Discussion with A Mormon on Translations

Chelsea: What prompted you to come onto Mormon.org today?

Me: a question

Me: is that ok

Chelsea: yes of course!

Me: it is about the 8th article of the church

Chelsea: alright

Me: has the church stated or defined what the proper translation of the bible is?

Me: should one be using the Joseph Smith Translation?

Chelsea: The church leves the Bible as is, but we have the Joseph Smith Translation to help clarify doctrine that was changed etc.

Chelsea: We use the King James Version of the Bible.

Me: so is the King James the Proper Translation of the Text?

Chelsea: we know that that is not the proper translation completely, because through Revelation Joseph Smith has helped clarify some scriptures. That is why we say in the 8th Article of Faith, we believe the Bible to be the word of Goid as far as it is translated correctly

Me: hmmm

Me: so what is wrong with the King James?

Chelsea: There is just things that have been translaed incorrectly or doctrines that have been changed through mans understanding.

Me: do you have an example

Chelsea: an example is in John 1:1

Me: ok

Chelsea: In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God

Chelsea: In the Bible it says :In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Chelsea: The first was a translation from Revelation through Joseph Smith.

Chelsea: This clarifys it and helps us to understand that the word means the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Word of God—He created all things and was made flesh—John baptizes Jesus and testifies he is the Lamb of God—John, Andrew, Simon, Philip, and Nathanael believe in Christ and follow him. Christ.

Chelsea: alot of people think that that verse means that God and Jesus Christ are the same person. We know that they are two seperate beings but united in purpose

 

I have to admit, that in all my discussions with Mormons, this is the first time that I have heard this, and while I am not 'surprised' I am shocked at the lengths the Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church go to re-translate the clear texts of scripture. 

However, this is where things get more interesting. Go to - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/1 and notice the header which reads:  Christ is the Word of God—He created all things and was made flesh—John baptizes Jesus and testifies he is the Lamb of God—John, Andrew, Simon, Philip, and Nathanael believe in Christ and follow him.

Does it seem odd that they wouldn't clear up the misconception that Jesus is God right here? I mean why even publish something that is so bankrupt and clearly wrong, would be a good question for our Mormon friends.

The JST (Joseph Smith Translation) reads as follows:

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;
5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not. 

....

14 And the same 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.

It seems that there is a bit of a hiccup here because it seems that Ol' Joe forgot to re-translate verse 14, because this would mean that the Gospel was made flesh... and then dwelt among us as who??  ... Jesus ... Maybe? If not then who...? 

Despite Ol' Joe's best effort it seems that he missed something, or perhaps the church will get a word about the JST here.

Conversation with a Mormon -- Forgiveness and Repentance

Dustin:Hello, how may i help you?
Ken: I was wondering if you could explain something to me about Forgiveness
Dustin: sure?
Dustin:great what would you like to know about it?
Ken: A friend of mine, who is a Mormon, was explaining a parable an LDS leader told about forgiveness where you owe God, and Jesus takes your fine
Dustin: ok
Dustin: Well every body sins and there is no way for use to pay heavenly father back of doing this wrong
Ken: ok
Dustin: the only way we could pay him back is to sacrifice something that is perfect and without sin
Dustin: and jesus christ is the only one who was perfect besides god.
Dustin: so jesus volunteered to die for our sins
Dustin: so we could return to our father in heaven. but it's not a free ride. we still have to repent.
Ken: ok, so when Jesus Died on the Cross, I don't understand how my debt transfered, so that I owe him and not the Fatherhttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3888890053009864274
Dustin: ok well have you ever had to pay some one so you barrowed money from some one else?
Dustin: its like paying a cell phone bill with a credit card.
Ken: ok
Dustin: you have payed it you just barrowed money from some one else.
Ken: ok
Dustin: jesus is like the credit card he was the only one who could pay heavenly father back.
Ken: ok
Dustin: so our debt goes to jesus. Did that help at all?
Ken: yes
Ken: I don't then understand how I am getting out from under my debt
Ken: if forgiveness is defined as "It is to pardon or excuse someone from blame for an offense or misdeed"
Ken: It doesn't seem like that happens, I never get excused
Dustin: well you aren't, how you return the debt to jesus is to repent.
Ken: I just get passed off
Dustin: like paying the credit bill when it comes.
Ken: So it is up to me to pay off Jesus?
Dustin: well it does when you repent you are getting the excuse or pardon from jesus
Ken: If I am doing something, how is it a pardon
Dustin: yes yes it is completely up to you. you have to choose to repent to pay off jesus
Ken: it seems really hard
Dustin: you have to repent. do you know what it means to repent?
Ken: To turn around, seek forgiveness, and then Not do it ever again?
Dustin: yes it is hard. its how we show were are sorry for the things we done. but its not impossible. i have repented for things in my life.
Dustin: yes that is repentence
Ken: how do you know you won't do them in the future?
Ken: I mean, as a dude, can you tell me that you or I go a day without lust?
Dustin: you don't it is completely up to you. if you choose to do them or not. but true repentance you will strive to not do them again
Dustin: i know exactly what your talking about.
Ken: So is Repentance about actually not doing it again, or just meaning to not do it again?
Dustin: the point were you have to repent is if you act on that lust.
Ken: so just lusting is ok, but when I act on it, that is when it becomes sin?
Dustin: Repentance is not doing it again. lust is the temptation.
Dustin: yes
Ken: ok
Dustin: i'm a missionary and i still look at girls and have the same temptation but i do not act on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portions of this chat were changed (spelling corrections and double lines removed), emphasis was added. My Purpose for this is not to trap Mormons, but rather for us to see what they will actually say.

I have to say that is was the most telling and troubling conversation I have ever had on Chat with a Missionary. The amount of redefinition that occurred was unthinkable, and this is most shocking when it comes to Sin.

The other thing that I am a bit confused about, and maybe a Mormon can comment on this, When He (Dustin) said that Jesus is the only person who is perfect besides the Father, he seems to be leaving out the Holy Spirit ( who is described as a personage in LDS theology) and Elhoim's Father (God's Father).

Terms Defined - LDS Testimony

In Mormonism, the term Testimony is defined in "True to the Faith" (2004 Edition) as:

A Testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The Foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father live and loves us: that Jesus Christ live, and that He is the Son of God, and that he carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that we are led by a living prophet today; and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior's true Church on the earth. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.

Conversation with a Mormon -- Objective Truth

This has to be one of the most unique and fun conversations I have ever had at Mormon.org. That said, I want to give a brief intro to this one; I was connected with "Austin" prior to this exchanged, and I asked him if he believed in Absolute Truth, which he said he did. This is where our conversation went from there....

Austin: Hello Ken
Ken: hi Austin
Ken: we were just speaking a moment ago
Ken: and i think you must have missed something
Ken: i said
Ken: I asked you if there are two contradictory testimonies, if they could both be true
Austin: Yes, I remember
Ken: did you have an answer for that question?
Austin: Yes
Austin: I said, if they are really contradictory then they cannot both be true. But I also said that sometimes two testimonies can appear to be contradictory until further information shows that they are not
Ken: ok
So this is Good, he accepts the 1st law of Logic
Ken: So then, If you have two testimonies that are contradictory, say yours and a Jehovahs Witness... What would be the proper way to find which is true?
Austin: we believe that you can ask God and gain your own testimony
Now I know that mormons are big on Personal testimony, however, notice that the appeal to personal 'revelation' as opposed to something objective. In answering this question, Austin, rejects the very idea of knowable absolute truth, because EVERYONE claims to have been given truth by God.
Austin: everyone has the right to believe what they think is best
Ken: You didn't answer the question
Ken: you avoided it
Ken: How do you find which testimony is actually True?
Austin: what do you mean?
Ken: how can one find which testimony is truth
Austin: how would you find out which of two results to the same scientific experiment were true
Austin: you would do it yourself and see what result you got
Austin: the same applies here, I thnk
Austin: ask God for yourself and gain your own testimony.
Gaining, a personal testimony doesn't mean one is objectively true.
Ken: to gain your own testimony is a bit of a relativistic concept that is equal to saying I feel this one is true. How do you know objectively or absolutely which is true?
Ken: we need to find truth which is outside of man correct?
Ken: if it is from God as you have said.
Austin: that's right
Ken: I guess, i don't understand why you wouldn't appeal to something outside of man
Austin: God
Austin: God is outside of man
Austin: you should ask God for yourself
Ken: because even with a personal testimony... both sides claim God
Ken: So If I ask God and lets say that it is revealed to me that the Jehovahs witness has it right, would that be an objective basis for me to say that you are wrong?
Austin: Yes, a personal spiritual experience only provides reason for the experiencer to believe. It does not provide objective reason for anyone else to believe.
Ken: so you have no objective truth, it is only true for you
Ken: you couldn't say that the Jehovahs witness is wrong
Austin: I believe that it is true for everyone, but that does not force anyone else to believe it. I cannot force my beliefs on anyone else
Austin: I believe they are wrong, but no, I cannot prove it. That is between God and other individuals
Ken: i understand it is "what you *believe* is true for everyone" but that isn't objective is it?
Notice that he is claiming to KNOW truth for all of us, aka the LDS church, but that he can't prove it.
Austin: From my personal experiences, I know that the LDS Church is God's organization on Earth just as much as I know that I exist. But you're right, I cannot give that knowledge to anyone else.
Austin: It must be received by God, through His Spirit
Ken: i notice that you haven't appealed to scripture at all when trying to find what is true... does experience trump scripture in terms of what is true?
Austin: no, of course not. we can compare what we think we recieve from God with scripture. But we must also gain a testimony that scripture is true. Learning to recognize the Spirit in our lives is a process
Ken: so does scripture trump experience?
Austin: Truth trumps all. In order for scripture to mean anything to you, you must accept that 1) God exists and that 2)scripture comes from God 3) God has Truth and 4) God freely gives truth
Austin: that acceptance can come from God himself
Austin: scripture and experience must go together
Ken: so scripture has no value outside of personal belief in/about it
Austin: do you believe that scripture is the word of God?
Ken: depends on what book you mean by Scripture
Ken: but yes
Austin: why?
Ken: because they claim to be (scripture) and they are accurate in prophecy, history,ect.
Austin: we believe that God can give us more definite knowledge than that, through His Spirit. We believe that God can only be understood through His Spirit
Ken: how are personal 'testimonies' that can be mistaken via emotionalism, or personal agenda, or presuppositions, more definite then written words?
Austin: how can you know for sure who wrote the words? or whether they have not been changed since originally written? or whether the writer was mistaken, etc.
Notice now that he Attacks Scripture, rather then answer the question. This is called a Red Herring.
Ken: hmm, good questions
Ken: when you look at the number of Greek manuscripts that exist, there are actually very very few textual variants...
Ken: basically, the authors esp. of the NT claim to be speaking for God, and that other apostles are speaking for God
Ken: and we have very early manuscripts that show that the text has not been changed
Ken: moreover if you look at the writings of the early church fathers, every verse of the entire bible can be constructed, save about 30
Austin: The best I can say is that if you had experienced in your life, what I have experienced in mine...there would be no doubt that it was from God. We believe that God can lead us and we can learn to recognize His guidance more over time.
Ken: so you would say that you know in your heart that the LDS church is correct?
Austin: not just my heart. I know in my heart, mind and soul. I know that as much as I know anything else.

Ken: ok
Ken: thank you for your time
Austin: you're welcome

Conversation with a Mormon -- The Fall of Man

This is a pick-up conversation from a discussion I had with a mormon fellow, Andrew. The topic is moving from Harmatology, to the fall of man. Most people who study Mormonism are aware of there concept of "falling-up"

Ken:
So, based on that, wouldn't it be better to not tell anyone that anything is sin, so that they arnt held accountable for it?
Andrew:
No... because then we would never learn anything... we would be as naive and innocent as we were before we were born. God wants us to experience, learn, grow, make mistakes and then correct ourselves, so that we can grow and become like him.
Andrew:
If we never have to choose between right and wrong, we can never grow, learn, or change for the better.
Andrew:
We become better when we learn how to make right decisions.
Ken:
But didn't God Make adam and eve without the knowledge of sin, and say it was "very Good"
Ken:
what is better then Very Good?
Andrew:
Well Im sure he was pleased with their physical bodies that he created... his creation (their bodies) is what he called "very good"
Ken:
wouldn't there character and nature also be included in his creation?
Andrew:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=references&last=2+Nephi+2%3A23-25&help=&ro=checked&search=2+Nephi+2%3A22%0D%0A-25&do=Search&show=%0D%0A%0D%0A
Andrew:
These scriptures help in understanding what they were like in the garden of eden.
Ken:
So would you say that Sin Entering the World was a good thing?
Andrew:
In the long run it is.
Andrew:
Thanks to the Atonement of Christ.
Andrew:
this article might help:
Andrew:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=89e2de3e3559b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Andrew:
Im sorry Ken but I have to be going soon. It has been a privilege to talk with you and I hope I have been of some help.
Ken:
So have you ever thanked God that there is Rape, Murder, Adultery, Homosexuality, Bestiality, Pain, Suffering, Bitterness, Lust, Pornography... ect? Sense they are good in the long run
Ken:
or rather it is good that they are here?
Andrew:
Im sorry to have upset you. Those are terrible things that men have chosen to do because God gave us "agency." Those are unfortunate side effects caused by man, but if God never gave us "agency" we would still be naive, innocent children.
Andrew:
He's giving us an amazing chance.
Ken:
oh, don't mistake me for being unset... but it seems religiously backwards to have a form of closet approval of the effects of sin
Andrew:
Well I have to go now, but please read those linked articles and log back on again soon! God bless you

The Church Fathers of Mormonism

Orson Pratt said this :

there is no doubt that the holy ghost came upon mary to sanctify her and make her holy and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of the highest that when he should overshadow her she might conceive being filled with the holy ghost hence the angel said as recorded in matthew that which is conceived in her is of the holy Ghost that is the holy ghost gave her strength to abide the presence of the father without being consumed but it was the personage of the father who begat the body of jesus and for this reason jesus is called t the only begotten of the father that is the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the father there were millions of sons and daughters whom he begat before the foundation of this world but they were spirits and not bodies of flesh and bones whereas both the spirit and body of jesus were begotten by the father the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth. The Seer Page 158.

A response to Sargon

I was looking around on a Mormon Apologetics discussion board and found this post, and saw fit to respond to it.

Mainstream Evangelical Christians believe that no man, including Joseph Smith of course, can view the face of God and live. This belief is based mainly off of one verse in the OT, and a few choice proof-texts in the NT. Rather than engage those specific verses at this time, I wish to point out another facet of the discussion.

LDS often quote OT passages which unambiguously say that certain OT prophets viewed the face of God and survive. To reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages, Evangelicals such as Mr. Slick of CARM have devised a way interpret these OT passages through the lens of the NT.

Mr. Slick of CARM tries to explain the discrepancy this way:

QUOTE

Second, though they are most definitely are occurrences of God being seen in the Old Testament, these are not manifestations of the Father. They are the appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.

Mr. Slick then continues to list a few places in the OT where God is said to have been seen. However, Mr. Slick offers no further explanation for why his view is justified, other than mentioning that the NT text prohibits God the Father from ever being seen by man. What I wish to point out is an obvious double standard being used by critics of the LDS church.

Mr. Slick, and others, contend that the apparent contradictions in the OT involving theophanies can be properly understood if we use chronologically later revelation and scripture to interpret it. A short afternoon spent in the CARM chat-room with a poster named Neolights reveals that it is an acceptable and common practice used by Evangelical Christians. Mr. Neo assured me that it was perfectly permissible to interpret the OT texts through the lens of the NT. It was also candidly admitted that the OT writers did not have that advantage.

I of course have no qualms with that methodology, in fact I believe it! What irks me however is the double standard. While Evangelical Christians can use later revelation, the NT, to interpret older revelation, the OT, Mormons apparently are not given that privilege. Mr. Slick from CARM and his associates use NT scriptures which they believe teach the Trinity, and interpret the theophany passages in the OT with them. They interpret the passages by suggesting that it is Jesus, not the Father, who is seen in these passages. The immediate context of these passage gives absolutely no hints of this perspective, and the OT authors certainly had no such idea in mind.

Mormons also have the privilege of interpreting both the OT and the NT texts through the lens of modern revelation, whether or not Evangelicals like it. We understand the passages a bit differently then our Evangelical brethren, but our methodology is the same. We use scripture to interpret scripture. Evangelicals need not believe that our scripture is inspired and true in order to understand this right that we share.

We reserve the right to interpret Biblical statements about who can or can't see God by the information provided to us in modern revelation and scripture.

The argument made from OT texts by Evangelicals which suggests that God’s face cannot be seen by virtue of NT passages cannot be upheld without employing a hypocritical double standard, one which has been and should continue to be exposed.

Sargon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I for the most part understand where Sargon is Coming From. He says that Mormons have the same right to understand previous revelations with more current revelation. In principle I understand where he is coming from, because he is correct in that we do the same thing as Christians. However, Christians practice a little thing called "hermeneutics." This is the art and science of biblical interpretation. We, as a rule reconcile, all verses so that there is not a contradiction within the revealed Word of God. Mormons, however, do not do this. Mormons look at the most modern revelation, and then use previous texts to support that revelation and discard any text that does not agree with the modern revelation. Mormons Do not use hermeneutics. Remember that Mormons don't even truly believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, they state that they believe the bible so long as it is correctly translated. So I would suggest asking our Mormon Friends what verses in the bible are incorrect?

Let me sight some examples of this -

James 1:5 - If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.

Now a Mormon would look at this and say that Joseph Smith prayed to God, as one who was seeking for truth and asked which church he should join.

As a Christian, I see several problems with this. 1) The context of the Book of James - v.2 tells us that it is to the believers, Those who are saved. Was Joseph Smith saved when he was asking God for Wisdom? I Would argue that he wasn't. He makes no statement of faith, no confession or statement of regeneration. 2) Rom 3:11 says that no one seeks for God. So how is it that Joseph Smith was seeking for God?

So the idea that God answered Joseph because of his plea for wisdom is out of the picture, because the verse doesn't apply to him.

This is the same thing that Christians do to both orthodox beliefs and to Mormon beliefs, Check the doctrine against the bible, and see if it checks out, does it contradict any bible verses?

The Goal here is to strive for correctness. And to be honest, I don't see Mormons doing this with the bible.

Who Speaks Truth in Mormonism

So I have been doing more reading on the topic of Mormonism, thus the all posts about it. This is another. The question is as follows:

Who Speaks for the Truth that is in Mormonism? Why should any Mormon believe the unofficial view LDS Apologists and BYU profs. or what has been said by Joseph Smith?

Lets examine this question in light of the peoples in the Americas.

Joseph Smith says - That all American Indians are "Literally descendants of Abraham." Ohio Journal 1835-1836, Nov 9.

The BOM supports Him.

Mormon 1:7 - The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.

This is Echoed by Previous Prophets also, " The Term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as Polynesians, the Guatemalans, The Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo and others." - Spencer W. Kimball

But LDS Apologists and BYU Profs. are saying something different in light of what is found by DNA tests that Show that Native Americans are Asiatic. (Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy and Genetics" ; Michael Crawford, "The Origins of Native Americans" ; D.C. Wallace et, al., "Dramatic Founder Effects in Amerindian Mitochondrial DNAs" And Others)

LDS Prof. Jeffery Meldrum says this, " The necessary experiment simply cannot be designed that would rufute the historicity of the Book of Mormon as the record of a small population ( small intermingled population ) on the basis of DNA studies and population genetics. [emphasis added]"

Modern day Mormon scholars see the problem and are trying to get around the issue. They are saying it is a small group of people, that this group of people that both the BOM and LDS prophets said are very large, are small.

So who do you put your trust in as a Mormon? Prophets or Scholars? There is only one truth and each side is opposing the other. The Secular evidence is against the Prophets. So who is your trust in?

The problem of the First Vision

In the official First Vision account it says this ( Paraphrased) Two Persons appeared, one said to Joseph, " This is my beloved Son, hear him." These persons were Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. This occurred in 1820 when Joseph was 14 (in his 15th year).

However this seems to be very Problematic. Setting aside 1 Tim 6:16. We have D&C 84. Which was received on Sep. 22-23, 1832. Verses 21-22 say this -

Quote:

And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the {Melchizedek} priesthood, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

And this is what is said on lds.org

Quote:

This greater priesthood was given to Adam and has been on the earth whenever the Lord has revealed His gospel. It was taken from the earth during the Great Apostasy, but it was restored in 1829, when the Apostles Peter, James, and John conferred it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Do you see the Contradiction here? Joseph Smith didn't get the Priesthood until 1829. But He claims that he Saw the Face of God and Lived in 1820. This is denied by MORMON scriptures.

The only logicals Conclusion are: 1) that the Joseph Smith did not See the Father like He said making him a Liar. 2) He made a False Prophecy in D&C 84, and thus is not a True Prophet of God.

The Philosophical Problem of Mormonism

There are some serious issues with Mormon's having a Living Prophet. The most serious of these is that Mormon Truth is not Absolute.

Consider what Ezra Taft Benson says in Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet...

Therefore, the most important prophet, so far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore, the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each week in the Church Section of the Deseret News, and any words of the prophet contained each month in our Church magazines. Our marching orders for each six months are found in the general conference addresses, which are printed in the Ensign magazine.

The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Basically, what this means is that when it comes to LDS Doctine, there is nothing concrete. Mormons can only find truth in what is being taught currently. So when someone looks at the D&C section 132 and the need for polygamy it is superseded by official decree 1, but only if it is supported by the modern prophet.

Where does this leave truth. Mormons seem to have an evolving truth, where it is one thing one day and another the next. This is so philosophically problematic.

First, Truth is absolute. Relativism is not a philosophical option. There is one truth, and it can not change or waver or it would not be truth. God is Truth. So then, what do we do with statements within Mormonism that contradict each other? I know Mormons will tell me that " That ( referring to the old [ like blood atonement or anything in JOD or HOTC]) was truth for that time, and today we have truth for our time." They do truly believe what it is that was taught by elder Benson.

This, however, creates a serious issue with the concept of evolving truth, that sometimes completely contradicts what was previously true. This rational is at is core covered in logical fallacy. Consider the Law of Non-contradiction. What Mormon's, in fact, have to say about certain teachings of past prophets is that, it was true but it isn't true now. This violates the first law of logic. It also violates the Law of Identity (which says something is what it is), because truth becomes not truth. It is not what it is. Truth by nature must be stagnant, and unchanging. There is no such thing as 'new' Truth. We can discover truth, yes, but it has always been, and it doesn't change, it isn't new.

For Mormons, truth is determined prophet to prophet. They have no stagnant truth. If The prophet were to come out today and say that homosexuality is acceptable, what could Mormons do? They couldn't even go to the Standard Works, because the (believed) truth therein, is less true then the Prophet.

Another area where this comes into play is when people pray about the truthfulness of the BOM. I know that it is frustrating when Mormons pray with people about the BOM and the person says they feel nothing. Or when a person like myself prays about the BOM and it is revealed that it is false. There is a disconnect of truth here. Because the book is either true or not true. And if Mormonism is truly the only way to return to Heavenly Father and wants people to return to him (Eze 18:32) why would He not give such a confirmation? Most Mormons attack the person, for being willing or sincere enough to hear from God. This, however, creates several theological issues, which I will not delve into here, but perhaps will at a later time.

I would also submit that sometimes Mormons just don't know what the truth is on a given subject. I will cite two examples to make this most clear. First, Where did the battles recorded in the BOM take place? There has been no archaeological support for any of these 'Great Battles.' Where is the Truth? Where did they take place? Why Haven't they been found after 60 years? Why are there no maps in the BOM outlining these things? Second, What are the "gold plates" made out of? LDS apologetics cite FARMS will say they are made out of a material called Tumbaga, which is a mix between Gold and Copper. Yet the Church and Mormon documentation disagrees. Mosiah 8:9 says that the plates of the Jaredite's are Pure Gold. And we also see this is a May 15, 1999 article in the LDS Church News - He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit." So what is the Truth? Are they Gold or Not? How Can any LDS be sure of these things? Personal Testimony, The usual answer leads nowhere, but to more problems within the nature of truth, in that it can be one thing for one person and another for a second. This is Not truth. How Do Mormons Live Without Solid Truth?

The Mediator - An LDS Parable Examined

The Mediator

---

There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt. He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later. So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important. The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come. But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full. Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”

“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”

The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”

“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”

“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”

There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.

“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also? There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time. The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”

As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”

And so the creditor agreed. The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”

“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You saved me from prison and show mercy to me.”

“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”

And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was satisfied.
- Elder Boyde Packer, Gospel Principals pg. 75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a nice story but there are some serious problems with the theology of the atonement here, that I thought were worth pointing out.

1. You still owe a debt that you do not have the power to pay.
2. There is no Law of Mercy, only justice. The only reason God Gives us mercy is because He is so kind. God is Just and must punish lawbreakers.
3. We never agreed to a contract. * I am assuming that this is the LDS pre-existence idea* for which there is no biblical support.
4. We can not make Token Payments, Our righteousness is as filthy rags to God. Our Hearts are wicked, and we only think to do evil continually.

Most of this can be shown with Isa. 64:6 Jer. 17:9 Gen 6:5, But there is also the lack of biblical support for points 2 and 3. Thus one must assume that they are false until proved to be true.

What Makes Christians Unique?

Have you ever considered the question, what makes Christians different or unique from non-Christians? I heard it posed today and in my desire to respond I figured that it would be prudent to write it here. When considering the question there is one thing that jumps out at me before anything else, and that is rebirth. Human nature is abundantly sinful, we are enemies of the things of God and our hearts are desperately wicked (Isa 64:6 and Romans 5:10). This is not true of Christians. We have been reborn, remade, reformed into something that doesn't look anything like what one used to be. However that does not become immediately obvious.

Another thing that is not always apparent but I think is a clear mark of Christians is that God dwells in them. This is often difficult to measure, as we must look for the fruit of the spirit in someone's life. However, when doing this one must also distinguish Godly fruit from righteous ( in human terms) actions. This is the difference between a Christian serving the needy and a Buddhist serving the needy. They are equal in human terms but far different in heavenly terms.
Christians also have a far different perspective, then non-Christians. Most Christians ( true Christians, not cultural or pretend christians) perspective is that all there actions are purposed for the glory of God. That is there end and all that they do is working towards that end. Non-Christians have a far different end, self. Their end is self-serving. They are enemies of God and lovers of self.

Here is another one for you, and a will warn you that there is theological content in this paragraph, so if you can't handle that... (ok, I was trying to be funny and witty here, but i think i sounded like more of a jerk.) Christians are unique because in there life they are not trying to be "good people" [ whatever that is as no one is good as we are guilty of breaking the commandments of God] but they are trying to follow the Four Commands of Christ. Quick can you name them? Well, i will supply them for you, because i am just that nice.

1. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Matthew 22:37
   
2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39
   
3. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. - John 15:12
4. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20

So How did you do? Christians strive to follow these commands, it shows that they are really Christians and that they really love Christ ( The person who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I, too, will love him and reveal myself to him. - John 14:21). This is something that is unique to Christians, keep in mind that non-Christians, are enemies of God.

I think that something else that Christians can do that other people can't do is logically defend there belief system and holy text. Honestly, I would challenge someone, anyone to find a factual error that can not be attributed you scribal error ( there are about 50 known scribal errors in our modern bible, which for an ancient document is amazing). This is far from true for a group like Muslims and the Qur' an. This is even true for such recent books like the Mormon scriptures, (aka book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham) which have far more errors and outright changes in them compared to there originals which are less then two hundred years old, in comparison to the Law of Moses which is about 3,000 years old.

Anyways, I have been writing this entry for quite a while, three weeks or so, quite contemplatively and wish to continue as it strikes me, but want to at least put this out there for consideration.

A breif Response to Bot.

Friends, we have a problem. We see in our age , like in previous ages that heresy is trying to be called orthodox Christianity. Today we see all kinds of heresy being called Christian, perhaps it is those who claim to be the "true Church" or those who claim to have the "true Gospel" but it all falls short of the bible. So let's examine one claim of a Mormon, bot. I do apologize for him, his confusion as to the concept of truth, as to the bible, as to hermeneutics, as to what it means to follow Christ.


Here is a statement from his blog. "A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose." Now in and of it self this statement may be true, however, it fails in it's concept of hermeneutics. We can not say that the New Testament is the only authority on God. So What does the Old Testament say? Well lets look at What God said through the Prophet Isaiah.

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.
(Isa 43:10-11)

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."
(Isa 44:6-8)

I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.
(Isa 45:5-6)

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
(Isa 45:18)

Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
(Isa 45:21-22)

"Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
(Isa 46:8-10)


So how many times did you count God saying He is the Only God?? ( the answer is 11) So as a Mormon, how do you address this in light of your Polytheistic ( Well, truly Henotheistic) beliefs? The Bible is Monotheistic, but Mormonism Believes in many God's. The only answer is that you don't believe the Bible.

hmmm.... Do Christian's Reject the bible as truth? I think not.

The Mormon Method

So lets say that you agree to meet with the Mormon Missionaries. Lets say you want to meet with them, one would think that a person who, "has the truth" would fight, beg and plead to be heard. Well not true with the Mormon's. After a meeting with the bishop, and two missionaries, I received a call ( two days later). The missionary called to tell me that we couldn't meet. When discussing this a very interesting idea came out, that I haven't noticed before. This fellow basically told me that if I want to know that Mormonism is true, I should Believe it and then study it. Can you see how backwards this is?? Here is an example... I have a great new idea for a device that acts like a parachute, only it only uses air power. So why don't you go jump out of a plane and we will see if it works. This is what the Mormons what you to do. They don't want you to study their doctrines, or what their prophets have said, No they want you to just believe it all, and then study once you become a part of the cult. Logic is what Mormons lack, pure and simple.

Meeting with Mormons

(Knock, Knock) Hello, my name is elder ..... Hi, I'm from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

How do you feel when this happens? Let me tell you, I love it! I love meeting with Mormons. There is no cult on the face of the earth that it is easier to refute. Now, please don't get me wrong I like Mormons, they are great people, at least in human terms I would love to have one as a next door neighbor, as I know they would feed the cats, without fail. However, when looking at empirical evidence, ie doctrine, Mormonism falls far short of truth. For the heck of it I will offer a quick proof.

As Bishop Lewis said to me today, Mormonism stands or falls on the vision of Joseph Smith seeing Jesus and the Father in the woods. Well, lets look at it briefly shall we? Can anyone see God? 1 Timothy 6 say this speaking of the Father - (v.15-16)Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Well It looks like it falls. God the Father Can't be seen. Well that was easy.

Now then, let me say something so that I am not misunderstood. We need to love our Mormon neighbor's. We need to give them the gospel, we need to use the law to bring them into repentance. They need to be converted so that they can pass from death into life. Because do not be mistaken, If someone dies believing Mormon doctrine, they will be in Hell for Eternity. So lets be evangelistic.

My tips for dealing with Mormons are as follows: 1. Be kind, terms like Cult, Anti-Christ, Hell bound, and the like, might be accurate they won't get you very far. 2. Never Go Alone, Never. I don't care how smart you are, how faithful you are, you are playing with fire, this is Spiritual warfare and it isn't a game. 3. Like all people, don't expect quick results. Be systematic in how you attempt to cause doubt in the Mormon Church. That should be the end goal, as those who are caught up in it, look to the Church for Salvation. 4. Learn Mormonism from Mormons. Have your local missionaries over for dinner ( and keep them coming back with food, as they don't often eat well, they are young guys that rarely know how to cook). 5. Don't tell them what they believe, every Mormon is slightly different, simply state what previous Mormon writers have said and move on from there, based on them. 6. Finally, take a person centered approach, and do so in love.

There are a lot of good sources for information out there, and a lot of bad ones. Utah Lighthouse Ministries (Ultm.org) is very good, as is Mormonism Research Ministries (Mrm.org), and of Course Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries (Carm.org). Go and talk to a Mormon today.