Nephi 18:1 states that the Lehites found "ample timber" for ship building in Southern Arabia (Thomas Key).

Even today a recent anti-Mormon books continue to mock the possibility of a place like Bountiful existing. "The Arabian desert does not have luscious garden spots: Joseph Smith blew it. Case closed."

Yet almost due east from Nahom, just as the Book of Mormon describes, are two locations that fit the description given in the Book of Mormon. Salalah and the nearby port of Khor Rori, and the Wadi Sayq. These areas lie within one degree of being due east of Nahom and are luscious garden spots fed by monsoon moisture from the Indian Ocean. Substantial new evidence identifies a lush area in the western corner of Oman as the possible location where Nephi built the ship that carried Lehi's family to the promised land.

Wadi Sayq is one of two "rivers" in Arabia that flow near the shore with water all year round. Trees abound with "much fruit" available in the form of date-palm fruit. Dolphins frolic in the waters near the beach, wild flamingos wade in the fresh water and honey bees as the Book of Mormon indicates. This is a place that perfectly matched Nephi's description. A mountain occupies the southwest side of the beach. Towering tarmarind and sycamore trees suitable for shipbuilding grow up in the wadi a few hundred yards away from shore. Here is a freshwater source, sardine in the sea for eating, land and water to grow crops.

There is simply no way that Joseph could have obtained enough information about Arabia to fabricate more than a minute fraction of the voyage described in First Nephi. This is shown in a study which collected all the information available in, and prior to 1830 which was made by Eugene England in "Through the Arabian Desert to a Bountiful Land: Could Joseph Smith Have Known the Way?," in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Evidences of Ancient Origins, edited by Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1982), pp. 143-156. Also see S. Kent Brown's excellent response to critics who have challenged the significance of finds in the Arabian Peninsula dealing with the place Nahom. His article, "On NAHOM/NHM," is posted on The Nephi Project.

The Arabian peninsula evidence for Book of Mormon authenticity is fascinating, though many will still dismiss it. If I asked you to write about a journey across Tasmania or through Bhutan or some other place about which you knew little, could you possibly describe a journey and its course in a way that would gain credibility with time? Is there any chance that you could even describe a reasonable general direction to travel? Could you pick a route that would later comply with routes used by others in the area? Could you name a site and over a century later have others find a map with a similar name at that place? Could you describe an unusual place that seems entirely out of line with what little you and others knew about the area, only to have others later discover an excellent candidate for that location in a place entirely consistent with the course you describe? To me, this is one of literally hundreds of confirmations of the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient document.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:07PM

The area where the Bible events took place has experienced a continuity of cultures. The Nephites were destroyed and their culture was destroyed deliberately by their enemies. The area most likely to be Book of Mormon lands is Mesoamerica. The Conquistadores destroyed Mayan and Aztec cultures and re-named all the cities. The original names are unknown today. One exception is a city in eastern Belize on the Yucatan peninsula. It was never occupied by the Conquistadores and it retains it’s original name. It is called Lamoni, which is a Book of Mormon name.

The Mayans have a ritual ceremony depicting their conquest and capture of territories in ancient times. One of the conquered cities depicted in the ceremony is called Pan cha’lib which means Bountiful. A Nephite city that is described in the Book of Mormon as being conquered by the Lamanites is Bountiful.

Additionally, we have less than 1% of the Mesoamerican sites having been excavated and the sites that are excavates are only 10% - 15% excavated.

Michael R. Ash produced this article explaining the problems:
The difference between Old and New World archaeology
Author: Michael R. Ash
Some critics like to compare the lack of archaeological support for the Book of Mormon with the supposedly voluminous archaeological support for the Bible. As Dr. William Hamblin has pointed out, however, there is a drastic difference between the Old and New Worlds when it comes to epigraphic (written) data, the continuity of culture and toponyms (place names). While the arid environment of biblical archaeology is conducive to preserving archaeological artifacts, the hot, humid Mesoamerican climate is detrimental to the preservation of most artifacts such as wood, bone, metal and clothing.

There’s also a big difference between the general states of New and Old World archaeology. Many more decades, resources and experts have been devoted to “biblical archaeology” than to Mesoamerican archaeology. In 1980, for instance, one New World scholar claimed that less than 1 percent of known ancient American sites had been excavated (cited in "The Firm Foundation of Mormonism," 103).

Thirty years later, it doesn’t appear that things have improved. Doctoral candidate Mark A. Wright tells of a recent conversation with Dr. George Stuart, who up until his recent emeritus status was National Geographic’s resident Maya archaeologist. Stuart complained that of the 6,000 known ancient Mayan sites, only 1 percent of them had been excavated. The 1 percent to be excavated have only been about 5-10 percent uncovered. Adding salt to the wound is the fact that many ancient American sites are looted before archaeologists can fully examine them.

As noted last week, most ancient societies wrote on perishable materials. Even in the Old World, where we have rare exceptions of texts written on metal, stone or clay, most other documents have vanished. Nearly all surviving ancient Greek and Roman books, for instance, are actually copies of copies from the eighth century or later. The disappearance of ancient texts is the norm, not an aberration. Thanks to unique ecological conditions conducive to preservation, however, several thousand texts and contemporary inscriptions from biblical lands have survived to modern times.

These surviving texts are significant tools in helping archaeologists locate ancient biblical cities. Some ancient documents even give detailed lists of distances between cities. Knowing the exact location of one city helps biblical archaeologists locate other cities, simply by calculating the distances.

Even with such Old World advantages, however, only slightly more than half of all place names mentioned in the Bible have been located and positively identified. Most of these identifications are based on toponym preservation. For biblical locations with no preserved toponym, only about 7 to 8 percent of them have been identified to a degree of certainty, and about another 7 to 8 percent of them have been identified with some degree of conjectural certainty. The identification of those locations without place names could not have been made were it not for the identification of locations with preserved toponyms. If few or no biblical toponyms survived, the identification of biblical locations would be largely speculative.

When we turn to the New World, we find that many toponyms disappeared from one era to the next. Archaeologists simply don’t know the original names for all ancient American cities. With such considerations, how could we ever hope to provide translated English names for those cities — such as names provided in the Book of Mormon?

And, as noted last week, scholars are still uncertain as to the pronunciation of some Mesoamerican cities — for which they do have names — because city inscriptions are often iconographic. Surviving icons are not only rare (as previously noted) but they are often symbolic rather than phonetic. In other words, when archaeologists find an iconographic inscription designating a place as the "Hill of the Jaguar," the pronunciation of this inscription would be dependent on the language of the speaker — be it a Zapotec, a Mixtec or a Nephite. The only way to identify an ancient site is by way of an inscription giving a phonetically intelligible name.

If the epigraphic data from the Old World were as slim as the epigraphic data from the New World, scholars would be severely limited in their understanding of the Israelites. It would likely be impossible, using strictly non-epigraphic archaeological evidences, to distinguish between Canaanites and Israelites when they coexisted in the pre-Babylonian (pre-587 B.C.) Holy Land.

The same problem would be apparent if scholars were faced with the absence of Christian epigraphic data. Dr. Hamblin notes, for example, that if the persecutions of Christianity had been successful, if Constantine had never converted and if Christianity had disappeared around 300 A.D., it would be very difficult if not impossible to reconstruct the history of Christianity using nothing but archaeological artifacts and imperial Roman inscriptions.

This should be a sobering reminder for those critics who claim that archaeology has proved the Bible but that New World archaeology had not proved the Book of Mormon.

Ryan| 5.23.12 @ 4:44PM

Yet, you have offered no real proof of any archaeological data other than a maybe-coincidental name.

J| 5.24.12 @ 2:17AM

@ Ryan

You are totally right. They Say $hit load of random stuff like Dwight Rogers, but Never actually proof.

Mormons are the poison in the US.

They have Ancestry.com to recruit more people to baptize and count anyone as Mormons.

Molly Mormon slime!

J| 5.27.12 @ 9:10PM

SERIOUS TROUBLE FOR THE BOOK OF MORMON
ARZA EVANS
(AUTHOR OF THE KEYSTONE OF MORMONISM )

SMITH’S OFFENSIVE RACISM
Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon God is a racist who changed the
skin pigmentation of a large group of people from “white and
delightsome” to “dark and loathsome” for sin and then
later changed it back to “white and delightsome” for righteousness.
(2 Nephi 5:21-23, 3 Nephi 2:14-16) Also, dark skinned people will
be in big trouble on judgment day. (Jacob 3:5-8) How can LDS
Church members defend this highly offensive racism?
It is with reluctance that this paper will now present further
evidence against the authenticity of The Book of Mormon. Presenting
additional evidence may imply that Smith’s disgusting racism alone
is not enough to invalidate his book, when it certainly is!

APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING STEEL
Where did Nephi get a spring steel hunting bow in 600 B.C.?
And why didn’t his brothers or anyone else on earth have one?
(1 Nephi 16:18) And where did Joseph Smith’s Jaredites get steel
swords in 1900 B.C., almost 1000 years before the iron age? (Ether
7:9) And why haven’t archaeologists found any iron or steel in
ancient American ruins? Did all the iron and steel just disappear?
(See any good encyclopedia for information about iron and steel.)

IMAGINARY WOODEN SUBMARINES
Joseph Smith’s story about eight wooden submarines built by
righteous “Jaredites” about 2000 B.C. is ludicrous! These mythical
submarines were airtight except for one small “stoppable hole” in
the bottom and another in the top. How could they have loaded their
“flocks and herds” and enough food and water on board to last 344
days at sea through these small holes? What about human and
animal needs for fresh air and sunlight? And what about human
and animal excrement? Even a few days in one of these underwater
stockyards would probably have been fatal for humans and
animals. (Ether 6:2-12) These eight submarines were under the
water much of the time, and yet strong winds kept them together
and blew them half way around the world to a “promised Land.”

AN EMPTY CONTINENT
How could Lehi’s family have come to an empty “promised
land” in 600 B.C. and had it all to themselves? The Book of
Mormon clearly states that no one else was living in America at that
time. (2 Nephi 1:8-9) And yet, the Mayans and several other
civilizations had been living in the Americas for many centuries.
If Smith’s book is true history, then why isn’t trade or war with the
Mayans or anyone else ever mentioned in his Book of Mormon?
Mormon apologists have tried to argue for a small and limited
area for Book of Mormon geography, but this contradicts not
only the information clearly stated in Smith’s book but also
pronouncements made by a long list of LDS Church leaders.

THE WRONG DNA
Dr. Simon Southerton and a number of other leading scientists
have made studies of Native American DNA and concluded that
Native Americans are not Israelites as claimed by Joseph Smith.
About 99.5 % of Native American DNA matches that of Northeast
Asians. (Just type DNA and Native Americans on the internet.)

IMAGINARY HORSES, CHARIOTS, AND ELEPHANTS
How could Smith’s superman, Ammon, have taken care of King
Lamoni’s horses and chariots when archaeologists tell us that there
were no horses or wheels in ancient America? (Alma 18:9-12)
Smith’s Jaredites also had domesticated elephants! (Ether 9:19)

AMAZING BUILDERS
How could a few men and boys have built a temple like King
Solomon’s temple in a few years in their spare time? (2 Nephi 5:16)
It took 150,000 laborers and 3,300 supervisors seven years to
build King Solomon’s temple. (1 Kings 5:1-16, 1 Kings 6:38)

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE LAW OF MOSES?
If Smith’s Book of Mormon Nephites were strictly living The Law
of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10), then why is there no record of anyone
observing The Passover? And why were there no Jubilees, thank
offerings, scapegoats, purifications, and other aspects of that law?

BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS
Smith’s Book of Mormon prophets made a large number of
prophesies. Why haven’t those things that were supposed to
happen after 1830, when The Book of Mormon was published,
come true? For example, Smith’s “remnants” (Native Americans)
are to “tread down the gentiles and tear them into pieces like a
young lion.” This prophesy is repeated five different times. (3 Nephi
16:14-15, 3 Nephi 20:16, 3 Nephi 21:12, 3 Nephi 25:3, Mormon
5:20-24) Why hasn’t this prophesy come true? And why haven’t
the other prophesies made by Book of Mormon prophets about
things that were supposed to happen after 1830 come true?

BIASED WITNESSES
Joseph Smith’s witnesses to his gold plates included his
father, his two brothers, and eight of his closest friends. Some of
these men had invested a great deal of time and money in writing
and publishing The Book of Mormon. How can they be considered
reliable witnesses? And why did Martin Harris, a witness and an
investor, claim Dr. Anthon told him that Smith’s translation of
“Reformed Egyptian” was the most accurate that he had ever seen,
when Anthon couldn’t even read Egyptian, much less “Reformed
Egyptian”? (P. of G.P., J.S. Hist. 63-65) Harris was obviously lying.

MUCH MORE EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE.
An objective observer would not need any more evidence
against The Book of Mormon than just the racism. A true Latter-
Day Saint would probably not change his or her mind no matter
how much good scientific information against it was presented.
It would be too devastating! It would mean that there were no gold
plates and that Mormonism itself is based upon deception. The
evidence against The Book of Mormon presented in this paper is
just a small fraction of that found in The Keystone of Mormonism.

STRATEGIC IMORTANCE OF THE BOOK OF MORMON
“I told the brethren that The Book of Mormon was the most
correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and
a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by
any other book.”
JOSEPH SMITH, Founder of Mormonism

“The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. . . . Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon. . . . If it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it and so does the claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. . . . Yes, my beloved brothers and sisters, The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our doctrine."
EZRA TAFT BENSON, LDS Church President

“While the coming forth of The Book of Mormon is but an incident in God's great work of the last days, . . . still the incident of its coming forth and the book are facts of such importance that the whole work of God may be said in a manner to stand or fall with them. That is to say, if the origin of The Book of Mormon could be proved to be other than set forth by Joseph Smith; if the book itself could be proved to be other than it claims to be, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and its messages and doctrines, which in some respects may be said to have risen out of The Book of Mormon, must fall; for if that book is other than it claims to be; if its origin is other than that ascribed to it by Joseph Smith, then Joseph Smith says that which is untrue: he is a false prophet of false prophets; and all he taught and all his claims to inspiration and divine authority, are not only vain but wicked; and all that he did as a religious teacher is not only useless, but mischievous beyond human comprehending.”
B.H. ROBERTS, LDS Historian and General Authority

These statements by Joseph Smith and other Church leaders along with mounting scientific evidence against the authenticity of The Book of Mormonmake it apparent that the keystone in the arch of Mormonism is crumbling. And if we accept the declaration made by B.H. Roberts, then Joseph Smith
was a false prophet and his claims to inspiration and divine authority are vain, wicked, and mischievous beyond human comprehension!

A PROFESSIONAL OPINION
Mark Twain called The Book of Mormon “chloroform in print,” “imaginary history,” and “tedious plagiarism.” He also said that if Smith had left out the phrase, “And it came to pass,” his book “would have been only a pamphlet.”

Note: There is no copyright on this paper. (Feel free to make copies.)

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:14PM

The Book of Mormon peoples had a copy of Biblical texts down to the writings of Isaiah which was recorded on the Brass Plates. The Brass Plates date to between 700 and 600 BC. In complarison the documents available to the KJV translators date to around 1000 to 1200 AD. Isaiah 2:16 from the KJV reads as follows:

Isaiah 2:16
16 And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

But when the Book of Mormon quotes the same verse of Isaiah which comes from the Brass Plates that date to between 700 and 600 BC (over 1,600 years earlier), it reads as follows:

2 Nephi 12:16 compare Isaiah 2:16
16 And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

So we see that the Book of Mormon contains the additional phrase “And upon all the ships of the sea” which is not in any known Bible manuscripts. Did Joseph Smith just make up the additional phrase?

In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered which include several copies of Isaiah which date to about 200 BC. These are about 1200 years older than the manuscripts available to the KJV translators and date to within 400 years of the Book of Mormon (Brass Plates) copy of Isaiah.

The DSS (Dead Sea Scroll) Isaiah 12:16 contains the phrase “And upon all the ships of the sea,” just as the Book of Mormon does. Joseph Smith could not have guessed that. The DSS were not discovered until 117 years after the Book of Mormon was in print.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:15PM

Did you know that there are many examples in the BofM of complex
ancient Hebrew literary forms like “chiasmus” that neither Joseph
Smith nor almost anyone on earth was aware of when the BofM was
published in 1830?

Check this out: http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:16PM

When modern scholars began to translate the Book of Mormon back into Hebrew, many of its grammatical constructions that were awkward in English came out as perfect Hebrew? Many Book of Mormon wording constructs turn out to be exactly the way Hebrew is worded. Joseph Smith did not know Hebrew. How could he have done this?

Computer wordprint analysis (sometimes used by the FBI) reveals that the different books in the Book of Mormon were written by different authors and that none of their wordprint signatures match Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries.

It could NOT have been written by Joseph Smith or any 19th century person.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_.....nt_studies
http://www.cometozarahemla.org.....html#_1_15

Zach Cochran| 5.21.12 @ 1:24PM

Fawn Brodie has been widely and soundly debunked. Her sources were few and largely enemies of Joseph Smith. If you think the LDS church is a cult, you're not familiar with the New Testament. I suspect you're just a bigot.

Peppermint Tea| 5.21.12 @ 2:10PM

Jeremy, good article with a couple of minor things: not Pennsylvania but Ohio.
I too wonder why Mormons took the fall/credit for Prop 8. Where were the other religions when things got nasty with spray paint?
And...If you like Jack's Antisemitism, you'll love his antimormonism. I'm just saying.

Bubba Shawn| 5.21.12 @ 3:13PM

Liberal Romney = Liberal Obama.

Both are lying about their records and making straw man distortions to slam the other guy. Both have governed to the far left of where most of America is.

The press needs to examine if Romney has a memory disorder. He doesn't remember his positions from one week to the next. Dementia is a real concern unless Romney is only pandering to his audiences.

Further, why would 98% of American religious adherents who are Catholics and Protestants vote for a guy stupid enough to believe the same nonsense and world view that 2% of Americans who are Mormons.

Rollin L.| 5.21.12 @ 5:08PM

So Jack, what other religions do not fit your definition of Christianity? Easy to infer from your comments how you would feel if a candidate were Jewish, for example. Last I checked, Jews are not Christians either. C'mon, don't hold back. Let all your bigotry show.

GaryE| 5.21.12 @ 8:11PM

I would wager that Jack in Wi cannot define the word "cult" as most anti's can't. Fawn Brody is an apostate member of the LDS Church. Would you expect her to be objective?
Bigotry is alive and well in this country, particularly this year. It does not usually show up on anyone who is reasonable, informed, and willing to look at issues with an open mind.

Russ| 5.22.12 @ 4:44PM

Oh Jack, how typical. You're using the very same tactic the atheistic left uses to attack every religion, particularly Christianity. Create a superficial narrative that suites your preconceived conclusion, sprinkle in a little truth with a lot of error, twist it all together and then claim that it is the final word. You cite a book that has been repeatedly shown to be at best sloppy history and at worst a deliberate distortion, and not just by the members of the church it attacks. You paint your world with a pretty broad brush, when the reality is much more subtle. Your reference to the fundraiser is problematic too. No doubt the company makes a great many things; including drugs that help fight cancer and deal with your cold symptoms. Do you do a background check on the manufacturer of every product you purchase just to make sure you aren't accidently supporting abortion? But then again I'm sure you're right. Romney was probably there specifically because the fundraiser works for a company that makes the morning after pill, and he was making an implied endorsement of it. After all, those evil cultish Mormons have their secret agenda for worldwide cabal of abortion inducing drug makers. Please remember to take off your tin hat before you leave.

gray man| 5.22.12 @ 11:01PM

The pile of hooey is the comment by jack in wi.
The extent of you knowledge about mormonism
seems to be that of a second grader.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:32PM

Fawn Brodie's book has been shown by real historians to be revisionist history at best.

Dwight Rogers| 5.24.12 @ 12:11PM

Fawn Brodie's history is revisionist history. Credible historians don't take Broadie's book seriously.

Darin| 5.21.12 @ 6:38AM

My understanding is that Mormons believe God was once a man like us. This contradicts the Bible's teaching that God is an eternal spirit. I do think Mormons tend to be good, honest, decent people. But I also think they are following a false religion.

darcy| 5.21.12 @ 5:40PM

Please familiarize yourself with the Book of Philippians; Jesus is the God-man, God who put aside (for a period of time) his divine nature to become like us. It seems, Darin, that your understanding of the Trinity is not fully formed. I encourage you to fill in the gaps in your knowledge of the Bible. Mormons, do, as you say, present the picture of being decent and respectable citizens even while their teachings do not align with Biblical orthodoxy.

Poqui| 5.21.12 @ 6:09PM

I believe that the scripture you are making reference is John 4:24 which says, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." There are many scriptures that teach the character of God. In Hebrews 12:29 we read: "For our God is a consuming fire." And in 1 John 4:8, "... God is love". So is He a spirit, a consuming fire, or is He love?

When Jesus was asked about His relationship with His Father, He said, " Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does" (John 5:19). Study that passage carefully and then ask yourself, what is Jesus teaching us about the Father? That the Father has taught Jesus everything He needs to do in this earthly mission by showing Him what to do. Jesus learned from His Father.

Jesus has a resurrected body of flesh and bones. The Bible teaches so in Luke 24:39. That IS his body. It's not a body he borrowed for this apparition. It IS his resurrected body. If Jesus has a body of flesh and bones what about the Father? In Acts 7:55-56, Stephen the martyr sees the heavens open and he sees Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father. Two distinct Beings. Both with physical bodies.

It is the doctrine of gnosticism in the first three centuries of Christianity that wiped away the belief in a God with a physical body. But the Bible is very clear, Jesus has a body of flesh and bones. Now, do you want to believe the Bible or the creeds. I'm sticking with the Bible.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 6:57PM

Poqui,

The Bible states that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.1 Cor. 15:50.

And yes, Jesus had a physical body of flesh and blood before He was raised from the dead, but He was raised in a glorified body when He went to the Father, in Heaven, just as we are told that will receive glorified bodies, like His.

1 Peter 1:21, 1 Cor. 15:33.

And have you not considered the Transfiguration of Christ? He let the disciples see a glimpse of His glorified body, and told them not to tell anyone, until His Resurrection in Mark chapter nine.

And since the Bible tells us that God is Spirit Jn. 4:24, He cannot possibly be physical.

Stick with the Scriptures, indeed.

Ryan| 5.23.12 @ 2:42PM

Is Jesus' glorified body flesh and blood in a "purified" form, or is it something else?

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:38PM

Right. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Flesh and bones can (Luke 24:39)

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)
From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).

Jesus also taught that the Father does, or has done, all the same things He was doing:

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” (John 5:19-20)

Here,in this passage in John, Jesus tells us that he does nothing - that’s NOTHING - but what he has seen the Father do. Jesus knows this because the Father shows the Son “all things that himself doeth.” Since Jesus does nothing but what he has seen the Father do then This tells us what the Father has done before.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:39PM

The Greek term "asomatos" for incorporeal does not appear in the Bible. And when this term appears in noncanonical Christian writings the use of the term meant for Early Christians "a material body that is just much finer and palpable than those conceived through the senses." (Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Being: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," in "Harvard Theological Review" 83 (1990): 108-9)

The Greek word "pneuma" literally meant air, or breath, thus implying that spirit is both material and corporeal. (Paulsen, p. 109).
Origen even noted that the text John 4:24 "God is spirit" was initially understood as proof against incorporeal thinking for a spirit was considered to have substance.
"I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because they find it said in the Gospel according to John that God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Spirit according to them is to be regarded as nothing less than a body." (Paulsen, p. 109).
Origen in speaking of the resurrection, and of man being made in God's image, says that the argument arose of "whether God of all things is clothed with a body... He was with some material covering "that the likeness of the life of God, may be in the end produced also in the saints." [Origen, "De Principiis", The Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Eerdmans, reprint Oct. 1979., vol. 4, p. 345].

In "Homily III" Origen acknowledged that Jews as well as Christians supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. Origen notes that the philosophers despise these stories, therefore, to keep the peace with them, he tries to convince the Christians that God speaks, but not really with a mouth! God has passions, anger, hate, love, but not in the Christian way of thinking, but rather as the philosophers think, as allegorical. In other words, Origin knuckled under to the intellectuals.

Origen specifically says that the learned Melito was among the prominent and prolific Christians of the second-century who believed that God is embodied. In his "Selecta in Genesim" he links Melito as among the Christians who taught that God has a body in the form of humans. ("Prius discutiendum est ubi consistat illud, ad imaginem, in corpore, an in anima. Et in primis videamus, quibus utanur qui prius asserunt; e quorum numero est Melito, qui scripta reliquit, quibus asserit Deum corporeum esse." in Paulsen, p. 112)
Gennadius affirms that Melito was responsible for a sect of Christians who followed him in the belief that the bodies of humans are made in the image of God.
Augustine would not at first join Christianity because of the Christian belief in the corporeal nature of Deity! From his youth and for many years thereafter, because of the teachings of his mother, who was a devout Christian, Augustine understood Christians to believe that God is embodied. They taught that God was corporeal. Augustine acknowledges that belief in God's corporeality was still found among contemporary Christians, whom he mocked for not being able or willing to interpret the Bible allegorically. (Paulsen, p. 115f).
Here we are reminded that Augustine was a convert to Christianity. He could not accept it because of the historic Christian and Biblical doctrine that God could have a physical body as is taught in the Gospel of Luke and other places in Holy Writ. However, he later joined Christianity on the basis that he would make that doctrine allegorical. Augustine became one of the most influential theologians of Christianity. He joined Christianity and then changed it to suit his own ideas.
Iranaeus says of the early Christians "...they imagine that He [God] sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds..." [The Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" (hereafter cited as ANF), Eerdmans, reprint Oct. 1979. Vol. 1, p. 465].
Obviously God's corporeality was an Early Christian conception, otherwise why would Iranaeus, who adopted later Greek philosophy, be trying to refute it?
Tertullian notes that "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Whatever therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a person, I claim for it the name of Son; while I recognize the Son, I assert the distinction as second to the Father." Now interestingly, in the footnote, the editors themselves note "This doctrine of the soul's corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his "De Ressur. Carn" xvii and "De Anima" v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical." (ANF, Vol. 3, p. 467).
Hippolytus in his "Elucidations" taught that to "Know thyself" means to "discover God within thyself, for he has formed thee after his own image." (ANF., vol. 5, p. 153).
A modern scholar, R. Hansen, has this to say about the differences of doctrine in the first several centuries as compared with the Trinity orthodoxy of later centuries:
"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." [Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, pp. 151-152.]
Even as late as the fourth and fifth centuries most of the Christian monks of Egypt believed God the Father to have a human form. They derived this viewpoint from studying the Bible, rather than popular Hellenistic philosophies. For this reason they are often referred to as "anthropomorphites." After the Council of Constantinople in 381 such views were more frequently suppressed. The new orthodoxy was imposed upon outlying branches of the church in spite of considerable resistance. In some cases, the Roman armies were sent out to force outlying branches to conform to the new orthodoxy. Imagine that, forced belief, a real Christian concept. Ha!
In 399, when a letter from Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, insisted that the biblical description of God was only allegorical and that the monks must not attribute to God any anthropomorphic characteristics, one Sarapion, an elderly monk of great reputation, found himself unable to pray, at all, to the new God of the philosophers. Falling on the ground he groaned: "Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address." [See Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), pp. 234-35, citing a reference in John Cassian, Conferences, 10. 3; also Sozomen, Church History, 8.11.]
Eventually, the monks rebelled and refused to accept the new view, successfully forcing their bishop Theophilus to reverse his position. [See Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967), pp. 185-86.]

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:41PM

Where does it say in the Bible that "God is an eternal spirit?"

The Greek term "asomatos" for incorporeal does not appear in the Bible. And when this term appears in noncanonical Christian writings the use of the term meant for Early Christians "a material body that is just much finer and palpable than those conceived through the senses." (Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Being: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," in "Harvard Theological Review" 83 (1990): 108-9)

The Greek word "pneuma" literally meant air, or breath, thus implying that spirit is both material and corporeal. (Paulsen, p. 109).
Origen even noted that the text John 4:24 "God is spirit" was initially understood as proof against incorporeal thinking for a spirit was considered to have substance.
"I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because they find it said in the Gospel according to John that God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Spirit according to them is to be regarded as nothing less than a body." (Paulsen, p. 109).
Origen in speaking of the resurrection, and of man being made in God's image, says that the argument arose of "whether God of all things is clothed with a body... He was with some material covering "that the likeness of the life of God, may be in the end produced also in the saints." [Origen, "De Principiis", The Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Eerdmans, reprint Oct. 1979., vol. 4, p. 345].

In "Homily III" Origen acknowledged that Jews as well as Christians supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. Origen notes that the philosophers despise these stories, therefore, to keep the peace with them, he tries to convince the Christians that God speaks, but not really with a mouth! God has passions, anger, hate, love, but not in the Christian way of thinking, but rather as the philosophers think, as allegorical. In other words, Origin knuckled under to the intellectuals.

Origen specifically says that the learned Melito was among the prominent and prolific Christians of the second-century who believed that God is embodied. In his "Selecta in Genesim" he links Melito as among the Christians who taught that God has a body in the form of humans. ("Prius discutiendum est ubi consistat illud, ad imaginem, in corpore, an in anima. Et in primis videamus, quibus utanur qui prius asserunt; e quorum numero est Melito, qui scripta reliquit, quibus asserit Deum corporeum esse." in Paulsen, p. 112)
Gennadius affirms that Melito was responsible for a sect of Christians who followed him in the belief that the bodies of humans are made in the image of God.
Augustine would not at first join Christianity because of the Christian belief in the corporeal nature of Deity! From his youth and for many years thereafter, because of the teachings of his mother, who was a devout Christian, Augustine understood Christians to believe that God is embodied. They taught that God was corporeal. Augustine acknowledges that belief in God's corporeality was still found among contemporary Christians, whom he mocked for not being able or willing to interpret the Bible allegorically. (Paulsen, p. 115f).
Here we are reminded that Augustine was a convert to Christianity. He could not accept it because of the historic Christian and Biblical doctrine that God could have a physical body as is taught in the Gospel of Luke and other places in Holy Writ. However, he later joined Christianity on the basis that he would make that doctrine allegorical. Augustine became one of the most influential theologians of Christianity. He joined Christianity and then changed it to suit his own ideas.
Iranaeus says of the early Christians "...they imagine that He [God] sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds..." [The Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" (hereafter cited as ANF), Eerdmans, reprint Oct. 1979. Vol. 1, p. 465].
Obviously God's corporeality was an Early Christian conception, otherwise why would Iranaeus, who adopted later Greek philosophy, be trying to refute it?
Tertullian notes that "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Whatever therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a person, I claim for it the name of Son; while I recognize the Son, I assert the distinction as second to the Father." Now interestingly, in the footnote, the editors themselves note "This doctrine of the soul's corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his "De Ressur. Carn" xvii and "De Anima" v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical." (ANF, Vol. 3, p. 467).
Hippolytus in his "Elucidations" taught that to "Know thyself" means to "discover God within thyself, for he has formed thee after his own image." (ANF., vol. 5, p. 153).
A modern scholar, R. Hansen, has this to say about the differences of doctrine in the first several centuries as compared with the Trinity orthodoxy of later centuries:
"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." [Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, pp. 151-152.]
Even as late as the fourth and fifth centuries most of the Christian monks of Egypt believed God the Father to have a human form. They derived this viewpoint from studying the Bible, rather than popular Hellenistic philosophies. For this reason they are often referred to as "anthropomorphites." After the Council of Constantinople in 381 such views were more frequently suppressed. The new orthodoxy was imposed upon outlying branches of the church in spite of considerable resistance. In some cases, the Roman armies were sent out to force outlying branches to conform to the new orthodoxy. Imagine that, forced belief, a real Christian concept. Ha!
In 399, when a letter from Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, insisted that the biblical description of God was only allegorical and that the monks must not attribute to God any anthropomorphic characteristics, one Sarapion, an elderly monk of great reputation, found himself unable to pray, at all, to the new God of the philosophers. Falling on the ground he groaned: "Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address." [See Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), pp. 234-35, citing a reference in John Cassian, Conferences, 10. 3; also Sozomen, Church History, 8.11.]
Eventually, the monks rebelled and refused to accept the new view, successfully forcing their bishop Theophilus to reverse his position. [See Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967), pp. 185-86.]

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 3:42PM

Jesus is God Incarnate in John 1:1-2,14 we read:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, we see that Jesus, who is God, came and took upon himself a physical body. So, God can have a body.

Jesus (God) Himself re-affirmed this truth when he taught "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

Here Jesus, who is God, says flat out that he has a body.. And he said it so plainly that nobody could misunderstand. From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. Jesus (God) will still have his physical body when he comes again. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-20, 35-42; D&C 93:33).

So, God was once a man with a mortal physical body and still has a glorified and immortal physical body after the resurrection and will still have it when he comes again. So, if you are a Trinitarian who believes in the one–substance God, then Joseph Smith was right since Jesus is God, and Jesus (God) has a body and Jesus (God) was once a man with a body and will still have it when He comes again, then the one substance God of the Trinity has a physical body.

If you believe in pre-Nicene doctrine (Biblical doctrine) which recognizes a difference in substance between the Father and the Son, then the following applies:

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” (John 5:19-20)

In this passage (John 5:19-20) Jesus tells us that he does nothing - that’s NOTHING - but what he has seen the Father do. Jesus knows this because the Father shows the Son “all things that himself doeth.” Since Jesus does nothing but what he has seen the Father do then this tells us what the Father has done before, meaning that the Father, at some point, went through a mortal experience just as the Son was then going through. This is not speaking to the doctrine of whether or not God has always existed but is simply saying that the Father, at some point took upon himself a mortal body just as the Son did. This is true since Jesus says that He does nothing but what the Father has also done.

So whether speaking of Trinitarian or pre-Trinitarian doctrine, Joseph Smith was right it either case.

aware| 5.21.12 @ 6:42AM

"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."

Like "evangelicals" who suddenly decide to "overlook" membership in a cult simply because of "winning"?

Or maybe "conservatives" who now vote for a liberal and insist its the duty of "real" conservatives to do the same?

Or maybe "conservative" mainstream media that was attacking a few months ago what it is now trying to recondition into "our guy"?

"Their guy" supports gay marriage and universal(government run) healthcare and now we have "our guy" supporting the same.

For sheer hypocrisy the current "race" has never been surpassed. So much for the "core principles of conservatism".

Barly K. 9 | 5.21.12 @ 6:52AM

"Our guy" does not support gay marriage or Obamacare. He has been very forthright in his opposition to both.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 10:54AM

"Like "evangelicals" who suddenly decide to "overlook" membership in a cult simply because of "winning"?

Can the cult's beliefs be enforced upon the rest of us? NO.

If we elect Romney, whose principles are more closely in sync with our own, be a much better choice than having the cult of Obama in the people's House for another four more destructive years? YES.

If we elect Romney with his beliefs, will we have a Republican administration with plenty of Right-thinking conservatives in it who will seek to correct the horrors that the Obama cult has inflicted on our country? YES.

YES~ I want to WIN. It seems as though you want to lose.

W| 5.21.12 @ 1:53PM

I agree with you Margie.

Al Adab| 5.21.12 @ 7:11PM

Too late at night but can't resist. Do you really think Romney will appoint Conservatives to the Depts and agencies or the Court? We couldn't even rely on Bush 43 to do that, remember Harriet Myers? And Bush was to the right of Romney.

W| 5.21.12 @ 7:38PM

Al Adab
I believe he will appoint conservatives and moderates and more business oriented people to the agencies. We will have to keep pressure on Romney, as with Bush on the Meirs matter, but any appointment Romeny makes will be better than Obama. Think of Sebellius, Kagan, Sotomayor, Holder, Jones, Biden.....I'm getting a headache.
Bush 43 did appoint Roberts and Alito, Bush 41 did appoint Thomas, and Reagan did appoint Scalia. One thing we can be sure. Obama will never appoint a conservative, let a lone a moderate like Justice Kennedy (Reagan).
Bush 43 did pass the tax cuts. But he spent too much and should never have involved us in nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hope all is well with you, Al Adab.

J| 5.24.12 @ 1:39PM

@ aware

You pointed out one of the most important things in this election.

There is one who flip flops everyday depending on the audience to tell them what they want to hear.

Even both "evangelicals" and "conservatives" would not want that person to represent them.

One is deeply mistaken if he thinks he can "create" his new image every day. You've got to give "trust" to people who are supporting you. Instead, one has been giving you "silver-spoon-spoiled-dumb-flip-flops."

Just like he himself said on April 24, 2012.
"Character and choices matter."

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.21.12 @ 7:13AM

Jeremy,
excellent article.

KyMouse| 5.21.12 @ 8:00AM

So much of this could be settled if people would just read what Mormons actually believe and teach!

Someone gave me a copy of the Mormon Sunday School book "Gospel Principles," and it is a real eye-opener. You can read it online at http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles

Note that it is on an official Mormon web site.

In chapter 1, you will read that "God has a body that looks like ours. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones...Everything that he does is to help his children become like him -- a god."

Chapter 47 reiterates that faithful Mormons, who reach the state of "exaltation" through good works and other requirements, "will become gods."

In chapter 3, you will read that "We needed a savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father...Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said 'Here am I, send me.'...Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came..."

In chapter 16, you will read that the centuries between New Testament times and the founding of Mormonism are called "the period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth...the Great Apostasy...It was the Church of Jesus Christ no longer; it was a church of men."

In chapter 17, we read that a being that called itself "Jesus" told Joseph Smith "not to join any church because the true Church was not on the earth. He also said that the teachings of present churches were 'an abomination in his sight'...On 6 April 1830, the Savior again directed the organization of his Church on the earth. His Church is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints...The Lord has said that it is 'the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.'"

My paperback copy of "Gospel Principles" contains a number of Mormon worship songs, including "Praise to the Man." There are several versions of it that can be found online. My book says:

"Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Praise to his mem'ry, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Plead until heav'n while the earth lauds his fame.

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know 'Brother Joseph' again.

Chorus: Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again."

I could go on, but anyone is able to read the entire text for themselves at that Web site. I do, however, encourage believers in the Jesus of the Bible to put on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:11) before they do so.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 10:37AM

Better watch out, KY Mouse, you are speaking the truth to lies here!

Zach Cochran| 5.21.12 @ 1:25PM

Careful, you'll wind up converted if you spend too much time on lds.org.

Peppermint Tea| 5.21.12 @ 2:12PM

In addition, you can get a free copy of the Book of Mormon delivered for the asking at freebookofmormon.org

JohnnyLingo62| 5.21.12 @ 1:41PM

What is the meaning of the word "Heir"?
Romans 8:16-17
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

Does this not say that we can be "JOINT-HEIRS with Christ"?

Galatians 4:7
"Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."

Yes, read the Bible and you will see your true nature as a child of God...

aware| 5.21.12 @ 4:10PM

You are twisting the meaning and you know it.

2 Tim 4:3-4

3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will reject the truth and chase after myths.

Poqui| 5.21.12 @ 6:13PM

And that is exactly what happened when Christians in the 4th Century decided to form Councils to write up creeds that superseded the Scriptures. The Creeds created a myth of Jesus instead of the Biblical teachings.

darcy| 5.21.12 @ 7:37PM

Creeds do not supersede the Scriptures. Where do you get such ideas?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 11:59AM

Well then darcy, why do you insist on them yourself?

spike59| 5.22.12 @ 6:06AM

sounds like Timothy was making a prophecy regarding the Democrat Party

Poqui| 5.21.12 @ 6:11PM

Right on JohnnyLingo. It's a verse that's ignored by many Christians.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 7:34PM

You cannot be an heir with Christ unless you obey His Words, and Mormonism is a false doctrine and a cult.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

GaryE| 5.21.12 @ 8:21PM

If you read anything out of context, the Bible for instance, you will become confused. Moses published the Ten Commandments which told him not to kill, yet he was ordered to kill thousands. Reading part of Mormon doctrine is no better than taking Algebra II before Algebra I. Go to LDS.org and learn the basics -- or ask an LDS member or missionary to discuss the doctrine with you. You might find, as I have, that it is beautiful, inspiring, soul-satisfying and full of hope and promise. The Church of Jesus Christ is a glorious and wonderful organization. Don't miss the opportunity to find out for yourself.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 9:12PM

No, the Commandment of God is to not Murder. When God tells someone to fight for HIM, that isn't Murder. It's kind of sad that you can't see the difference, and actually speak against God in order to justify your Religious cult.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:23PM

From the following passage we see that Jesus is God:

John 1:1-2,14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So, we see that Jesus, who is God, came and took upon himself a physical body. So, God can have a body.

Jesus (God) Himself re-affirmed this truth when he taught "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and ones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

Here Jesus, who is God, says flat out that he has a body. You totally misrepresent what Jesus was saying. And he said it so plainly that nobody could misunderstand. From this passage we know that Jesus had his physical body after the resurrection. We also know that when Christ comes again, he will still have his physical body. (Zech. 14:4; 12:10; 13:6; John 20:24-28, Acts 1:9-11; Rev 1:7; 1 Cor. 1

John 4:24 which says that "God is spirit” was understood by the early Christians to be proof that god had a body because spirit was considered to be made of substance.

The Greek term "asomatos" for incorporeal does not appear in the Bible. And when this term appears in noncanonical Christian writings the use of the term meant for Early Christians "a material body that is just much finer and palpable than those conceived through the senses." (Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Being: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," in "Harvard Theological Review" 83 (1990): 108-9)

The Greek word "pneuma" literally meant air, or breath, thus implying that spirit is both material and corporeal. (Paulsen, p. 109).

Origen even noted that the text John 4:24 "God is spirit" was initially understood as proof against incorporeal thinking for a spirit was considered to have substance.
"I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because they find it said in the Gospel according to John that God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Spirit according to them is to be regarded as nothing less than a body." (Paulsen, p. 109).

Origen in speaking of the resurrection, and of man being made in God's image, says that the argument arose of "whether God of all things is clothed with a body... He was with some material covering "that the likeness of the life of God, may be in the end produced also in the saints." [Origen, "De Principiis", The Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Eerdmans, reprint Oct. 1979., vol. 4, p. 345].

In "Homily III" Origen acknowledged that Jews as well as Christians supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. Origen notes that the philosophers despise these stories, therefore, to keep the peace with them, he tries to convince the Christians that God speaks, but not really with a mouth! God has passions, anger, hate, love, but not in the Christian way of thinking, but rather as the philosophers think, as allegorical. In other words, Origin knuckled under to the intellectuals.

Origen specifically says that the learned Melito was among the prominent and prolific Christians of the second-century who believed that God is embodied. In his "Selecta in Genesim" he links Melito as among the Christians who taught that God has a body in the form of humans. ("Prius discutiendum est ubi consistat illud, ad imaginem, in corpore, an in anima. Et in primis videamus, quibus utanur qui prius asserunt; e quorum numero est Melito, qui scripta reliquit, quibus asserit Deum corporeum esse." in Paulsen, p. 112)

Gennadius affirms that Melito was responsible for a sect of Christians who followed him in the belief that the bodies of humans are made in the image of God.

Augustine would not at first join Christianity because of the Christian belief in the corporeal nature of Deity! From his youth and for many years thereafter, because of the teachings of his mother, who was a devout Christian, Augustine understood Christians to believe that God is embodied. They taught that God was corporeal. Augustine acknowledges that belief in God's corporeality was still found among contemporary Christians, whom he mocked for not being able or willing to interpret the Bible allegorically. (Paulsen, p. 115f).

Here we are reminded that Augustine was a convert to Christianity. He could not accept it because of the historic Christian and Biblical doctrine that God could have a physical body as is taught in the Gospel of Luke and other places in Holy Writ. However, he later joined Christianity on the basis that he would make that doctrine allegorical. Augustine became one of the most influential theologians of Christianity. He joined Christianity and then changed it to suit his own ideas.

Iranaeus says of the early Christians "...they imagine that He [God] sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds..." [The Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" (hereafter cited as ANF), Eerdmans, reprint Oct. 1979. Vol. 1, p. 465].

Obviously God's corporeality was an Early Christian conception, otherwise why would Iranaeus, who adopted later Greek philosophy, be trying to refute it?

Tertullian notes that "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Whatever therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a person, I claim for it the name of Son; while I recognize the Son, I assert the distinction as second to the Father." Now interestingly, in the footnote, the editors themselves note "This doctrine of the soul's corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his "De Ressur. Carn" xvii and "De Anima" v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical." (ANF, Vol. 3, p. 467).

Hippolytus in his "Elucidations" taught that to "Know thyself" means to "discover God within thyself, for he has formed thee after his own image." (ANF., vol. 5, p. 153).

A modern scholar, R. Hansen, has this to say about the differences of doctrine in the first several centuries as compared with the Trinity orthodoxy of later centuries:

"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." [Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, pp. 151-152.]

Even as late as the fourth and fifth centuries most of the Christian monks of Egypt believed God the Father to have a human form. They derived this viewpoint from studying the Bible, rather than popular Hellenistic philosophies. For this reason they are often referred to as "anthropomorphites." After the Council of Constantinople in 381 such views were more frequently suppressed. The new orthodoxy was imposed upon outlying branches of the church in spite of considerable resistance. In some cases, the Roman armies were sent out to force outlying branches to conform to the new orthodoxy. Imagine that, forced belief, a real Christian concept. Ha!

In 399, when a letter from Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, insisted that the biblical description of God was only allegorical and that the monks must not attribute to God any anthropomorphic characteristics, one Sarapion, an elderly monk of great reputation, found himself unable to pray, at all, to the new God of the philosophers. Falling on the ground he groaned: "Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I have none to grasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address." [See Owen Chadwick, Western Asceticism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), pp. 234-35, citing a reference in John Cassian, Conferences, 10. 3; also Sozomen, Church History, 8.11.]

Eventually, the monks rebelled and refused to accept the new view, successfully forcing their bishop Theophilus to reverse his position. [See Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967), pp. 185-86.]

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:26PM

Jesus taught the following:

“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

“Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God:” (John 10:31-36)

Here, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus ” for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Jesus then reminded them of their own scripture which teaches that “, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” from Psalms 82:6.

After this the Jews had to back down. They could not stone him because they knew he was right. They knew that their own scriptures teach the same thing and they had no case against Him. Jesus reminded them that God had “called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken”.

The Apostle Paul makes a similar point as recorded in the New Testament. Like Isaiah, he writes of false man-made gods in 1 Corinthians chapter 8. In addition to the false man-made gods on earth, he also writes of the existence of true gods in the heavens He says:

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) But to us there is but one God.. .” (1 Cor. 8: 5-6)

Here Paul recognizes that there are both false gods on earth and true gods in the heavens, but out of them all, there is only one God for us. Some may doubt that Paul was referring to true gods when he said “in heaven” and “(as there be gods many and lords many,). Yet, among true Bible believers, who can believe that there are false gods in heaven? So, when Paul talks of gods in heaven, he can only be talking of true Gods. Here, the Apostle Paul speaking polytheistically about the gods in heaven but monotheistically when he says that only one of them is our God.

Psalms 8:4-5 teaches that man is “a little lower than the gods.” The King James Version (and most translations) give it as “lower than the angels,” but the word used in the Hebrew is gods. The Hebrew term “elohim”,or “gods” is used to describe human judges in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9. Here authorized servants of God are called “gods.” Exodus 7:1 says that Moses was to be “god to Pharaoh.” Note that these are with a small “g” recognizing the pre-eminence of the God we worship.

And Paul says in Romans 8:14-18: “For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;”

And again Christ said to John the Revelator: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelations 3:21)

John says: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doeth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3:2-3)

In the first verses of the Bible, in the Hebrew, Moses refers to the head God who called forth the other gods. It is not rendered this way in English translations. Yet, scholars have noted that throughout the Bible there is a theme of a head God who presides over the other gods. Thus, the head God says "Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness" ( Genesis 1:26-27, emphasis added)

And “let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 11:5-7, emphasis added).

SOWD is the Old Testament Hebrew word for "assembly", "circle of people in council", or "confidential talk, secret." It is similar in meaning to the New Testament "musterion" or mystery. For example, in the King James version, SOWD is translated "secret" (e.g. Amos 3:7, where it literally means "what is going on in the heavenly council")

Thus, Amos was referring to the idea that God makes known to his prophets the “secret,” or what goes on in the heavenly council. This is repeated throughout the Bible, for instance: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Psalms 82:1)

As one scholar notes :

"The existence of other gods is not denied in the first commandment of the decalog itself; in fact it presupposes their existence and forbids the Israelites to worship them." (Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, Philadelphia, 1968, p 463)

“Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Ex. 15:11)

“For the Lord your God is God of gods, and the Lord of lords, a great God…
“Thou shalt fear the Lord they God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.
“He is thy praise, and he is thy God…” (Deu. 11:17, 20-21)

“God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Ps. 82:1) Or as it is rendered in the NRSV translation “God has taken His place in the divine council, in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”

“Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.” (Ps. 86:8)

“For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods.” (Ps. 97:9)

“For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.” (Ps. 135:5)

“O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth forever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth forever.” (Ps. 136: 2-3)

“For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God.” (Deut. 10:17)

Note what early Christian doctrine really was. Let’s read what the early Christian fathers in the first several centuries following the time of the Apostles taught as Christian doctrine. These early Bishops and respected orthodox theologians, were good Mormons.

“God became man that man might become God.” (St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinis in: Philip Barlow, doctoral candidate in American Religious History at Harvard: Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History, Sunstone, Vol 8, no 5, pp 13-16))

“He became what we are, in order that we might be what he is.” (Maximus in Ibid)
“I may become God to the same extent as he became man.” (Gregory of Nazianus in Ibid)
“The Holy Spirit aids man in being made God.” (Basil of Ceasarea in Ibid)

“Flee with all in your power from being man and make haste to become gods.” (Origin in Ibid)
Speaking of the soul which seeks to become pure Clement of Alexandria said: “The soul, receiving the Lord’s power, studies to become a god.” (Clement in Ibid)

IRENAEUS
It has been claimed by some that this doctrine of becoming gods is an altogether pagan doctrine that blasphemes the majesty of God. Not all Christians have thought so, however. Irenaeus [A.D. 130-200], Bishop of Lyons, was instructed by Polycarp. Polycarp was personally instructed by the apostle John. Irenaeus became a prominent bishop in the Church in the second century. He became the most important Christian theologian of his time, and is considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity. Yet he taught:

“If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 5, pref.)
Irenaeus also taught: “We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.” (Ibid, also in (Bettenson, H., The Early Christian Fathers, [London: Oxford University Press, 1956,] p. 94.)

Also: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” (Irenaeus in Henry Betteson, The Early Christian Fathers, London: Oxford University Press, 1956, p 106)

And: “While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.” (Irenaeus in Henry Betteson, The Early Christian Fathers, London: Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 94)

And :”How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one’s duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.” (Ibid, pp. 95-96)

Indeed, Saint Irenaeus had more to say on the subject of deification:

“Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, ‘I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.’ For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that, what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies,4.38. Cp. 4.11)

“But man receives progression and increase towards God. For God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress toward God.” (Ibid)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
In the second century, Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1; Also in Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 1, (8,4), in Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p. 244.)
Clement also said that “If one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God.. His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, ‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 See also Clement, Stromateis, 23.)

And also: “‘To him who has shall be added;’ knowledge to faith, love to knowledge, and love to inheritance. And this happens when a man depends on the Lord through faith, through knowledge, and love, and ascends with him to the place where God is. . . .because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of ‘gods,’ since they are destined to be enthroned with other ‘gods’ who are ranked next below the Savior.” (Ibid pp. 243-244)

JUSTIN MARTYR
Still in the second century, Saint Justin Martyr insisted that in the beginning men were “made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are “thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124)

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSLEM
Here is an interesting quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, an early Christian bishop. This fascinating quote is from his Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures:
“When thou shalt have heard what is written concerning the mysteries, then wilt thou understand things which thou knewest not. And think not that thou receivest a small thing: though a miserable man, thou receivest one of God’s titles. Hear St. Paul saying, God is faithful. Hear another Scripture saying, God is faithful and just. Foreseeing this, the Psalmist, because men are to receive a title of God, spoke thus in the person of God: I said, Ye are Gods, and are all sons of the Most High. But beware lest thou have the title of ‘faithful,’ but the will of the faithless. Thou hast entered into a contest, toil on through the race: another such opportunity thou canst not have. Were it thy wedding-day before thee, wouldest thou not have disregarded all else, and set about the preparation for the feast? And on the eve of consecrating thy soul to the heavenly Bridegroom, wilt thou not cease from carnal things, that thou mayest win spiritual?”

JEROME (the Pope’s secretary)
St. Jerome explains Psalms 82:6 as did other early Christian fathers:
“‘I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.’ Let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the Son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. ‘But to as many as receive him he gave power of becoming sons of god.’ I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. ‘I said: Ye are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.’ Imagine the grandeur of our dignity; we are called gods and sons! I have made you gods just as I made Moses a god to pharaoh, so that after you are gods, you may be made worthy to be sons of God. Reflect upon the divine words: ‘with God there is no respector of persons.’ God did not say: ‘I said you are gods,’ you kings and princes; but ‘all’ to whom I have given equally a body, soul, a spirit, I have given equally divinity and adoption. We are ‘all’ born equals. Our humanity is one of equality.” (Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964 pp 106-107)

Jerome later indicates that after having become “mere men”, those men can still become gods. He quotes the scriptures and explains: “‘Give thanks to the God of Gods.’ The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said: ‘You are gods;’ and again: ‘God arises in the divine assembly.’ They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice and are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the Most High.” (Ibid p. 353)

TERTULLIAN
“If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, ‘I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High;’ and again, ‘God standeth in the congregation of the gods:’ in order that, if the scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith , you may be sure that the same scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one-only Son of God.” (Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885, vol. 3, p. 608)

ORIGEN
Like other early Church Fathers, Origen, [A.D. 185-254], also teaches the same Biblical doctrine, of Genesis 1:1, that there is a head god who is “Lord of gods”, Origin teaches that there is a distinction to be made between “the God” and others who are also “gods.”

“Everything which, without being ‘God-in-himself’ is deified by participation in his godhead, should strictly be called ‘God,’ not ‘the God.’ The ‘firstborn of all creation,.’ Since he by being ‘with God’ first gathered godhood to himself, is therefore in every way more honored than others besides himself, who are ‘gods’ of whom God is the God, as it is said, ‘God the Lord of gods spoke and called the world.’ For it was through his ministry that they became gods, since he drew divinity from God for them to be deified, and of his kindness generously shared it with them. God, then, is the true God, and those who through him are fashioned into gods are copies of the prototype.” (Ibid p. 324)

Origen went on to teach: “The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God.” (Ibid)

Origen claimed that God “will be ‘all’ in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God….” (Origen, De Principiis 3:6:3, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, p. 345.)

AUGUSTINE
Finally, Saint Augustine himself, the greatest of the Christian Fathers, said:
“But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [John 1:12] If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” (Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2 Augustine insists that such individuals are gods by grace rather than by nature, but they are gods nevertheless.)

ST. MAXIMUS
“We find it in early Orthodox tradition as well, for the ‘chief idea of St. Maximus [who died in 662 A.D.] as of all of Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification” (S.L. Epifanovic as quoted by Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). The Christian Tradition, vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974, p. 10, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 79).

As Paul taught in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, there is a duality to Christianity. Paul taught that there are many gods but only one that we worship, only one that is our God. Mormons hold to the doctrine of Paul and Jesus and not necessarily the doctrine of the “various Christian churches” because they no longer teach what Jesus and Paul taught. We do.

To paraphrase Origin’s thoughts in the words of Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie: "There is and can only be one who is supreme, who is the head and to whom all others are subject". Becoming like God is not saying we will ever be equal to Him, frankly we won't and can't He, and only He, will forever be worshipped by us.”

Joseph Smith once said “Mormons are the only ones who believe in the Bible. Everyone else believes in their interpretation of the Bible.” That probably sounds like a bold and even arrogant statement and I can understand how it would be offensive to some people. It is not our intention to offend people. However, if you look at real facts, real history, what the Bible and the early Christians really say (only some of which I have pointed out above) it turns out that Joseph is right. People regularly can’t see what the Bible really says because it is filtered through the lens of later orthodoxy and the extra-Biblical creeds. The divergence of Mormon theology from the theology of other Christians lies in the fact that Christianity has been modified and changed over the centuries and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is original Christianity restored to the earth. So, of course, there are differences. But I think Christians down through the ages have done the best they can without current revelation and have done remarkably well in many cases. It is, in a way, strange, that they criticize us for believing original Christianity. Seems to me that they would want to do the same instead of preferring the later creeds and counsels over the earlier version of Christianity.

If Athanasius, Augustine, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Cyril, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Clement of Alexandria Jerome, Terfullian, even Augustin, and others, including C.S. Lewis in modern days, can teach the doctrine of deification, not to mention that Jesus Himself taught it as well as Paul and John and yet they are still accepted as orthodox Christians, why are Latter-day Saints said to be non-Christian for the same belief? The further back in time you go, especially when you get back before the creeds, the more Mormon-like the Christian doctrines become. Some of our doctrines are clearly at odds with mainstream churches of today, but that’s not because Joseph Smith was making up ludicrous doctrine. Long lost but true doctrines were restored through him as a divinely authorized prophet.

And if popular Christian Orthodoxy continues to hold to the current tradition of later ideas and creeds, then what are they to do with the teachings of the Early Christians, the apostles, and even Jesus Himself who did not teach the creeds? If Mormons are wrong and not Christian than so were the early Christians who taught the same things that Mormons are teaching. If Mormons are not Christian for these beliefs then this makes the Apostles and even Jesus Himself not Christian. Which Christians are right; the later Christians or the Early Christians? Who is right, Jesus, Paul, John, the Psalmist, and the early Christian fathers, or Christians who believe traditions developed centuries after Christ and the Apostles?

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:28PM

In the Bible we find both the teaching of salvation by Grace and the teaching of repentance and obedience to the commandments. They are both true. They are both Biblical. Some Christians cherry pick the teachings of the Bible, focusing on one thing that they like and ignore the other parts. Mormons try to understand and believe ALL of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Grace and Works are two sides to the same coin and are both taught in the Bible. The Apostle Paul writes a lot about salvation by grace. This was to combat the tenancy in many early Jews who converted to Christianity to fall back on obeying the works oriented law of Moses. People who think they can work their way to salvation have missed the grace side of the coin. However, in Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and other places, Paul also stresses the necessity to obey the commandments. He gives lists of sinful behavior such as adultery, fornication, lying, and so forth, and says that people who do these will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. For instance see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. And let's not forget about James 2:14-20,24. Clearly, the teachings of Paul and James on works are also Biblical doctrines. Clearly repentance and obedience are necessary else Paul is lying when he says that people who continue to live a lifestyle of sin will not enter into the Kingdom of God.

The Apostle Peter tells us that even after accepting Christ one must turn from sin and obey lest he fall from grace:

2 Peter 2:20-22
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Obeying God is clearly the other side of the coin to the teachings of grace in the Bible. It is incomplete to stress only Grace or only Works. They are both part of the gospel as taught in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Even confessing that Jesus is our savior is a work that we must actually do. If we were saved from sin solely on grace alone than salvation would be automatic regardless of what we do. There would be no need to even confess Jesus as our Savior let alone try to live a good Christian life.

Mormons are often accused of ignoring Christ’s grace and of trying to work their way to salvation. However, an accurate look at what Mormons actually teach shows a very balanced approach which mirrors the balanced teaching of Grace and Works found in the Bible.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

“If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians…

“Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.
The early Christians [and Latter-day Saints!] would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience....

“The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.” (David W. Bercot, Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity, 3rd edition, (Tyler, Texas: Scroll Publishing Company, 1999[1989]), 57, 61–62)

Dependence on the grace of Jesus Christ is one of the central beliefs of Mormons. It is the critics of Mormonism who say that Mormons believe they are going to earn their way to heaven by their works. Mormon’s don’t teach that. Mormons don’t teach that we can earn our way to heaven without the grace of Christ. You see, the critics are so determined to make Mormonism look non-Biblical that they have to invent straw-man Mormon doctrines.
Note what Mormons believe taken from their own sources:

Alma 22:14 (from the Book of Mormon)
14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.

2 Nephi 25:23 (from the Book of Mormon)
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

2 Nephi 24:26 (from the Book of Mormon)
"We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26)

2 Nephi 10:24-25 (From the Book of Mormon):
24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.
25 Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine. Amen.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:30PM

In December 2007 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) issued the following press release on this issue:

“Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Answering Media Questions About Jesus and Satan," Press release (12 December 2007))

LDS doctrine does not subscribe to the extra-Biblical creedal doctrine of the trinity. LDS do not hold to the metaphysical definitions imposed upon Christianity that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father," as the Nicene Creed declares.

Rather, LDS doctrine is original Christina doctrine: that God the Father is physically and personally distinct from Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son. The Father is understood to be the literal father of His spirit children. Most Christians would agree that God is the creator and everything else that exists are his creations as the Apostle John taught (John 1:3 see also Col. 1:16 & Rev. 4:11) Since Christ is the Son of God and since all of mankind are also referred to as God’s offspring (Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16) and Jesus said we have a common Father with Him (John 20:17) then it is technically true to say that Jesus and Satan are "brothers," in the sense that both have the same spiritual parent, or creator, God the Father.

Romans 8:29 says that Christ was appointed beforehand (KJV uses "predestined") to "be the firstborn among many brethren."

Cain and Able were brothers, and yet no Bible believer would say that they are spiritual equals. Mother Teresa and Hitler are siblings, both being children of God, yet no one would say that they are equivalent. The scriptures teach the superiority of Jesus over the devil. Michael and Lucifer (Satan) fought against each other (Revelations 12:7-8)

The early Christians teach a doctrine very similar to LDS Belief. The early Ante-Nicene Church father Lactantius wrote

Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world,--inasmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness,--in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father... Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a contrary name. From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy. For he envied his predecessor, who through his steadfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father. This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks diabolus: we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us. God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counselor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 2.9. in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (1885; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 7:52–53.)

Here, Lactantius, considered an Orthodox Christian in his time, teaches that God “produced a Spirit like to Himself” who is Jesus and “then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain” who was Satan. Lactantius has Jesus and Satan as brothers. Were the early Christians of Lactantius’s time then, not Christian?

Many things Lactantius here taught are not considered "orthodox" by today's standards. However, Lactantius was definitely orthodox during his lifetime. Amazingly, many things here correspond to LDS doctrine precisely in those areas that are "unorthodox." For example,

1) "He produced a Spirit like to Himself," namely Christ. Christ, in this sense, is not the "co-equal," "eternally begotten," "same substance" "persona" of the later creeds.
2) "Then he made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain." God made another spirit who rebelled and who fell from his exalted status. He is the diabolus.
3) 3. Christ is the "first and greatest Son." Not the "only" son.
4) 4. Lastly, since the diabolus and Christ are both spirit sons of God, they are spirit brothers.

J| 5.24.12 @ 2:04PM

@ KyMouse

I do not agree with what you are suggesting.

Go to North Korea website http://www.korea-dpr.com/ and KKK website http://www.kkk.com/

They all say they are good organizations.

Bad people don't say they are bad like birthers or racists would not admit they are birthers or racists.

Do you see the logic here?

I will assume you are Mormon since you are quoting many Mormon Theology.

You must believe your god is Blue-eyed, Blond hair White dude.
You must believe Joseph Smith's teaching that Adam and Eve were in Jackson County, Missouri.
You must believe Baptizing the dead whoever they are.
You must believe there are many gods.
You must believe your god physically had sex with Mary.
You must believe you can go to higher layer of Mormon heaven if you give lots of money to Mormon church other than mandatory 10%.
You must believe you will get your own planet to rule with many wives after life.

Can you see how Mormon brain-washing teaching sounds?

Bev Gunn| 5.21.12 @ 8:00AM

Years ago as a school board member we were on a search for a school superintendent. The one we selected was Mormon. Over my lifetime I have developed friendships with many Mormon believers. Knowing that in our strict Baptist area that faith is a large issue I went to my Pastor to speak to him. I asked him if he thought that the people of this school district would be bothered about the faith of our soon to be Superintendent. He responded to me some very sage advice. He said simply, "You were tasked to find the best educational leader for this district, not the spiritual leader of the school district."
That was spot-on. Now, we are tasked to find the man who represents best of how to find our way back as a nation. I don't care one wit about Romney's faith and I dare say most Americans are more worried about the course of our nation than any other issue. If the Dems try to make something of Romney's faith we are facing so many more problems that we can identify their red herrings.

c. j. acworth| 5.21.12 @ 8:25AM

Exactly. We are looking for a President, not a Pope.

Teaghan| 5.21.12 @ 9:08AM

The left didn't seem to give a rat's ass about obama's "faith", so why the worry about Romneys? Look at the money he has given to his church? Has obama given to mission work? Would like to see those stats. You're right. We are hiring a president, not our pastor.

Purp| 5.21.12 @ 10:55AM

Who cares what religion a president to be is? It has nothing to do with being president.
Far more troubling is Richie's economic plans - oh, what are those again? Nothing specific, just like his foreign policy. But vote for him please. NOT.

W| 5.21.12 @ 1:54PM

Then why did you say Romney is too Mormon? What does too Mormon mean?

Vern Crisler| 5.21.12 @ 2:00PM

I would care if he were a Moslem. However, if it weren't for the absurd articles by AmSpec writers touting Romney's Mormonism, no one would care.

9thID| 5.21.12 @ 11:06AM

Right, the lesser of two EVILS choice is now between a GOP Socialist and LDS cultist vs. the Democrat Socialist and Liberation Theology cultist...

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 11:12AM

The true evil would be to allow Obama to get re-elected.

9thID| 5.21.12 @ 4:59PM

If only there were a believable and tangible difference between the two. Mitt RomnyCare is ObamaCare. Both are homosexual activists. Both are gun control. Both are abortionists. Both are deficit mongers & Big Gov't nanny state everything. Both are serial liars who will use any form of tyranny to achieve their ends; be it neo-Marxism, fascism, crony capitalism, etc... The only choice between the two is if you want to go over the cliff with your eyes open or closed...

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 6:29PM

Can you say, Republican administration?
Can you say, Good bye Eric Holder & gang?
Hmm, let me try and think real hard here.

Purp| 5.21.12 @ 9:46PM

That is the problem - we just got rid of the worst president in history and his Republican administration. OMG, we don't need that back again. The country will be destroyed completely.

spike59| 5.22.12 @ 6:04AM

no, we HAVEN'T gotten rid of the worst president in history-yet

but in November, we WILL

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 11:58AM

Purp just said exactly what some supposed conservatives say about not voting for Romney!

Roadmaster| 5.21.12 @ 8:33AM

I read The Book of Mormon when I was 10. Unfortunately for them, I had read the Bible at 9 and thus being inoculated against falsehoods, learned a new word - plagiarism. Even to me as a boy it seemed to be a total ripoff of God's Word.
Everything Mormons believe can be tested by the Bible, and will be found wanting. The easiest is the accuracy of their "prophet," Joseph Smith, who did not prophesy one single thing which came to pass, not one.
My starter wife had a copy of a book written at the turn of the 20th century by the 22nd and last wife of Brigham Young. In it she tells of the giant scam the leaders of the church perpetrated (and laughed amongst themselves about), maintaining themselves as the rulers and elites, holding all power and controlling assets of their flock.
That being said, some of the nicest people I ever knew were Mormons. Maybe they were waiting to slip a shiv in my back, but I've been screwed over by more Jews.
Romney has my vote regardless. My religion (born again) garners me lots of prejudice also.

James Jones| 5.21.12 @ 10:37AM

I have read both too, and have concluded that no serious student of texts can dismiss the Mormon's book as plagiarism. Those who do show merely that they have no done the hard work of explaining the sheer complexity of the book that Smith produced, as an ignorant farmboy, in a matter of a few months. The historical data alone related to its production are much too complex to be summarily dismissed.

Ryan| 5.21.12 @ 10:50AM

Something similar could be said about Mohammed, who produced some extremely complicated material under similar circumstances.

My take is that both Smith and Mohammed were brilliant men deceived possibly by the devil himself to produce their material.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 10:58AM

Hey they said Bill Clinton was "brilliant", too. He was brilliant at deceiving others, smooth as silk. That's about it.

James Jones| 5.21.12 @ 11:22AM

Similar yes, but only on the surface. Similarity is a handy way to start an investigation, but not very convincing in the end. Your use of "possibly" tends to the same imprecision. Once you really investigate the historical record, similarity between Mohammed and Smith goes out the window as an explanation. (I have yet to read the evidence that Mohammed and his work were essentially a later construct -- but it intrigues me.)

Ryan| 5.21.12 @ 12:20PM

Not necessarily. If the historical record about both are true, then there remains that brilliant men coming up with fantastical, complex religious tomes from spiritual experiences which may have been enacted by devils is a plausible explanation.

EVEN with Smith's witnesses, and the inability to discern between the two (AND good theology from bad).

KyMouse| 5.21.12 @ 12:10PM

I don't have my copy of "The Book of Mormon" here with me, but I think it claims that early American Indians were descended from Israelites who migrated to the Americas. How many non-Mormon archaeologists have found evidence of that?

It also claims, if memory serves, that those early American tribes had horses, oxen, iron and steel tools, and grains such as barley and wheat. Also cement.

There are a number of web sites that discuss Mormon anachronisms, along with Mormon explanations for why those words....um...actually mean something else.

Ryan| 5.21.12 @ 12:21PM

Mostly correct.

And Mormons typically try to explain everything away with some sort of convoluted proofs...when the simpler way is to figure out that they simply aren't true.

Poqui| 5.21.12 @ 6:17PM

All religious texts have to be taken in faith. For example, there is no record in Egypt of anyone named Moses having lived there or even captive Israelites. There is no record of the plagues or Pharaoh's army drowning in the depths of the Red (Reed?) Sea. There is no record of the Jordan River parting and what record we do have contradicts Joshua's claim of taking over the land if Israel. Does that make the Bible false too?

One Mediator Jesus| 5.21.12 @ 9:17PM

"All religious texts have to be taken in faith."

Not at all. Faith makes Reality real. You either have it, or you don't.

Having it doesn't make something that's already true, true, but it does makes it real.

And having it doesn't make something that's untrue, true.

Some Religious texts are false. Whatever doesn't match up with what's written in the Bible, both Old & New Testaments, is false, no matter what Religion, and no matter what famous person says it.

Ryan| 5.22.12 @ 8:37AM

Faith is not necessarily blind, particularly when there is evidence to the contrary. Consider this: I often hear the "taken on faith" issue as a Mormon argument, but it is more often stated when evidence to the contrary is presented. In orthodox Christianity, you often don't find that. MANY archaeological proofs exist for historical Biblical claims, and VERY few go against the text. Such cannot be said for Mormonism - look objectively as you can at the Book of Abraham history, for example.

One Mediator Jesus| 5.22.12 @ 11:56AM

"MANY archaeological proofs exist for historical Biblical claims.."

Yeah, like especially Creation itself.

"Ever since the Creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, His Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom. 1:20.

Dwight Rogers| 5.23.12 @ 4:44PM

A study out of California sparked the DNA issue. They wanted to prove the Book of Mormon false. They gathered American Indian DNA and when they did find some DNA from the middle east (where the Book of Mormon people migrated from) they threw it out because it didn’t help them make their case. Now that’s not very scientific. Considering the current state of DNA studies (see below) no one can prove the Book of Mormon either true or false using DNA research. Here’s why I say that:

DNA-related attacks on the Book of Mormon misrepresent scientific findings by falsely claiming that Native American DNA originated solely from Asia. While Asia appears to be the leading source of ancient immigrants to the Americas, there is plenty of room for additional groups coming to the continent, and several studies have found evidence for non-Asian DNA that cannot be explained by modern European admixture. Some of this evidence is found in pre-Colombian burial sites with DNA connections to Europe and the Middle East.

Approximately ninety percent of the Amerindian population died out following contact with the Europeans; most of this was due to infectious disease against which they had no defense. The elimination of 90% of the gene pool makes it impossible to prove or disprove whether any specific gene type was there before Columbus’s discovery of the New World. In fact, non-LDS molecular anthropologist Michael H. Crawford wrote that the Spanish Conquest "squeezed the entire Amerindian population through a genetic bottleneck. ... This population reduction has forever altered the genetics of the surviving groups, thus complicating any attempts at reconstructing the pre-Columbian genetic structure of most New World groups," (The Origins of Native Americans, 1998).

Another effect on population dynamics, known as the "founder effect," happens when few individuals -- the founders -- leave a larger group and carry with them only a small subset of the genetic markers from the original population. This subset may not be typical of the source population. This may have happened with the founding Book of Mormon peoples. It is often assumed that if the Book of Mormon is true the people would have typical Jewish DNA. The problem with this is, we don’t know what typical Jewish DNA looked like 2600 years ago. We don’t know if Lehi’s DNA was typical Jewish DNA. Lehi was not of the tribe of Judah.

We don’t have a sample of DNA from any of the individuals in the original Book of Mormon party that migrated to the Americas. We don’t have Lehi’s DNA. Consequently, taking samples of current American DNA does not good because we don’t have any original DNA to compare it to. We don’t know what the original Book of Mormon peoples DNA looked like. You can assume that Lehi & party had typical Jewish DNA but that is not known. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon states that its people are from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. These tribes were taken captive and dispersed. The tribe of Judah, which remained, became the basis for the Jewish people. Nobody knows what Ephraim or Manasseh DNA looks like. The area of Jerusalem has been overrun multiple times with new people. People have been taken captive multiple times. This tends to remove DNA types and insert new DNA types. We don’t know what the DNA was in 600 BC.

Additionally, Ephraim and Manasseh’s mtDNA came from their mother, Asenath, who was Egyptian. Egyptians have haplogroup T DNA and, interestingly, Haplogroup T shows up among American Indian DNA. Could T DNA be the smoking gun for Middle Eastern migration to the Americas before Columbus? Well, we don’ know what Lehi & his party’s DNA was. There is no way to prove anything one way or the other until we dig up Lehi’s body and we know it is his body and until we also dig up some Ephraim and Manasseh DNA from 600 BC Jerusalem for comparison.

MtDNA studies have found that the DNA of Jewish people dispersed throughout the world closely reflect the DNA of the host population and have little in common with other Jewish groups. Mitochondrial DNA studies have had little success in linking different Jewish groups. The University of London study found that females of Jewish groups from different geographic areas were largely unrelated. Nicholas Wade wrote that the women in nine geographic areas from Georgia to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men. The identities of the founding women are a mystery because their genetic signatures are not related to present day Middle Eastern populations or to each other. Mark Thomas and colleagues report “In no case is there clear evidence of unbroken genetic continuity from early dispersal events to the present. Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNA’s within the different Jewish groups with any confidence.”

Dr. Shey Cohen of Harvard University observed “The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown.” Even close mtDNA homologies would not necessarily prove an Israelite origin for the mtDNA of modern Jews but the conspicuous absence of such homologies provide strong circumstantial evidence of non-Israelite origins for the mtDNA and much of the other genetic makeup of most modern Jews. With no evidence that modern Jewish mtDNA accurately represents the mtDNA of ancient Israel and considerable evidence to the contrary, claims of Israelite lineage cannot be either confirmed or denied based on mtDNA data.

Then we have the problem caused by "genetic drift," which basically boils down to "lucky genes." As the number of generations increase from a founding mother to her descendants, the chance of her DNA disappearing increases with each generation. For example, if you go back two generations (to your grandparents), there are four individuals (two parents for each of your parents), two of which are female (grandmothers on both sides). Only one of these grandmothers will have passed on her mtDNA to you, regardless of whether you are male or female. You will not have the mtDNA of one of your grandmothers.

DNA markers can and have disappeared. Most of the DNA studies done on Native Americans -- the root of Book of Mormon-DNA criticisms -- are based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is inherited from the mother. If we go back 10 generations, you have 1,024 ancestral slots, or number of possible contributors to your genetic makeup. The actual number of progenitors is actually lower than the number of slots because some of these people will show up in several places of the available 1,024 ancestral slots. Of these 1,024 potential ancestors, 512 are females. Only one of them has contributed your mtDNA

Using the mtDNA mutations as a guide, it is possible to trace all modern mtDNA lineages back to a single African female ancestor. Geneticists have named this ancestor the African "Eve," but despite this name, she was not necessarily the only woman on the planet. The mtDNA lineages corresponding to other women simply disappeared because their offspring failed to produce additional continuous female lineages (a phenomenon known in population genetics as genetic drift), because of natural or manmade calamities that wiped out a significant portion of the population (an event referred to as a population bottleneck), or because they were selected against due to the detrimental effect of specific mutations. This African "Eve" was the only one that was successful in perpetuating her mtDNA lineage through the generations. Therefore, because of genetic drift, population bottlenecks, or natural selection, the mtDNA lineages observed in today's population do not reflect the full range of mtDNA variation that occurred throughout human history.

Some ancient Native American genes have apparently gone extinct. mtDNA analysis of ancient Native American brains from Florida show genes that may have been lost from the Americas (Schurr et al., 1990, p. 619; see also Pääbo et al., 1988). Similar conclusions come from analysis of blood groups. Genes for the B and AB blood types have been largely lost in the Americas, but these genes were present in pre-Columbian humans in Peru.

Actually, non-O genes were certainly in the Andes before Columbus, based on the study of ancient Peruvian mummies by M.J. Allison et al. (1978), who found all ABO blood group types (A, B, AB, and O) in mummies dating from 3000 B.C. to 1400 A.D., but in mummies dating after that period to 1650 A.D. only types A and O were found in their work. Clearly, some genes were lost in the Americas

For example, Ribeiro-dos-Santos (1996) examined mtDNA in ancient South American Amerindians and found that 39% of the samples were not in the four major mtDNA haplotypes that dominate modern Native Americans, and less than half of these other types could have been haplotype X (Ribeiro-dos-Santos et al., 1996 and 1997). They state that the evidence "permits us to suggest that, in addition to the postulated bottleneck effect during the migration from Asia to the Americas, the depopulation effect started by European colonization in the 16th century contributed to the reduction in genetic variability of Amerindians" (abstract, Ribeiro-dos-Santos et al., 1996).

O'Rourke et al. (2000) also discuss the extinction of genes, noting that other authors have called the nineteenth century the "extinction period" for southern South America, and state that it "is not obvious that samples obtained from populations undergoing decimation and extinction would be representative of precontact groups. Indeed, reduced populated size during this period would be expected to be accompanied by reduced genetic variability" (p. 232).

Monsalve (1997) also discusses several other studies supporting the concept of other ancient haplotypes in the Americas. Thus, there is a possible disconnect between modern DNA studies of surviving populations and ancient Native Americans

Some LDS critics claim that Y-chromosome DNA (Ycs), inherited from the father, supports the lack of "Israelite" DNA among Native Americans. Y-chromosome markers, however, can have the same problems as mtDNA markers. Population geneticist Ugo Perego, who currently lives in Utah, was born and raised in Italy, where he traces his ancestry back to the mid-17th century. His Ycs, however, is rare among Europeans and is mostly found in east Asia. Perego has three young sons, all of whom carry this same Ycs marker. If data was collected from Perego, his sons and other Italians in his Utah neighborhood, this "founder effect" would incorrectly suggest that a large portion of Italians are paternally related to eastern Asian populations.

For an example of disappearing DNA we note the recent DNA study of more than 131,000 modern Icelanders, which discovered that many DNA markers disappeared in just over a century. According to DNA tests, more than 86 percent of Icelandic males descended from just 26 percent of potential male ancestors in their family tree who were born between 1848 and 1892 and also lived in Iceland. Among the female population, nearly 92 percent descended from only 22 percent of potential female ancestors in their family tree who were born between the same years as the male ancestors.

Thus we see that the vast majority of the Icelandic ancestors -- from just 150 years ago -- did not contribute mtDNA or Ycs to their descendants. Conversely, a small minority of Icelandic ancestors from the same 150 years ago contributed the bulk of DNA markers to their now-living descendants. Most of the Icelandic people living today who have genealogical records showing that their ancestors lived in Iceland 150 years ago could not detect DNA for those ancestors.

Norse migrations to the Americas show that it is possible for major migrations to a new land to occur, persist for centuries, and then go into oblivion, much as happened for the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. Non-LDS scholar Dr. James Dixon makes several related points about the Norse in his 1993 book Quest for the Origins of the First Americans (pp. 130-132, as cited by Sorenson, pp. 8,9). He states that the Norse settlement in Vinland "demonstrates that various groups of humans could have attempted colonization of the American continents . . . only to subsequently disappear" while "evidence of their passing would be extremely difficult to detect in the archaeological record." Speaking of the extensive and long-lasting (about 500 years long) Norse settlement in Greenland, Dixon notes that Norse genes could have been mixed with native Greenland populations (Inuits or "Eskimos"), masking their European genetic ties. As a result, "the original Norse civilization of Greenland cannot be demonstrated ever to have happened based on genetic analysis of living people." That's an important lesson to keep in mind for those Book of Mormon critics who expect to see clear evidence of Semitic genes among American Indians from the Nephite colonists.

The evidence from mitochondrial DNA, passed on by mothers only, is supplemented by evidence from Y-chromosomes, which are passed on by fathers only. Native American Y-chromosomes show a variety of haplogroups, including haplogroups 4 and 1C (Karafet et al., 1999), which are also characteristic of Jewish peoples (Hammer et al., 2000). Haplogroup 1C is common enough in the New World that it has been proposed as a major founder haplogroup for the New World. Karafet is one of the co-authors in Hammer et al. (2000), and his 1999 paper is cited.

Some critics have scoffed at finds of European, Middle Eastern, and even Jewish DNA in American Indians. They say that these are contaminations which occurred after Columbus and do not represent pre-Columbian DNA. However, they cite no evidence for this that I have seen. Certainly there was mixture of European DNA with American Indians after Columbus. However, we cannot assume that all Old World DNA found in Native Americans is due to post-Columbus admixture.

DNA researchers usually go out of their way to avoid any chance of post-Columbus admixture when they carry out their research. Unfortunately this means that they often reject, out-of-hand, any samples containing DNA types that match Old World DNA other than Asian. It seems to be assumed that Asian DNA is always OK but anything else must be a recent admixture. Because of this, real evidence for other migrations may be routinely rejected. Lehi, from the Book of Mormon, was from the tribe of Joseph, one of the lost ten tribes taken captive and dispersed to the north. The DNA types his party carried is unknown. The tribe of Joseph inhabited the northern part of Israel. Studies by Shlush et. Al. (The Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near East, 2008) show that the X haplogroup may have originated in the area of northern Israel (near where the tribe of Joseph resided at one time) and then spread to other parts of the earth from there. X haplogroup is found among American Indians.

Samples of American Indian DNA which match European, or Middle Eastern DNA may be the smoking gun for Lehi’s DNA but those types are always assumed to be contaminated. No doubt some are but is it scientific to assume without finding out? Even some Asian DNA may be Lehi’s DNA type. Haplogrop X is found in northern Israel and has been shown to match Native American X better than the Asian X as shown in a study by Shlush.

The haplogroup X occurs most among Algonkian-speaking groups such as the Ojibwa, and has been detected in two pre-Colombian north American populations. Today, haplogroup X is found in between two and four per cent of European populations, and in the Middle East, particularly in Israel. The complex origins of the first Americans has also been highlighted by an analysis of thousands of skulls from around the world. A team of anthropologists from the University of Michigan found that the study confirmed the complex origins of Native Americans that have been suggested by recent archeological and genetic studies. Many pre-Colombian skulls demonstrate cranial features of Europeans but not current American Indians.

According to Science Magazine: "haplogroup X was only confirmed in the genes of a smattering of living people in Europe and Asia Minor, including Italians, Finns, and certain Israelis. The team's review of published mtDNA sequences suggests that it may also be in Turks, Bulgarians, and Spaniards. Also Shlush et. Al. (The Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near East, 2008.) show that X haplogroup found in northern Israel is likely a refugium of X DNA which was more widely typical of the area in the past. The conclusion of the study includes this interesting statement: “It is thus likely that the global diversity of this haplogroup evolved in the Near East and adjacent regions of western Eurasia.”

Pre-Columbian

Mitochondrial DNA studies performed on remains of ancient Mayans were from the Postclassic period of a.d. 900-1521, just prior to European colonization. [González-Oliver, 2001] These are from pre-Colombian burial sites which eliminates the problem of post-Columbus contamination. Findings include the identification of a single individual (1 out of 16) whose mitochondrial haplotype failed to correspond to any of the known Asian haplotypes.

Carvajal-Carmona et al. (2000 - available online), studied Y haplotypes of the Antioquian population of Colombia. This study found DNA alleles in Colombia that are absent or have low frequencies in European and African populations but reach high frequencies in Middle Eastern populations (Kayser et al. 1997; Thomas et al. 2000). If post-Conquest contamination took place we might expect it to come from the Spaniards who, after all, were the Conquistadores. The Colombian alleles matched Basque and Catalan populations (of Spain), at frequencies of 3.9% and 3.7%, respectively. However the alleles were found at a frequency of 16.2% in Antioquia and were also found among the Arabs, Berbers, Saharawis, and Tachelhits at frequencies of 8.9%, 0%, 10%, and 11%, respectively. This suggests some Semitic ancestry for Antioquia.

Interestingly, haplotype 4, which carries a DYS388 allele with 16 repeats, corresponds to the Cohen modal haplotype (CMH) of Thomas et al. (1998). This haplotype has frequencies >10% among Jewish populations but seems to be rare in Arab populations and has been proposed as an indicator of Jewish ancestry (Thomas et al. 2000). Two other haplotypes (12 and 29) are one mutational step away from the CMH. Haplotypes 3 and 5 also match haplotypes detected among Jewish populations; they correspond to haplotypes 2 and 27 in Thomas et al. (2000). In that survey, Antioquian haplotype 3 was observed only among Sephardic Jews. These matches occur in haplogroup C and, on aggregate, imply that ~14% of the Antioquian haplotypes could have a Jewish ancestry.

The risk of ignoring apparent outliers and the incomplete nature of the "Asia only" model for Native American origins is discussed by David A. McClellan (2003), assistant professor of integrative biology at Brigham Young University:

Another haplotype, C10, [Rickards et al., 1999] found only among the Cayapa people of Ecuador in relatively high frequencies (30 percent) does not appear to be closely related to any other extant human haplotype. This is another example of a DNA type in the America’s of unknown origin.

Stone and Stoneking (1998), who investigated a burial site of pre-Columbian skeletons dating to about 1300 A.D. Of 152 individuals, 102 could be assigned to one of the four primary haplogroups (A,B,C,D). Six "did not possess any of the characteristic markers of Asians and were designated as belonging to a group designated "other". The remaining 44 samples did not yield enough DNA for analysis.

The non-Asian DNA did not match DNA from the two researchers most likely to have accidentally contaminated the samples. It did match DNA from two Finnish individuals. Even though multiple samples were taken, and extreme care was exercised to avoid contamination, the pre-Colombian samples still yielded non Asian European DNA

The outlier DNA from the pre-Colombian site was discarded as a recent admixture despite multiple independent extractions of these samples. It seems to be a common practice to assume that all unexpected results are post-Columbus admixture even though there is no evidence for that.

An excellent discussion of the very real problem of contamination of ancient DNA samples is provided by Kolman and Tuross (2000), who also provide an interesting example in which pre-Columbian genetic material from a Native American appears to provide reproducible evidence of European origins. In spite of numerous efforts to exclude contamination, this result, identically reproduced in multiple careful trials, is presented as a case of "obvious" contamination because it was non-Asian:

The fact that this haplotype is found at high frequency in European populations (17%, Richards et al., 1996) and is not found in presumably ancestral Asian populations argues against this interpretation and against the inclusion of this sequence in a NewWorld database

Occurrences among indigenous Americans of cde or A or B of the ABO were once attributed to recent admixture and databases were "corrected" accordingly. It is now understood that some of these unexpected alleles arrived in antiquity