Whine and Song

I find the "Brain" at the Morg (my abbreviation for Mormoninfo.org) is out trying to defend the indefensible, and is getting scathing reviews because of it. Rob Sivulka, the primary mover and shaker in the Morg, has written an article at Theologyweb.com . The article is ultimately a justification of his just plain ineffective missionary work. It was suppose to explain why people who put together a missionary outreach and training directed at Mormons were not really correct. He cites himself as an authority on the correct methods of reaching out to the Mormons, based on 20 years of mostly part-time missionary work. He derides the approaches of many lifetime residents and/or full-time pastors in Utah who put their experience into the prepared materials. And he proves how truly out of touch with Mormonism he is by once again asserting the Adam-God teachings of Brigham Young are binding on the modern LDS Church, even though they were never fully explained, taught or ratified as LDS doctrine. In his mind, if someone wants to engage in those ineffective friendshipping techniques, go ahead and waste your own time.

Reviewers in the Theologyweb's forum are seemingly unpersuaded. With remarks ranging from there is a place for both types of missionary work to it is totally wrong, most recognize that yelling and attacking the faith of others is not how Paul, John or Peter would have done it, and there is no New Testament model for picketing and yelling. While the remarks are civil, they are not ginger. One writer observes the Morg brain's argument is a mass of contradiction, and really self-justification for being so ineffective.

Notably, the people who actually talk to Morg because of Confrontational Evangelism (or CE) are not usually the ones Morg will speak with. I can name several people who try to engage Mr. Sivulka when he is out there with his signs, slogans and false representations-filled handbills, and he refuses to speak with them. However, he turns to Friendship Evangelism (FE) if people will engage him when he thinks they don't know about Mormonism. But since he offends so many more knowledgeable Mormons than he ever speaks with, heaven forbid he might compare his method to the Bible. The scriptures order missionaries and members alike to not offend or be arrogant in presenting their faith (1Cor 8:13; 1Pet 3:15) and he frankly violates the explicit direction given by Christ and the Apostles: Teach the kingdom of God and Christ.

We literally have no examples anywhere of any teaching to non-Hebrews attacking their beliefs. None. But Mr. Sivulka rationalizes both his ineffectiveness and his non-Christian approach by saying simply "because I like to, and I fail to see what is wrong with it." So now that is mature and well reasoned from the scriptures. He speaks of Paul's habit of going to a new town and visiting with the local synagogue. But he leaves out that Paul left when they asked or forced him to go. He didn't stand outside and carry a sign or shout pithy couplets. He did not hand out brochures, or even attack them to the general public. He moved on.

Of course, Mr. Sivulka is happy to liken himself to the Apostles when it comes to getting paid or being a suffering servant, but he hates to think anyone might have their authority, or that he should act like they did.

So many contradictions, so little time.

Who is the Clay?

Paul taught the Roman Jews about the predestination of the descendants of Abraham to be the vehicle for the salvation of mankind. He used a visual device, the Potter and the clay, to recall to scattered Israel who had called their nation. For any Jew reading Paul's letter, there is no question the clay is the nation or vehicle chosen by God to bring salvation to the world.

Sadly this understanding is lost on much of modern Christianity. Specifically it is lost on those professors of Calvinism. Because study of the Old Testament is usually quite abbreviated for most Christians, they cannot see the direct parallels in Paul's teaching, and even his citations from the Old Testament are forgotten. For example, Romans 9:20

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

This is a citation from Isaiah 45:9

Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

Moreover, the passage is a very specific reference to God's use of Israel to save and bless all humankind: Is 45:15-17

15 Verily thou [art] a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. 16 They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together [that are] makers of idols. 17 [But] Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

What's more, Paul's citation of this Passage in Isaiah parallels Isaiah referencing the downtrodden condition of the nation of Egypt:

14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, [saying], Surely God [is] in thee; and [there is] none else, [there is] no God. Isaiah 45:14

Since few people reading the Bible these days do the kind of scripture study to find out the context of these verses, many are confused, thinking God has chosen specific people for salvation, condemning others out of his unknowable wisdom. The context of these passages is clearly not about individual salvation.

In verse 21 he makes clear allusion to Jeremiah 18:6. Here are the two passages for comparison:

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Jeremiah 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

The Greek New Testament by Nestle Aland cites this passage as the source of Paul's words/thoughts here. Adam Clarke in his commentary makes the same point, that Paul's discussion is about the Nation of Israel, not individuals. Reading the commentaries by the Calvinists, however, we find they very often do not offer any analysis of the underlying passages to which Paul is referring (see JFB and Matthew Henry and Calvin, for example).

While Paul refers to God hardening the heart of Pharoah, he also notes that Pharoah hardened his heart. In much the same way rain can make a field grow, corrupt seed can grow weeds of the same act. Thus God's demonstration of signs hardened Pharoah's heart, but could have converted another person. Personal Choice came into effect. While the clay is addressed as "O man" in questioning God, it is clear that Paul is talking about the nation of Israel and its long term salvation and blessing in this passage from his comments in Romans 9:23- 10:1, which 10:1 summarizes:

1 ¶ BRETHREN, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

The vessels are nations. The Gentiles and the Jews. Verse 25 talks about the passage in Hosea 2:23: "I will call them my people who were not my people." Individuals are saved, but the vehicle for that salvation is Israel, and the adoption into that Vessel by all peoples who act by faith.

We are the clay by adoption and birth.

I hope citing the scriptures and reasoning from them is helpful to understanding the Biblical doctrine of Predestination. Peace.

False Lessons at the Morg

One of Morg's FAQ's deals with 2 Peter 1:4. I remember when my children were just starting to learn about math. They were so unencumbered by facts or study. They just made it up as they went along. We just encouraged them to have fun, and hoped they would eventually catch on.

This is the way I feel about the folks over at the Morg (Mormoninfo.org). They are so liberated from the dreary need to argue or present facts, they feel totally happy to write whatever falls onto their webpages. No need to have them actually tie to history or scholarship. Isn't that sweet!

As usual, they avoid actually quoting the verse they comment upon, so let's start there:

[God's] divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. ⁴Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (NIV, 2 Peter 1:3-4)

The words in red are selected because they indicate what gift is being given to the saved. A good place to start with understanding is with the authoritative Greek-English lexicons. The following are brief definitions:

Divine: Greek theios which BDAG describes as "1. Pertaining to that which belongs to the nature or status of deity, divine." So Peter uses the same word in both verse 3 and 4. It is not adopted power, man by nature power or idol power, but by Divine power. So if we then participate in the Divine nature, Peter does not mean semi-divine, idol or man-like nature.

Participate: Greek koinonos which BDAG defines as "1. one who takes part in something, with someone, companion, partner, sharer...b. in something...2 Pt 1:4." It means for example to be an equal partner in a business or committing an act, such as adultery.

Nature: Greek phusis which BDAG defines as "2. the natural character of an entity, natural characteristic/disposition... sharers in the divine nature 2 Pt 1:4".

One of the major blows to the repetitive, unBiblical statement that our nature cannot be like God's is this verse and its specific use of the word koinonos. Participation, as Peter uses this word, means to be a partner or joint participant. The question is joint-participant in what? Divinity or godliness. How do we participate in being divine as a joint partner with God without being ourselves divine? Because the word means a joint-participating partner in the divine nature, and has the historical meaning of an equal partner or participant, it is philosophical double-talk to say God stays divine in this venture, but we do not.

Further, look at the powers which are included: Omniscience (1 Cor 13:12); Judgement, which previously was solely a divine function (Ps 50:4-6, 1 Cor 6:2-3), all things which Christ inherited including glory (Romans 8:16-18), and since Christ received by inheritance His divine name, through which mankind is saved, so shall we receive that name (Heb. 1:4); Dominion and Lordship over all creation (Gen 1:28; Ps 8:3-8; 1 Cor 3:21-23); Sit upon the Throne of God with Christ, being worshipped (Rev 3:21). Receive an eternal crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4).

On the last item, receiving an eternal crown of glory, there is such a basic question to ask of the Morgites that one wonders how they could miss it. How can a created being become eternal? I of course don't believe we are a created being in the sense of the post-Biblical ex-nihilo creation. But even if we were, is Morg arguing that men can become eternal beings? Being eternal means there is no end, ever. So what makes our future any different than the future which God has? Since we are properly called gods as to the nature of our salvation, as even Morg notes on their webpage, if our final existence, power, glory, knowledge and dominion are the same as God and Christ's, what is the difference between an uncreated but eternally lasting being and the created, eternally lasting being who possesses all of the same powers and abilities of God?

Lastly, when did anyone who is not LDS hear taught in their church that they would be as God? Morg only reluctantly acknowledges this to be the final destiny of saved people (I say reluctantly because they repeatedly say there are not multiple real gods and man cannot become like god, but then when confronted with 2 Pet 1:4 must acknowledge that men can be properly called gods, they just lack eternal existence prior to their life on earth).

Saved mankind are properly called gods as to their final state. We boil down to arguing whether part of a human being has eternally existed or not. I will discuss that next. It is the height of hypocrisy to say Mormons are creating false gods, but then acknowledge they actually do correctly describe mankinds final state.

Someday Morg's nephews have some great stories to look forward to. Children love fantasy.

God and Gods for real Christians

One of the spectacular mis-statements in religious discussion is the concept of "traditional" Christianity. Like the myth's of a "traditional" Thanksgiving or Christmas, "traditional" Christianity is actually just a parody of God's Christianity. While there are many wonderful and committed people who firmly believe in Christ and not of the LDS faith, few critics of the LDS Church are willing to discuss the history of many of the Christian "traditions". The answers are obvious upon review, so let's talk about a few of them.

1. The Bible taught there are many REAL gods and divine beings. For various reasons the language of Isaiah has been abused into a denial of the reality of multiple divine beings. But thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Dt 32:8-9) and the discoveries of the Ugaritic and Ebla texts revealing Hebrew religious origins, there is little doubt about original Hebrew beliefs. Here are the scriptures: 2Chron. 2:5; Ps 82:1, 6; Ps 86:8; Ps. 95:3; Ps 97:7, 9; Ps 135:5; Ps 136:2; Daniel 2:47; Matt 22:43-44; Matt 26:64; Mark 12:36-37; Mark16:9; Luke 22:69-70; John 1:1-2, 18; John 10:30-38; John 17:3, 21-23; 2 Pet 1:4; Acts 2:33; Acts 5:31; Acts 7:55-56; Acts 17:18, 28-29; Romans 8:5-6; Romans 8:14-21, 34; 1 Cor 8:5-6; 1 Cor 13:12; 1 Cor 15:40-58; Eph 1:17, 20; Col 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 8-9, 13; Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12; Heb 12:2; 1Pet 3:22; 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 John 3:2; Rev 1:4-6; Rev 3:21; Rev 5:13; Rev 7:10; Gen 1:26; Gen 3:5,21;

By the way, the viciously uninformed anti-Mormon website, Mormoninfo.org, or Morg, acknowledges that early Christians did believe men could become gods. They say : "Even though the Bible never uses this syntax of "gods" for humans in their glorified state, there is nothing unorthodox about speaking about humans becoming "gods"...". Morg then adds this unBiblical caveat: "...so long one keeps in mind a clear distinction between the nature that God has, and the nature we always will have."

Since we have a clear statement of an anti-Mormon group that the LDS conception of becoming gods is not unBiblical, but instead we are fighting about the question of changing ones' nature, let's discuss that now.

2. Early Christians and Jews believed man would have the same NATURE as God. The pre-trinity Christian Fathers taught Christ would change our nature. Here is a lengthy quote by Irenaeus, dating around 180 AD. For those who do math on their fingers and toes, this is about 200 years before the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as now accepted by western Christianity:

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.”⁴⁴¹⁹ But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men,” setting forth both truths—the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves. For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature.⁴⁴²⁰ For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil."
(Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV, 38:4. The footnote 4420 reads: "That is, that man’s human nature should not prevent him from becoming a partaker of the divine.")

Sorry for the big quote, but this clearly shows the early Christian understanding of men becoming gods like God. It also clearly illustrates that the Morg and other parties who assert orthodoxy because of men not being gods by nature are in fact those liberalizers of the original Christian faith. Morg must demonstrate why we should accept their innovation of the original Christian faith. For my part, I am defending what the Bible says about the destiny of mankind.

I will post a clear discussion of 1 Peter 1:3-4 to show that the text of the New Testament is similarly explicit in discussing the nature and powers of men who become gods.
Peace.

True Missionaries like Ravi Zacharias

I had tickets to the Tabernacle speaking event of well known evangelical preacher Ravi Zacharias, but literally on the day of the event I had some church duties arise. But after reading the cry-baby discussions on anti-Mormon websites about his visit, let me point out a few things.

1. In the past 5 years, Rob Sivulka, Jude 3 Missions, Aaron Shafovaloff, Bill McKeever and Pastor Chip all combined have not spoken to as many active LDS members and leaders who were paying attention. Screaming or passing out brochures and CD's turned into instant trash are not the same.

2. It is sad that Richard Mouw felt it necessary to apologize to a bunch of largely uninformed, lying and unChrist-like cry babies who have no concept of real, effective missionary work. There is a reason Mormon converts, at least 60% anyway, stay actively Mormon for life, while the uninformed, inactive "converts" the "missionaries to the mormons" get are back to their NASCAR and Sunday shopping sprees after taught the great 'truths' delivered them. Mr. Mouw did what all the street belchers have never done: he got 2500 Mormons to listen to him make the case for his religious perspective.

3. Anti-Mormons have largely had reason-ectomies, are very self-righteous, hypocritical, and could not read or understand what 1Peter 3:15 means even if it was tatooed in reverse on their foreheads so it was in front of them while they engaged in their primary activity of self-agrandizement. "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, "

Mormon missionaries, by far the most productive missionaries in the world, don't carry protest signs, don't attack other religous traditions, respect the right to assemble of other religions, and disengage teaching people when the people ask them. What do they know? I appreciate the sign carrying because it makes it so easy to identify those either sincere and uneducated about the LDS Church, or those too afraid to actually engage in defending what they think they know.

Rob and Aaron tell people all the time when I try to engage them that I just want to waste their time. This is a lie. I engage people to correct the lies and falsehoods Anti-Mormons teach, and it seems to those who don't really care about the Truth that sharing truth and undoing the anti-Mormon brainwashing is a waste of time. Talk with me at the next conference. I am down there between a couple of sessions, usually Sundays. Then decide if I am a time-wasting crackpot, or an informed LDS convert who frustrates the lies with documentation of the anti-Mormons. It is pretty easy when you speak with me to tell. On the other hand, Aaron, Rob, Mike and the rest are welcome to walk away like they all did in October. It is a free country, but then don't tell people that the Mormons are the ones who won't interact with other faiths' ideas.

How many converts did all your groups get last year? That's what I thought. LDS got 242,000 last year. And those people, did they change their hearts, and their lives? LDS: 120 new stakes and 700 Wards in the past 5 years. Again, that's what I thought, though I honestly wish people of all faiths, including the Mormons, actually lived up to the principles of their faith.
Truly, PEACE

CSI Tools for Illogical Morgs

Mormoninfo.org, or as I affectionately refer to them, Morg, once again demonstrates they probably struggled at their logic exercises in high school. They venture into dangerous waters, where some knowledge of science would be a good thing. Sad days at the Morg.

Morg starts by assuming DNA evidence is a negative relative to Mormon truth claims. It is if you are so unschooled in biology or genetics that your idea of advanced study is a video tape from Confused Hope Ministries. But their starting point is false (big surprise). It is like thinking liberals are going to tell you about George Bush without bias. If you have half a brain, you will say "What makes you so smart?" Great question. Let's figure it out.

Morg, what did an original Israelite look like, genetically speaking? Modern Jews have almost no traceable DNA in common. We have practically no samples of any pre-Babylonian captivity Hebrew DNA, and no idea what the genetic makeup of the Lehites were. It is a false and deceptive premise to assert the tools exist to detect DNA among any of the pre-Columbian native Americans when you do not know what to look for, and how extensive the inter-marrying was for the past 2600 years.

Basically, Morg seems to think they have stumbled onto a crime-lab quality tool in the DNA evidence. Yet they are literally taking modern DNA samples without any suspect DNA to compare it too. The only crime is the assault on reason we keep seeing coming from the Morg.

Peace.

Ezekiel's Sticks were really Books

In a continuing effort to refute the qualitatively deficient and self-serving work about LDS doctrinal issues at http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=6, the website I affectionately call Morg, I will address what is one of their truly biased and intellectually bankrupt points: Attacking the LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 37.

Don't get me wrong. People can disagree about the meaning of the symbols used in Ezekiel 37. Indeed, virtually all scholars do. But to say that the LDS position is not likely simply because it might support the LDS position is just circular reasoning.

The work by Keith Meservy attacked by Morg was in fact excellent. It was excellent because it does not rely on an anachronistic interpretation of scripture to be supported by the passage. Read it for yourself at LDS.org under Church Publications, HTML text, the Ensign, Feb 1987, page 4. Instead it brought to light the work of non-LDS scholars on significant archaeological work directly bearing on the passages in question. Indeed, Morg conveniently fails to address the fact that the Revised English Bible, an ecumenical translation work by Protestants and Catholics from the United Kingdom, completed in 1989, incorporated a reading so close to the traditional LDS interpretation, if you did not know it was a non-Mormon's writing, you may think FARMS completed the work themselves.

First, Morg is just ignorant of traditional Jewish/Hebrew usage of sticks. Anyone who has ever attended service at a synagogue knows even today Jews symbolically keep their scriptural scrolls wrapped around a stick. This has its origin in the historical fact that records were kept on sticks, and quickly ran out of space.

This tradition exerted powerful linguistic influence. Granted Morg has shown no propensity to study anything linguistic, so it is probably asking too much of these self-appointed anti-Mormon crusaders to be willing to put down their signs and open a book. Especially a factual book written by real PhD types, not purchased from mail order schools like so many of the "scholars" among the anti-Mormon crowd.

So Meservey correctly cites historical sources showing the Hebrew word etz had a common meaning of writing tablet. That meaning has been largely lost over time, but fortunately was saved from eternal historic banishment by a miraculous archaeological find in Iraq in 1953. Morg's response: silence. Typical Morg sophistry. Don't deal with issues, just explain why your theology must be correct, regardless of historicity. Moses' rod was considered the Word of God, and was also considered a book. Ezekiel specifically describes an etz, which is both a writing tablet and a symbol of the reuniting of Israel and Judah. Both Jerome and Eusebius say it was a book. Not exactly well known LDS scholars.


So here is the translation from the REB:

This word of the LORD came to me 16.’O man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, “Judah and the Israelites associated with him”. Then take another leaf and write on it, “Joseph, the leaf of Ephraim and all the Israelite tribes”. 17 Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in your hand.

OK, we disagree on what is the correct meaning of the passage. The LDS point of view, that these books are the Bible and the Book of Mormon brought together with the gathering of Israel and Judah is a viable, defensible position with at least some ancient support. Look here for a good, fact pact LDS discussion of this: http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/ezekiel.htm . Certainly there is no certainty for the Morg position. But philosophically that is what Morg is really all about.

Morg does not know and cannot say what is the correct, absolute and unerring meaning of this passage. They just are sure the Mormons are wrong. Frankly, that is a pathetic and empty excuse for faith. If this sounds like a pretty harsh assessment, it is not. It is just the truth. This is why Morg will not engage people who actually are familiar with LDS beliefs or have any depth of scholarship. They prey on the spiritually immature. They attack the sincere LDS who may make a scholarship error, yet have a sincere faith, just as they do in this particular FAQ. They do not present the true story of the LDS faith. Bringing me back to my old saw: If the truth of the LDS Church is so bad, why present slanted falsehoods about it?

Another Body at the Morg: LDS Position on the Bible

In a continuing review of the misconstrued position of the LDS Church at the poorly researched website, Mormoninfo.org (or as I like to call it: MORG), I will take up their FAQ points dealing with the LDS view of the Bible: "Why do you trust the Bible as the Word of God? Hasn't it been corrupted like everything else over time? (www.pleaseconvinceme.com)" and "The Bible or the Book of Mormon? (Gregory Koukl)".

Previous reviews of their FAQ's have found them wanting in both scholarship and facts. It seems they are like the young woman who could not explain to her new husband why she had cut the end off the roast. Her mother had taught her to do it. So they asked the mother. Her mother had taught her to do it. So then they asked the grandmother. Well, her mother had always done it that way. So they visited the 95 year old great grandmother to ask her the reason for this carving off of the roast. "Oh that", she said. "My oven wasn't big enough to put the roast in without cutting off the end."

Morg seems to be very gifted at reading what other anti-Mormons have written, but not burdened by the effort of having done much of their own research. At least, not into Mormonism.

Mormons believe this about the Bible:

Article of Faith 8 "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Mormons also believe this about the Bible: It contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Just like the Book of Mormon.

D&C 42:12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

But we also believe:

1 Nephi 13:28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

How can these be reconciled? I like the words of Bruce Metzger, considered by many the greatest New Testament scholar of our times. Not LDS by the way. In his book, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (3rd Ed.), Oxford University Press, 1992, page 246, he concludes by giving this advice:

"All known [ ancient copies of Bible books] are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors... Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and [the textual critic] will be compelled to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting [ancient Bible texts], cannot be known."

Sounds very much like the LDS 8th Article of Faith. Or this:

The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible (Under "Text, NT") reminds us that:

It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform. (This is a secondary source. I have not personally seen this particular citation, but there is no reason to doubt its accuracy. See http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/

This also sounds like the 8th Article of Faith, by a group called the Christian Defense Update, which incidentally classifies Mormonism as a non-Christian cult. Under the heading of Bible Contradictions: A Brief Explaination we find their third explanation as follows:

(3) Bad translation. Not all Bibles are good translations. Whenever you translate from one language to another you have the potential for mistranslations. Also some cult groups have bad translations that are slanted to match thier doctrine. The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures (Jehovah's Witness Version) is a good example of a very bad translation. http://www.cdu.jesusanswers.com/custom.html

But wait, you say, what about all the Josh McDowell "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" type stuff. Five-thousand texts of the New Testament cannot be wrong.

Well, frankly, Bible proponents (and I am one myself) tend to dramatically overstate the evidence because most people do not have the ability to investigate for themselves. Of the 5,000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, no two are identical. None. They have huge areas of general agreement, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of variations between the texts. Most are totally unimportant, because the correct renderings of what the original text said is pretty obvious. But not always.

And that is sort of the problem. There is not one original of any of the Gospels, letters or epistles in anyone's possession today. Not one. The earliest manuscripts are at least 50 years after the original documents were written. It is broadly agreed the earliest fragment of the Bible dates from about 125 A.D. But before anyone puffs their chest out, it contains less than a one complete verse from the Gospel of John, and that is it. The first complete Bible is not to be found until 380 AD. That is over 300 years after the texts were written.

Let's compare that to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is treated by the LDS Church identically to the way the Bible is treated by Christianity as a whole. Thousands of errors have crept into the published version of the BoM, mainly because of printing errors in the very first edition. This is far fewer than in the Bible texts, but still significant. Fortunately we have about 26% of the original manuscript mostly copied down by Oliver Cowdery. And we have the original Printer's Manuscript, used by the printer. Like the existing ancient manuscripts of the Bible, there is no punctuation in the documents. So the printer gave it his best shot. He also "fixed" some spelling errors, and then for giggles threw in some inadvertant errors to boot.

The LDS Church has tried to restore the text to the translation manuscript copy quality, and so over the years has done over a dozen reprints and re-edits. Since we believe the LDS President is a prophet, seer and revelator, he has authority to do such things. Recently a decade long project to gather all such information was [mostly] completed by Royal Skousen.

Mormons teach the Bible in their Sunday School and Seminary program. In fact, on the four year rotating schedule of scripture study used for LDS Church cirriculum, fully half of the time is spent studying the Old and New Testament. But with a healthy dose of realism that some of the text may be corrupted.

"Oh?", you say. Certain passages are known to be fraudulent. 1 John 5:7-8 was added to find justification to support the non-Biblical doctrine of the trinity. Matt 5:22 had the phrase "without a cause" added to justify anger at a brother. The correct end to Mark 16:9-20 is not at all sure. 2 Peter 3:10 is completely unclear over whether at Christ's coming the works of the earth will be "burned up" or "laid bare". Frankly, that is a pretty significant difference.

There are many such significant doctrines which have been altered because the plain and precious truth has been lost. More pointedly is the loss of fluency and understanding of the grammar of the New Testament. For example, Granville Sharp was a gifted 18th century linguist who discerned a pattern of written speech in Greek which has now come to be called the Granville Sharp rule. So a verse like Rev. 1:6 which the KJV renders as "Hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father". So, is this verse a perfect proof text of the LDS believe that God had a Father? Sharp's rule says that it should be interpreted as an emphasis type of application. So it should properly say "unto God, even his Father".

Is that the only "new" rule? The truth is, since the New Testament is totally composed of copies of texts in a language no one is still natively speaking, we have no idea what the truth is.

The Book of Mormon is also often maligned by Morg for not being perfect. They twist a statement made by Joseph Smith of the value 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. (November 28, 1841.) DHC 4:461.

Notice he said "most correct". Not perfect. The BoM itself acknowledges it will have errors in it, but urges people to be led by the Spirit and not skepticism.

So we can accept any self serving translation of the Bible, or we can do like any rational Christian should do, and accept as the word of God only his accurately translated word. And as to the value of the Book of Mormon or the Bible? They are both necessary and beautiful. But if nearness to original documents and the number of unresolvable errors within the text are the measuring stick, there is no question the Book of Mormon is a superior text.

So this stuffs another body into the Morg.

Genesis 1:26-27 and God's Body

Mormoninfo.org (Morg) has in its FAQ a fairly standard Trinitarian response to Genesis 1:26-27. It is, however, like all Trinitarian responses to this verse, false.

As noted before, Morg does not like to quote verses, apparently because they usually contradict their sophistry promulgated around the scriptures. So let's start with the verses:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, ^[2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (NIV)

The typical tripe written of this verse is man was created in the moral image of God. Scripture directly contradicts that:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Morality is the understanding of good and evil: " of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" (Merriam Webster online).

Notice "now man has become". He was not created that way, he became it. So whatever the image and likeness of God means, it is not about morality.

So what is it.? It is the physical appearance of mankind. We know this from both the use of the words in Hebrew, but from clear parrallels in the same book of scripture:
Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. ² He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. " ³ When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Seth looks just like Adam. We have already seen the words "image" and "likeness" do not mean morality, and they would not make sense here anyway. But whatever image and likeness meant of the relationship between God and Adam, they mean the same thing as the relationship between Adam and Seth.

Morg gets so many things wrong in his opening paragraph, it is hard to know where to start.
Morg twists the LDS position by saying "So for LDS, technically God is in man's image." What is the point of saying something this dumb? No really. The word image means "1: a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person" or "2b: a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material", "3a: exact likeness : semblance" (Incidentally, 3a is cited as the definition for Gen 1:27 by Webster), or "4 a : a tangible or visible representation" (Webster online). Image is the reflection of the original. God in LDS thought is the original. Men are the reflection or image of God.

So technically, Morg is apparently lying about the LDS position. It is not a lie if Morq is ignorant and fails to understand the LDS position. However, since Morg cannot cite a single source among anyone Mormon who would agree with his "technical" definition, it is his position, not the LDS position. It is a deliberate mis-statement of LDS thought, if in fact Morg actually is an expert on LDS theology.

Morg asserts the LDS people are so simple and narcissistic, we just looked at our hands and face and said "Yup, that be what God looks like." Forget the fact the LDS position is more Biblical. Forget the fact the Hebrew words support the LDS interpretation. Forget the fact the Trinitarian position contradicts direct statements of scripture by saying God is immaterial.

We know god has a body, based on numerous passages in Genesis: 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." See 32:24-30 to note the context of the passage is speaking about Jacob physically wrestling with a "man", who it turns out is God, leading to the statement in quotes above. See also Gen. 17:1; 26:24; 35:7; 35:9; 18:1-3 "AND the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And [Abraham] said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:"

Morg makes a common, unscriptural statement: "God can appear any way He wants..."
Really?
Where does that come from? A chapter and verse would be nice, even if you don't bother to quote it. Oh wait, there is no such reference. A trinitarian is not beholden to things scriptural, but if they feel the need to attack Mormons as unBiblical, it would be nice if they were. Since the doctrine of an uncorporeal God dates from the 3rd and 4th century, please don't palm it off as an anachronism on the Bible.

So then Morg launches into a completely unfounded description of the word "invisible". On the one hand, a being could by nature not be visible, such as people observing the wind. But it is not "impossible" to see molecules in motion, which is what the wind is, and so it is simply a perspective. God is invisible, that is not seen, by people. Phil 2:6 is in fact emphatic in stating God has a visible form: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: The form is explained by no less a conservative evangelical linguistic authority than A.T. Robertson as:
"Being (uparcwn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparcw. In the form of God (en morph qeou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ." Word Pictures of the New Testament."

Notice "and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him". Christ in his nature looks like God, which has a visible nature since Christ was, by definition, visible to those who saw him in heaven. While this also is a wonderful proof text contradicting the Trinitarian doctrine of one God in 3 persons sharing a single substance, since Christ and God, not the Father, are what look alike, it is likewise an absolute statement that God and Christ are in fact visible beings. God is called the invisible God because he is in heaven, away from mankind. The word in Greek is aoratos, and means "pertaining to not being subject to being seen, unseen, invisible, of God" BDAG, 3rd edition, pages 94-95. Romans 1:20, which uses the word invisible says this of those invisible things:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So by nature, the word does not mean impossible to see, it simply means out of sight. Specific examples include: Col 1:15-16:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.

We have already looked at what it means that Christ is the visible form or outward appearance of God. Here Paul says he is also the eikon or image. In Greek, this word means it is a tangible copy of the original. Look at Matthew 22:20 for example: Whose is this image and superscription? Christ asks of the Pharisees whose picture or image, eikon, is on the tribute coin. Whose picture is on a nickle or dime or penney? There can be no confusion, Christ is asking whose image appears on the coin. Paul uses the same word to describe who Christ looks like. He looks like the God they have never seen. Thus when the apostles ask Christ to show them the Father, he answers (John 14:7-12) that those who have seen Christ have seen the Father. The Father is in Christ, and Christ has the physical appearance of the Father. Clearly the Father did not make an appearance, or Philip would not have asked the question. The nature of the question is pleading "start showing us the Father, and that will be enough." Christ does not say he is the Father, even the Trinitarians don't believe that. He states that because of his relationship to the Father, seeing him is like seeing the Father. In the context of Paul's teachings and the Old Testament, this is literally fulfilled in the physical appearance of Christ.

The abuse of the scriptures about "God is too big for the heavens and the earth, let alone a body (1 Kings 8:27)" deserves special derision. Morg uses this and several other verses, all ripped from context. Let's do what Morg hates, and actually read the verse:
²⁷ "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"

Well, the word 'contain' does not mean there are more jelly beans being poured out of a bag than the jar can contain. It means he cannot be restrained or kept in any certain place. So instead of being an observation that God cannot fit into the existence he has created, it is an invitation to come visit the temple.
1 Kings 8:28-29 Yet give attention to your servant's prayer and his plea for mercy, O LORD my God. Hear the cry and the prayer that your servant is praying in your presence this day.
May your eyes be open toward this temple night and day, this place of which you said, 'My Name shall be there,' so that you will hear the prayer your servant prays toward this place.

We know this from the text: Turns out he is in heaven, which according to Morg cannot contain him, is where he actually "dwells", as Solomon relates in the very next verse:
1King 8:30 Hear the supplication of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place. Hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive.

Seven more times in 1Kings 8 Solomon notes that Heaven is God's dwelling place: verses 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49. If Solomon meant what Morg spews forth, it is not discernible from the text. The Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates the word 'contain' as arkeo, meaning "be enough, sufficient, adequate", and cites 2 Cor 12:9, Mt 25:9, John 6:7 and John 14:8. Look these verses up. Also look up 1 Kings 8:64. The word "receive" is the same Hebrew word kuwl. See Brown, Driver, Briggs or even Strongs Hebrew Dictionary. It means to restrain or hold in. This gives a great deal of insight into the text. Use that as an alternate translation. The Temple cannot "hold in" or "restrain" God, since even the heavens cannot hold him in or restrain him. The idea of God being transcendently too vast to be contained in heaven or the Temple, or a body, is not anywhere in the text.

Since Morg phrases his assertion as " if the Bible affirms that God is too big for the heavens and the earth, let alone a body (1 Kings 8:27)", we have now presented clear evidence to discard the assertion, at least based on this 'evidence'. It is false. I am assuming this was his best shot, since it is the only one he lists. It fails upon review. Very poor scholarship with a single point: Refute the Mormon position. Who cares if it is valid. Again, this is why most Mormons ignore anti-Mormons. They either don't know spit about the Mormons, or they don't know spit about the scriptures.

The big finish for Morg is "God is not a man by nature". Well, true. But then again, man is not immortal by nature, but he can become that. (Phil. 3:21; Romans 8:11; 1Cor 15:21-22, 42-44, 52; 2 Cor 4:14; Col 2:12; Heb 9:27). Man is not necessarily good by nature (Romans 3). We can be changed (1 Cor 15:1; 2Cor 5:17). Even a trinitarian looking at the fact Christ took a body unto himself must acknowledge that for a time he took upon him a human nature. If not, he could not have died. Yet the changing between natures did not force him to cease being divine, and his godhood did not prevent him from becoming man. Man's spirit has its existence from God (Genesis 2:7). Man's existence had its source with God, so there is a part of man, according to the Bible, which is eternal. Early Christians believed that through Christ, man's nature would be changed. Irenaeus : "but through His love and His power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature" (Against Heresies, book IV, 38:4). In the footnote, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, page 522, notes "That is, that man's human nature should not prevent him from becoming a partaker of the divine." Irenaeus wrote this around 188 A.D., or more than 125 years before the Nicene Council. This of course dovetails perfectly with 2 Peter 1:4, and Irenaeus like many others, believed we were to become like God, becoming gods ourselves (Against Heresies, IV, 38:3-4: "For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods").

The idea that we cannot become like God because of our natures is in fact a late development, long after the scriptures were written or the early Christians lived. To think that philosophers living 500 years after Christ were smarter than the Apostles or the people taught by those first generation Christians is pure fallacy.

Morg uses an analogy that man is to God, as a dog is to man. This is really pretty inane. While our state of advancement is like an amoeba to mankind, God created only man on the 7th day. We are the only species to be created in his image and likeness.

Ps 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all [things] under his feet:

I don't really feel much like a dog. I have never designated any of my pets as joint heirs with my son. As a non-LDS Catholic priest once noted, the question is not why do Mormons believe man has a potential to be like God, but why do evangelicals and others not. It was the doctrine of Christianity up until the dark ages. Look what has emerged from the other end of the dark ages. Sad, but true.
Peace

If you pass along a lie you are a...

Maybe it is just me. I really like the internet, but remember any idiot or grudge bearing goof ball can write whatever they like, without any need to present facts. This is especially true of people attacking the LDS Church, since they can say just about anything they want about people now dead, and they can distort the teachings of the LDS Church by quoting any person who has ever been a mormon or an LDS Church leader commenting any time in history, and then assert this is somehow LDS doctrine.

Let me illustrate.

Mormoninfo.org (hereafter 'Morg') puts out a brochure called SEVEN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MORMONISM AND CHRISTIANITY by R. M. Sivulka. First of all, while many of the LDS points are relatively accurate, Rob does not really seem to notice he is speaking for a "Christianity" which did not exist for over 300 years after Christ died, at a minimum, and 1600 years in some cases. The Apostles and prophets never believed in the Trinity, faith only salvation, or a "Church" being an undisciplined group of believers having nothing in common but a common belief about neo-Platonic meta-physics centered on an unknowable god.

On the webpage, Morg makes it clear they do not want to deal with issues from the scriptures. They never quote them. OK, not really 'never'. In their entire web site, I did find them quote two verses in their entirety. WOW. But that is typical of anti-Mormons. Lots of assertion, no scriptures.

Another example of storytelling at Morg is their FAQ section. Here you will find the two verses of scripture on their webpage which they actually fully quote. Let's drill down on one particular topic. Stephen seeing God and Christ. Here they decidedly mis-state the issue of Acts 7:55-56. They quote part of verse 55, where it says Stephen sees the Glory of God, but they ignore the rest of verse 55 and all of verse 56, where Stephen says he actually sees God, and the Son of man to his right. For giggles, here are the scriptures which they avoid quoting:

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

OK, so we have two explicit statements of Christ standing next to God. I know some people struggle with deductive reasonsing, so in the spirit of logic 101, here is what we must conclude from these verses: God and Christ are separate and distinct beings. Not the Father and the Son. The Phrase Father is never used. Luke uses the phrase "father" 16 times elsewhere of God the Father, so he clearly is making a theological choice. Christ is next to God, not just the Father. So if words mean anything, I can safely conclude the following:
1. God is separate from Christ
2. God has location to his being, since whatever that being is, Christ is standing to its right.

It is funny they are so messed up about scripture argumentation that they do not dare actually quote them. For example, Morg asserts no one can see God. That is a good joke, just completely false:

Genesis 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, and many others saw God. Face to Face. But explaining this truth out of scripture contradicts the False Gospel preached by Morg. God does also say no man can see his face and live, but apparently it is more of a suggestion than a rule.

He similarly asserts that "[Exodus 33] Verse 11 is figurative in much the same way that the "wings" and "feathers" of the Lord are in Psalms 91:4."

Really. Let's read the two passages, and discover this great truth:

Exodus 33:10-11, 20-23
10And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. 11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. 20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 21And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Ps.91:1-4
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. 2 I will say of the LORD , "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust." 3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence. 4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. (NIV)

OK, poetry is not my strongest subject, but does anyone reading these two passages need to have a special lesson in simile and metaphor or allegory? Who is actually living in the physical shelter of the Most high? How is it possible for me to be captured by a bird trap? Is God really a shield and rampart, physically? It is probably this passage which serves as background to Christ saying in Matt 23:37

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!"

Wasn't Moses' experience a PHYSICAL, real experience? He was going to be shown God's back parts. So, God has back parts? The Bible reports Moses was placed in a location, and God did pass by him. Or is this also part of an intimate experience, as Morg asserts? Can anyone looking sincerely, with an open mind as the Bereans (Acts 17:11), help but be astounded at this horribly self serving interpretation? It is funny that Morg has the nerve to attack the LDS position on the loss of plain and precious things out of the Bible, since this type of interpretation is exactly that. And there is no one to stop them, the Internet being free.

That God had a face, physically speaking, is obvious from the passages in the OT. Gen 1:26-27; Gen. 18:1; Gen 32:30; Ex. 33:11; Num 14:14; Dt. 5:4; Dt. 32:10; Dt. 34:5; Judges 6:22; Job 19:26; Ez. 20:35. Did Morg miss the part of seeing the face of God and not living? I think Stephen died immediately after seeing God, though by the pummelling of the mob. But he did not live, and so he could have seen God's face, based on the pertinent Bible passages.

There are many places where "face" is not literal, but it requires reading the passages in context to know. See Ps 27:8,9 for example. But Morg is inserting a huge anachronism into this verse by suggesting:

The Lord speaking to "Moses face to face" is symbolic language for the intimacy that they shared together, since the verse goes on to say, "[A]s a man speaketh unto his friend."[End of paragraph 2, FAQ 7]

People in Moses' day that spoke face to face as a man speaks to a friend actually had faces, and actually spoke. Morg needs to stop thinking that Moses had a web page where he had virtual friends with just images of themselves.

Morg goes on to say there are different meanings for the word "see" in Greek. Morg then inserts their neo-platonic greek Trinitarianism, without any scriptural support, of course, since there is none. God really cannot be seen, so Morg says, so these words must mean something else. Again, the analysis falls apart upon actually reading the scriptures. Once more, for effect:

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

So in the passage, do we have metaphorical language, or someone reporting what they see? "Looked up" is the greek word atenizo, which according to the foremost N.T. Greek lexicon in the world (BDAG, 3rd edition, page 148) means "to look intently at, stare at something or someone", and cites Acts 7:55. The word is also used in Acts 1:10 and 2Cor 3:7, 13. Let's exam their usage in those passages:

Acts 1:9-10
9 And when [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

2Cor 3:7, 13:
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. (NIV)

Nothing metaphorical here. Staring, steadily gazing, looking steadfastly. Not a chance that it is figurative.

Neo-Platonism is then spewed forth, again with no scriptural support of course, to argue that despite all the times God appears or is said to be visible, it must be a mis-understanding. The authors meant to say something else, which Morg magically knows what that something else is. How is that possible? Morg does not believe god is capable of speaking clearly to people in a manner impossible to be misunderstood, so there must be something else. It cannot come from the scriptures, since they don't use them. What does that leave? Answer: Creeds and dogma, post-biblically developed, of course. They would have you think God jumps in and out of bodies more often than snakes stuck with perpetual molting disorder. There is no statement anywhere in scripture saying that is what God does, but we all should applaud how clever an idea it is. History shows they did not think of it first, but it sure makes the other non-Biblical doctrines go down easier with their other contradictions out of the scriptures.

I "see" what Morg means, it just is so unscriptural it does not deserve anything other than a passing laugh.

Briefly, the word 'see' used in Acts 7:56 is theoreo, and means "to observe something with sustained attention, be a spectator, look at, observe, perceive, see (with physical eyes)" BDAG, pg 454. Does this look "iffy"? BDAG actually add the words "with physical eyes" so that nobody will attempt to privately interpret this word. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the passage to turn its meaning into figurative imagery. Oh, well there is if your theology cannot stand the thought that the Mormons are correctly interpreting a passage you must butcher.

Anybody see the value yet of actually reading the verses? Have I now proven adequately that at Morg citations are very untrustworthy if they do not actually quote them?

Morg puts a brief statement of Rob Sivulka's educational resume in his biography page. He attended a theological college. I know from personal discussions with Rob that he has studied Greek in some form. So exactly what should we think about his final paragraph in this FAQ?

"LDS want to interpret this literally, but only to a point. They too must treat this figuratively in some sense otherwise Jesus would actually be standing on the Father's right hand, and then we'd wonder if Jesus left stretch marks on the Father's hand by doing this. Instead, this "right hand" language is typical in Scripture of talk that is similar to Cheney being Bush's "right hand man". This is talk of a position of favor or power."

Hard to imagine more things wrong in four sentences. The second sentence is a pure strawman argument to try making the totally non-scriptural twist appear plausible because the Mormon's argument is silly. But his scripture twisting is not the LDS argument, so he is in fact grossly misrepresenting LDS thought. The next sentence is either a knowingly false statement, or Morg truly has some of the dumbest PhD candidates anywhere in the world.

" Jesus would actually be standing on the Father's right hand". Please. The Greek word here, which Rob knows because he and I have discussed this in the past, is dexion, and means in context "right", as in direction. To the right side. The word for hand, which Luke uses in Luke 6:6 with the word dexion, is Xeir or Cheir. Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, uses the word dexion 13 times, but uses it in the context of a physical hand only once as noted above, with the word for hand, cheir. But he uses the word cheir 46 times, including in Acts 7:50. He also uses cheir in a compound word in vs. 48. Verses 55-56 are not even remotely speaking of an anatomical right hand. He does not mean right hand. It is the King James English meaning of 'to the right hand side'. He means "at the right hand" or "right side", which is how nearly every translation since the KJV does it(see NIV, NRSV, RSV, CEV, Darby, REB, ESV, NCV, TEV, etc.)

Luke uses the preposition ek, translated "to", which in Greek grammar answers the question in this case "where is something?" (BDAG, page 296, #2). In this case, where is Christ? To the right, directionally, of God. Sadly, Rob knows this, but apparently is making a choice to be disingenuous about the nature of the passage. It is not about being "the right hand man" of God. It is speaking of a physical direction. Any attempt to suggest a different meaning does violence to the passage, and therefore one should exam the motivation for the violence. It appears to me to be the need to be right about theology, and let the scriptures be hanged.

Morg wraps up by pulling a completely non-contextual verse from the Old Testament, Isaiah 41:10. For a person to say there is contextual similarity between Isaiah saying he is upheld by God's right hand, and Stephen looking into Heaven and seeing Jesus standing to the right of God is simply outrageous. It is also a perfect example of the quality of scholarship among anti-Mormons. They will say practically anything, no matter how unscholarly or unscriptural, to steal the faith of a Latter-day Saint.

In future issues, I will continue to go through Morg's web page. Frankly, it is frustrating to review such hypocritical work. Morg stands outside Temple square and yells to people they are going to hell if they are Mormons, but the Bible was pretty explicit about Morg's behavior:

[They] changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25) The creature is their neo-Platonic Trinity, unBiblical, without historical basis.

¶ But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; (Colossians 3:8-9)

As I always say about self-righteous anti-Mormons, if the truth is so devastating to the LDS position, why lie or distort what you say about the Mormons and their doctrine? It is funny that Morg accuses the LDS Church of not being scripturally sound, yet we see that when forced to actually analyze the scriptures, Morg is dead. As I read elsewhere once, if your theology is not based on the scriptures, whence came the theology? Still a good question.

News From the Front--October 2004 GC

Conference for me was a pleasure. Great talks, including the calling of two new apostles. Perfect weather. Almost no anti-Mormons.

OK, there were anti-Mormons. Perhaps 20 or more. But finally some folks realized they could exercise their right to protest and reach out to Mormons by politely engaging them. And since they used their constitutional right to get most of the protest zones between Temple Square and the Conference Center, most of the insult slinging, slurry mouthed folks lacking Christian values were forced to 'head south', causing far less disruption to the sacred spirit for those who attended Conference for religious purposes.

Over 150,000 Mormons attended conference. Four of them were clowns who excercised their right to behave like the hate-spewing protestors by mocking the protestors. And you should have heard the protestors whine! Wahhhh! That people would make fun of them, shout them down with 'shusshingg' sounds; mocking their mocking of things LDS.

The thing is, the anti-Mormons don't understand that they have brought this on. I have gone to every conference for the past 12 years. About 2001 the Street Preachers showed up. Up to that time, there wasn't any effort to mock or respond in a loud, obnoxious way to the anti's. People took their little pamplets, and threw them away or whatever, and that was it. So there was basically 154 years of toleration if not bored recognition of the anti's, and so things went.

That all changed when the Street Preachers showed up. Contrary to some of the lies out there on web sites trying to defend the street belchers, they were hostile, aggressive and rude to the LDS community. Many non-LDS saw their insensitivity and realized they are non-Christian, and tried to encourage them to moderate their attacks. No such luck. Then one day a television news crew happened to be downtown when these savages ruined a wedding by calling the women in the wedding "whores", and refusing to move aside so they could take family wedding photos. It was all caught on film, then broadcast on TV. Even the non-believing, former ALCU mayor of Salt Lake City realized this was a disaster, and had the potential for violence under a legal theory called the "fighting words" doctrine. Just as freedom of speech is limited by its threat to public safety, such as crying "fire" in a crowded movie theater, so speech which is designed to provoke and incite a reasonable person to violence is not legal.

The street belchers said they would continue to insult the Mormons, and so the Main Street Plaza sale was executed. In 2003 two assaults on the street belchers by members of the Church attending conference led the mayor to implement the court upheld protest zones to put a buffer between the street belchers and the conference goers. There is no excuse for the assaults, but it proved what the mayor had said about the fighting words doctrine.

Still the street belchers continue to call the LDS faith such Christ-like names as "whores", "perverts", and bark insults about them going to hell at a high volume. The Christian ministries (the ones who really believe in Christ I mean) have continued to condemn the street belchers methods and in response have recruited people to lovingly demonstrate their beliefs by politely standing and greeting the LDS Conference goers. It is the way they have decided to exercise their right to free speech. To listen to the street belchers tell it, they are Judas sell outs to the LDS Church.

But still the anti's scream their venom, even from the south side of Temple Square. And now the 4 clowns have started attending to mock them as they mock the LDS beliefs. I don't really know if this is a case of 'do unto others', but the street belchers are sure thin skinned about being treated the way they treat the Mormons.

I for one love the street belchers. LDS baptisms go up, way up, for the non-members who attend conference and see the stark difference between the LDS Christians and the non-practicing Christian street belchers. And I personally love to use the falsehoods the anti's spew as a launch point to teach those who are sincere among the protestors about the LDS Church. Some of them will join the LDS Church. More of them will never return with the Anti's. And it is always the most telling when the street belchers warn each other that I am around, and am just a waste of time to talk with. I thrive on those comments, somewhat like the anti's love to be able to describe what persecuted servants they are for standing up for their faith. Please. Attacking LDS people is not presenting the Gospel. But it is black and white for the non-members attending Conference. As Luke wrote of the Bereans, they had an open mind and a willingness to study the scriptures. That is all the Mormons ask of their friends.

In the markeplace of ideas, Mormonism almost always wins when presented to open-minded people. Keep up the good work those who feel their job is to insult the Mormon faithful, as we love the fruits of your labor. Literally 500 or more people join the Church after seeing the difference. Work harder. I bet we can get that number over 1,000 if you belchers would just scream a little louder. And by all means, don't talk to Mormons like me who know LDS history and doctrine. Let me answer the questions of those people who realize the stark differences between what goes on inside the gates of Temple Square, and you standing outside like barking, angry dogs (Rev. 22:15).

Manti Madness

I made three trips to Manti for visiting with anti-Mormons during the annual Manti Pageant. I see Allen from Mormoninfo.org is still packing around his signs advocating the deceptive website I reviewed previously. He really gets a funny look on his face when he sees me. It could be because whenever I see him I remind him that people who promote lies and distortions are themselves part of the lie or distortion. Just does not seem very Christian to me. I really don't have any problems with the Mormoninfo.org website in terms of what it says. They are entitled to ignore the majority of the Bible to promote their post-Biblical doctrines or provide limited or irrelevant scriptures to create the proper fitting strawman to try to discredit Mormonism. But they at least do not lie. But since they promote with the signs they personally carry around a website filled with lies, distortions and falsehoods, they have blood on their hands.

Rob Sivulka and Allen Dardenelle have an ethical obligation as supposed Christian ministers to Mormons to be honest, and attack evil in any form. That means even their good Christian buddies who lie or exaggerate their attacks against the Mormons. It is ethically insufficient to embrace the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". That is really the main problem I have with them. If they will promotes lies and distortions on the signs they personally carry, then their character is totally called into question. They link to this blog from their website. The prior review of the offending website is available to them, and I personally spoke with Allen on several occasions, showing him in front of other witnesses specific distortions and falsification on the web page they promote. He is without excuse, as is Rob. They present themselves as experts on Mormonism, and yet promote falsehood.

The most telling conversation I was involved with Allen concerned his willingness to convert to Mormonism if he knew it was true. First he said there was no way to know Mormonism was 'absolutely true' as opposed to knowing 'personally' it is true, and so even if he was personally convinced the Mormon Church were God's Church on Earth, he would not change or join. There were three other people standing there when he said it, one of whom was not LDS. So ultimately he wants to carry out a crusade against a Church he feels it is impossible to know whether God accepts as His only true Church because he cannot trust any communication God may have directly with Allen. It is easy to see Rob's influence on Allen, since he wrote almost the identical reasoning to me in an email several years ago.

In my opinion it is sad that the God they profess to be all powerful is too inept to communicate in clear, unmistakable ways with His children. Image if Moses had sad "Thus sayeth the Lord, I think..." Not very compelling. Which is why my personal relationship with God, through the Holy Spirit in the name of His son Jesus Christ, is the ultimate arbitrator of truth. I know Paul thought it was possible to know things from God with absolute certainty, even as we continue exercising faith in many things. The Spirit of the Lord helps us to pray, and delivers to us truth, enlightening our minds. By this Spirit the disciples of Jesus' day recognized the truth of the scriptures which Jesus laid out for them.

I feel pity for the lost and uninformed anti-Mormons like Allen and Rob. I don't consider them a waste of time, which is a direct quote of Rob describing me to some of his visiting missionaries. God loves all of His children, wants all of them to choose to accept His gift of salvation, and sent His son to die for all mankind. Which is why I am willing to talk with anyone who will at least be sincere and polite in their presentation or questioning of the LDS faith. Rob Sivulka stopped speaking and corresponding with me because he felt I would eventually run to my testimony as a defense, and twist the scriptures and scholarly sources to defend my faith, even as he acknowledged I had never done that in any of our discussions. Frankly, false ethics and poor scholarship are the main reason most Mormons don't take anti-Mormons seriously.

The anti-Mormons don't really care about truth, don't live the Golden Rule, and don't want to really know what LDS doctrine is. If I had a dime for each time I was told that Mormons work their way to heaven, I would be rich. Yet the anti's still promote this false and pernicious doctrine. Or to have them teach that God had sex with Mary, then insist the Church really does and has taught this, despite there being not a single statement by the Church advocating this doctrine. We believe God was the Father, Sire, Begetter, artificer of the physical body of Christ. But none of those statements requires sex. The only Church leader who ever taught that God had sex with Mary had his work formally censured by the Church, with the recommendation that his speculative theological statements be cut out of the publications they were bound within and destroyed. We believe Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth. But Allen and Rob are quite content, apparently, to associate with and promote web sites and organizations which, if they really were experts on Mormon doctrine and its history, they must know are false, misleading or in error.

Brigham Young once said that whenever anti-Mormons try to kick the Church, they always kick it upstairs. Never downstairs. The Lord has so ordered it. He also said that if you persecute us, we will sit up nights and preach the Gospel. That is why we don't think the anti-Mormons are any real threat. The Lord's Church is protected by the Lord and His angelic hosts. So the truth, no matter how compromised by some, will prevail. So you anti-Mormons out there, keep it up. It gives us Mormons lots of people with questions to answer, and when they see distortions, they will know who to trust.

Stay tuned.
Bob

Update on Josephlied.com's Sources

Since the original exchanges and posting my review of the first section of JosephLied.com's web page below (2 postings down), I have had a chance to stop in at the Tanner's bookstore to check Mr. Norton's sources. I can now say with 100% confidence that 10 of 11 sources of Mr. Norton's materials in my review are in the Tanner's works. They are all in volume 1 of the Tanner's The Case Against Mormonism. It is a tribute to the Tanner's redundancy that many of the quotes are also in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality and The Changing World of Mormonism.

As I note in my review, it seems odd to me that Mr. Norton cannot find new material germane to the issue, being a self-described "huge history buff". It appears he lifts practically all of the arguments and citations from a single source, without attribution. In college and high school we call it plagiarism to "present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source" (Merriam-Webster Online). Even if he did it with the Tanner's permission, which he may have, to rework someone else's work as if it were your own original work is just not ethical to me. I probably have different standards than Mr. Norton. In some places it appears he uses their comments about the historical citations word for word and in summary, without citation.

I find Mr. Norton's apparent plagiarism an interesting study in double standards and hypocrisy. While asserting the Mormon Church is lying and distorting its history, he fails to tell us where his stuff really comes from, and worse, he distorts the supposed impact of the isolated examples he cites. He would have you believe that practically no Mormon until the 1890's was aware that God and Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in the 1st Vision, even though virtually 100% of the Church had copies of the official History of the Church, originally published in 1842, since the early 1850's with the original publication of the Pearl of Great Price.

He also would have you believe that even the people who wrote the Church history and presented the official doctrine of the Church were themselves unaware of who was present at the First Vision. He asserts Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, George A. Smith, Orson Hyde, and many others were unaware of the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph in 1820, even though they spoke many times in explicit terms often precisely about the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. He suppresses and ignores reports, even in some of the very citations he seems so unfamiliar with.

He also fails to tell you basic important facts, like the fact Joseph Smith's mother was absolute in her assertion of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in 1820. One would think she would know, right, I mean she was afterall there in his youth.

Or he fails to tell you about the non-Mormon and anti-Mormon reports by people who knew Joseph in 1820, and remember him withdrawing from organized religion at that time, even though modern anti-Mormons try to move the date of his religious involment to 1824. Or the 1829 press accounts saying Joseph had spoken with God. I try to provide an abbreviated chronology of many of these confrimatory events in my review below.

So where does that lead one in figuring out whom to believe? Mr. Norton portrays the LDS Church membership as uninformed and misled, and its leaders as deceptive. And then he apparently plagiarizes his material. I think one should maybe turn to God, ask Him for His Spirit to guide them to truth. As my review indicates, and as I personally believe, we may not have an answer for every problem, but the Church's answers conform much more closely to history than the twisted representation anti-Mormons such as Mr. Norton ask us to believe.

So enjoy what you read. But you should probably check the sources, if they are listed.

Let me make one more point. This is by definition not a personal attack. It is a presentation and summary of facts. I have never met Mr. Norton face to face, nor spoken to him on the phone. We have corresponded via email, and that is it. He may be a wonderful person. But I believe he is representing the work on his website as his own, when in fact it appears mostly derived from other's published work. I believe that should give everyone pause about the trustworthiness of his conclusions. Beware of he who declares his own self-righteousness.

Furthermore, the characterizations of LDS history he makes he is entitled to make. I vigorously take issue with him about the limited data set he uses and the conclusions he draws. I cannot read his mind, so I truly do not know his motives, which is why I originally emailed him. I still do not know his motives, but I know what he says his motives are. The problem I have is now having looked closely at his work/actions, they do not seem to be in line with his expressed motives, and it makes me question everything he writes.

It has been my mantra since the first anti-Mormon material was given to me back in 1979: If the truth about the Mormons is so bad, why do anti-Mormons misrepresent their history and/or beliefs. My favorite is still when Ed Decker published a book saying that the reason Mormon chapels have spires is to impale Christ at His second coming. Literally unbelievable, and yet it gets published and some poor guy or women hears that, along with the other distortions they get, and it is one more objection to try keeping them out of the LDS Church. So whatever Mr. Norton's motives or reasons, I don't trust his scholarship or the conclusions he draws, and I would recommend the same to anyone else. This is the internet. Let the seeker beware.

Email Exchange With JosephLied.com's Author

----- Original Message -----
From: RBV
To: mike@josephlied.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: What are your motives?

I have read through your web pages, and aside from understandable minor mistakes in your citations, I am trying to understand your level of scholarship. Maybe it would be better stated to ask your level of personal research into the things you write? Since your opening page outlines a 'bait-and-switch, let the buyer beware' sort of description of purported lies and distortions by the LDS Church, and your personal story mentions you did a lot of research into Church history, I am trying to reconcile what I see as basically two possibilities for your motivations in writing your follow-on WebPages. I have in the past two days done a little research, maybe 4 hours total, on your citations and sources. In particular, I researched your page on the first vision and the page on the angel Moroni vs. Nephi.

Which brings me to my hypothesis about you, which I am looking for you to confirm what is correct. Because of the gross errors in your statements I can only see two or three possibilities:

1. You are an incredibly inept historical researcher. You make statements that John Taylor, Brigham Young, Lucy Mack Smith, George A. Smith and Orson Hyde are unaware of the first vision story. Yet each of them wrote about or quoted directly from the first vision accounts stating it occurred in 1820, and that Joseph Smith was visited by two personages. The only one who is confused was William Smith, who in fact made several documented errors in his relating of historical facts, and the chief error he makes is to combine elements of the first vision with the visit from Moroni. Here is your problem. If all or most of these people correctly relate in detail the events of the first vision as currently and historically taught by the LDS Church, then their comments which you deem contradictory demand being correctly set into the historic setting of where they were delivered. In any case, they clearly are not "unaware" 40 years after the first vision of the accepted LDS version, as you falsely state.

2. (This is really a subset of #1) You have done virtually no in-depth research of your own, and therefore have relied upon anti-Mormon literature for the sources you cite. Your changes to the Book of Mormon is almost a mirror site of CARM and the Tanner's slipshod work. I have sat in on seminars by Royal Skousen, which were free to the public, and just laugh at the gross errors and poor scholarship of your posting. But it may not be your fault. Other than being the electronic version of a rumor monger, you may be genuinely ignorant of the "history" you purport to be clarifying.

3. For your own reasons, which I would like to understand better, you feel justified in lying about and distorting LDS history.

The fourth choice would have been you have correctly relayed the facts around LDS history pertaining to teachings of the first vision and the visit by the angel Moroni. The specific and concrete evidence contradicting your conclusions makes this choice unlikely.

I don't really see how there can be a fourth choice. You present as facts events out of their context and draw false conclusions. Joseph Smith always taught there had been a first vision in 1820, and a visitation from Moroni and other angels in 1823. The early leaders of the Church, and Joseph Smith's mother, also always taught this when they were concerned about being exact. John Taylor wrote a very specific and detailed tract in 1850 outlining this understanding. The fact that you say he and Brigham Young are unaware of the first vision occuring in 1820 is a lie. It may have been an error on your part, but now you have a fact to check and fix the error. If you do not, then I will be forced to conclude that hypothesis 3 is correct.

The irony of your opening page is not lost on me. You are perhaps the real bait-and-switch artist, if you are in fact inclined to hypothesis 3.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
RBV
or Bob the anti-anti as my blog says.


From: Mike [mailto:Mike@JosephLied.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:50 AM
To: RBV
Subject: Re: What are your motives?
Bob,
I do not make the claim that the contemporaries of Joseph's Myth were "unaware" of his first vision in 1820. I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though. By all means, let's see the quotes that say otherwise. The same goes for the quotes regarding his angel Nephi, later changed to Moroni.

I suppose I am also mistaken about the Kinderhook plates and the "translation" of the Book of Abraham too.

Give me a break Bob. I've been in your shoes. I too was a so called "anti-anti" and I find my job MUCH easier when I don't have to make excuses and try to defend a lie anymore. You should give it a try. It's MUCH easier when the truth is actually on your side.

Mike Norton

P.S. You talk of all these errors and yet don't give ANY specifics. Typical.




From: RBV
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:00 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?
Thank you for the response Mike.

“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.

Note this quote is 6 years before your proof-text. Oops.

"There were two personages [who] appeared unto Joseph Smith, Jun.,--God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ." George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1889 Collected Discourses Vol.1

"And finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."- John Taylor, JD, 22:298-299, August 28, 1881.

"He [Joseph Smith] presented himself before the world and informed the people that God had spoken, and that he had spoken to him. He told them that the heavens had been opened and that angels clothed in light and glory had appeared to him and revealed unto him certain things." John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, from JD, 10:127-128, March 1, 1863.

"and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features" John Taylor, 1850.

What did John Taylor interpret the Two Personages to be? The Father and the Son.

“When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, he pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." There was an evidence manifested through his servant to the world, that God lived, that the Redeemer, who was crucified and put to death to atone for the sins of the world, also lived, that there was a message which had to be communicated to the human family, and that the Son was the personage through which it should be communicated.” John Taylor, JD, 25:177-178, May 18, 1884.

"He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and pointing to the latter, said: "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him!"" John Taylor, JD, 21:161, December 7, 1879.

The discourses of John Taylor affirming that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith during the first vision, and that they are the 'two personages' cannot be seriously questioned. They are numerous, and can be found with virtually no effort.

"Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, Behold my beloved Son, hear him.--I then addressed this second person, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? He replied, "don't join any of them, they are all corrupt."" An early non-Mormon publication of the First Vision based on an interview with Joseph Smith by the editor of the Pittsburg Gazette who visited Nauvoo in 1843. This account was published in the New York Spectator, September 23, 1843.[Odd that non-Mormons understood and published that Joseph Smith was talking with the Lord, after interviewing him, but you contend that his teachings were so shifty the members did not know? Not very tenable.--BV]

"When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph." George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.

What of course is most interesting is how in this same discourse by George A. Smith, he quotes the first vision story verbatim:

"...It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other--'This is my beloved son, hear him.'" George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.

So how does George A. Smith, who served as an apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, interpret the words "two personages"? As God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The same as John Taylor.

"He saw in this light two glorious personages, one of whom spoke to him, pointing to the other, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." This was a glorious vision given to this boy. When these persons interrogated him to know what he desired, he answered and said, "Lord show me which is the true church." " Orson Pratt, JD Vol 14, pg 141, March 19, 1871

"The Lord also informed him that, at some future period of time, if he would be faithful in giving heed to the instructions which were then imparted to him, and in his prayers to the Lord, he would impart to him his own doctrine in plainness and simplicity."Orson Pratt, JD Vol 15 page 183, September 22, 1872.

So we now have George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and George A. Smith who all say the personages are God the Father and His Son or Lord.

Joseph’s 1832 account records: “I was filled with the Spirit of God and the Lord opened the heavens upon me, and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me, saying, ‘Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way. Walk in my statutes and keep my commandments. Behold, I am the Lord of glory. I was crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.’”

"He [God] called upon his servant Joseph Smith, jun., when he was but a boy, to lay the foundation of his kingdom for the last time. Why did he call upon Joseph Smith to do it? because he was disposed to do it... Before Joseph Smith made known what the Lord had revealed to him, before his name was even known among many of his neighbours, I knew that Jesus Christ had no true Church upon the earth." Brigham Young, JD 11:253, 254

"...and we testify, to the whole world that we know, by divine revelation, even through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that he revealed himself to Joseph Smith as personally as he did to his Apostles, anciently, after he arose from the tomb, and that he made known unto him those heavenly truths by which alone mankind can be saved." Lorenzo Snow, JD vol. 18, page 299, October 6, 1876. Note this is a General Conference address.

Now we have Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and George A. Smith all saying that the two personages were really God and Christ.

Now, due to the limitations of being at home, I cannot get much depth into the works of William Smith, Orson Hyde or Lucy Mack Smith. There is an excellent discussion of William Smith’s statements at http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#6 .

But here is the problem you have. Your assertion is that the use of the word “personages” did not convey a concept of divinity, and that, according to you, it was not established to be God and Christ until much later. But Joseph in his 1832 statement says it was the Lord. All of the people I have been able to research believe the same. You must prove, to carry your argument, that those personages were thought to be angels AND that the persons using the phrase NEVER associate the participants in the first vision with God or Christ. If there is even one example of their understanding being different than your assertion that

personages = angels but not God or Christ

then your argument fails. Further, you must prove that the common and reasonable understanding of the context of the personages was generally understood to not be God and Christ. You have completely failed in that regard.

Let me now compare your statements:

"I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though."

"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?"

Both statements are now demonstrated false. Your theory is wrong. Show some honor here and admit it. And change your web site.

Since you cite only 11 sources, all but one I would say are presented out of context, I hope the 15 citations I present are adequate to fulfill your derisive comment about lacking details. By the way, I did it on purpose to see how you would answer. Do you really think I am going to walk into a debate without my facts in hand ahead of time? You don't know me, so maybe you did. But I never do. Further, I will concede that the quote by Brigham Young is weak (I will research a few more), but I think the other 14 quotes are solid. Moreover, your quote from Joseph Smith’s diary is very misleading because, as you must know, Joseph says in his 1835 recital of the first vision experience that he saw many angels in addition to the two personages when he was 14, and the fact he says in the 14 November 1835 entry that he first was visited by angels at that age is correct. By the way, you do know the word angel means messenger, right? So Christ, though divine, is the messenger of the Father, for example. Check out Acts 17:18 where Christ is described as a daimonion / strange deity in his roll between God and men.

I have other aspects to my life than to document falsehoods on anti-Mormon sites. I will get after the Moroni-Nephi discussion another day. But since I have presented unimpeachable and irrefutable proof of the falseness of your statements, I am now going to be watching to see what you do. If you do nothing, then I know that my 3rd hypothesis about your motives was correct.

I actually agree with you. It is much easier when the truth is on one's side. I cannot really offer you a break of any kind, since you have put out material easily refuted. Like I say, I will be interested to see your response. I can vigorously disagree with people and still enjoy them. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy of double standards. Since I have now spent a total of about 7 hours researching your material, and have easily located statements contradicting your thesis, I am still waiting to discover where you fall in the spectrum of sincerity.


I await your response.

Best wishes,
RBV

From: Mike [mailto:Mike@JosephLied.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:45 AM
To: RBV
Cc: Rob Sivulka
Subject: Re: What are your motives?
Bob, just some very quick comments. I am moving this week and simply don't have time for a long drawn out e-mail. I will make my comments in this larger blue font. First off, I feel the need to emphasize a comment made on my website about the issue of the "First Vision". On my site I wrote,

"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
"That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820."

On that note, let me comment on your comments now.

Thank you for the response Mike.

“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.

Note this quote is 6 years before your proof-text. Oops.

Oops indeed. Don't fret, this isn't the only example of early Church leaders having a hard time keeping the story straight. However, I find it interesting that you couldn't find a single quote from any of Joseph Smith's close friends or family members until well past 1860 (or as I said on my site, "40 years after Joseph's first vision") that clearly identified the person (or persons) in his first vision as that of God and Christ.


"There were two personages [who] appeared unto Joseph Smith, Jun.,--God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ." George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1889 Collected Discourses Vol.1

Yup. By 1889 pretty much all of "the brethren" had gotten their story straight and were consistently claiming it was God and Christ that Joseph saw in 1820. I find it interesting that in the same year that this quote was given, George Q. Cannon said of the first vision, "But suppose that the statement that Joseph Smith says the angel made to him should be true-that there was no church upon the face of the earth whom God recognized as His, and whose acts He acknowledged-suppose this were true..."




"And finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."- John Taylor, JD, 22:298-299, August 28, 1881.

Yet, just two years before Taylor said, "None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right." Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167 (1879)



"He [Joseph Smith] presented himself before the world and informed the people that God had spoken, and that he had spoken to him. He told them that the heavens had been opened and that angels clothed in light and glory had appeared to him and revealed unto him certain things." John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, from JD, 10:127-128, March 1, 1863.

Who was it that "...revealed unto him certain things"? Angels, Bob. Angels.



"and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features" John Taylor, 1850.

Bob, are you intentionally trying to prove my point? Who on earth refers to God and Jesus Christ as "personages"?

What did John Taylor interpret the Two Personages to be? The Father and the Son.

34 years later!!!!!!

“When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, he pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." There was an evidence manifested through his servant to the world, that God lived, that the Redeemer, who was crucified and put to death to atone for the sins of the world, also lived, that there was a message which had to be communicated to the human family, and that the Son was the personage through which it should be communicated.” John Taylor, JD, 25:177-178, May 18, 1884.

"He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and pointing to the latter, said: "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him!"" John Taylor, JD, 21:161, December 7, 1879.

Almost 60 years after the fact and John Taylor starts to claim it was God and Christ. He will go back and forth on this issue for the next 10 years.

The discourses of John Taylor affirming that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith during the first vision, and that they are the 'two personages' cannot be seriously questioned. They are numerous, and can be found with virtually no effort.

As can quotes that show he thought it was an angel.

"Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, Behold my beloved Son, hear him.--I then addressed this second person, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? He replied, "don't join any of them, they are all corrupt."" An early non-Mormon publication of the First Vision based on an interview with Joseph Smith by the editor of the Pittsburg Gazette who visited Nauvoo in 1843. This account was published in the New York Spectator, September 23, 1843.[Odd that non-Mormons understood and published that Joseph Smith was talking with the Lord, after interviewing him, but you contend that his teachings were so shifty the members did not know? Not very tenable.--BV]

By 1843 Joseph Smith had almost become consistent when telling the story of his first vision. However, he had told everyone for so many years that it was an angel (or angels) that it is nearly impossible to find a single quote from any close friends or family members of Joseph's that identify the heavenly visitors in 1820 (or 1821 or 1823, depends on who you ask and when) as God and Jesus Christ.


"When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph." George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.

What?? Were the "two personages" Jesus and Satan?! Where is God in this version? Oh, I see this was in 1864. George A. Smith didn't have his story straight until well into the 1870's as can be seen by the following quote from him in 1869: "[Joseph] was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel. When this personage appeared to him, one of the first inquiries was 'Which of the denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?' " Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 78

Heck, even the year before the quote you share George A. Smith said, "...he [Joseph Smith] went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels , the true condition of the religious world. When the holy angel appeared , Joseph inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 334

What of course is most interesting is how in this same discourse by George A. Smith, he quotes the first vision story verbatim:

"...It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other--'This is my beloved son, hear him.'" George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.

I agree, it is interesting that Joseph Smith referred to the creator of all living things and the Savior of the world as simply "two personages". Oh, wait....that wasn't your point. I'm sorry, what was your point?


So how does George A. Smith, who served as an apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, interpret the words "two personages"? As God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The same as John Taylor.

When? Where?



"He saw in this light two glorious personages, one of whom spoke to him, pointing to the other, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." This was a glorious vision given to this boy. When these persons interrogated him to know what he desired, he answered and said, "Lord show me which is the true church." " Orson Pratt, JD Vol 14, pg 141, March 19, 1871

Sorry, according to the "official version" that is not what Joseph said. Now we have Orson Pratt putting words into Joseph's mouth 51 years after the fact. It won't be the last time that they try to change history retroactively.



"The Lord also informed him that, at some future period of time, if he would be faithful in giving heed to the instructions which were then imparted to him, and in his prayers to the Lord, he would impart to him his own doctrine in plainness and simplicity."Orson Pratt, JD Vol 15 page 183, September 22, 1872.

No, I do believe the official version says that the "personage" said something to this effect. Not "the Lord".



So we now have George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and George A. Smith who all say the personages are God the Father and His Son or Lord.

No we don't. And those that did say that did so over 40 years after the fact.

Joseph’s 1832 account records: “I was filled with the Spirit of God and the Lord opened the heavens upon me, and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me, saying, ‘Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way. Walk in my statutes and keep my commandments. Behold, I am the Lord of glory. I was crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.’”

Isn't it odd that he didn't make it more clear to his closest friends and family that it was God and Christ he saw in 1820? Hey, why didn't you mention that in the 1832 account Joseph places his first vision in 1821 (his 15th year) and makes no reference to the religious revival in town that he mentions later and makes the claim that he already knew that none of the churches were true? In the "official version" given in 1838 the entire reason Joseph went to God in prayer was to find out which church was true. But, in 1832 he claims he knew that "...there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ." Joseph also failed to mention the fact that he saw God as well. What?!?!? He saw Christ and God but failed to mention the big guy? I find that hard to believe. But, then again, Joseph was probably lucky to be alive. After all, around the same time that he wrote this account he came up with D&C 84. In verses 21 and 22 he makes it clear that without the Priesthood, "...no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
What?!? When did Joseph get the Priesthood, Bob? Wow! Ol' Joseph is lucky to be alive in 1832. I guess he must have been the exception to the old "No-man-can-see-the-face-of-God-and-live-unless-he-has-the-Priesthood" rule.




"He [God] called upon his servant Joseph Smith, jun., when he was but a boy, to lay the foundation of his kingdom for the last time. Why did he call upon Joseph Smith to do it? because he was disposed to do it... Before Joseph Smith made known what the Lord had revealed to him, before his name was even known among many of his neighbours, I knew that Jesus Christ had no true Church upon the earth." Brigham Young, JD 11:253, 254

"...and we testify, to the whole world that we know, by divine revelation, even through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that he revealed himself to Joseph Smith as personally as he did to his Apostles, anciently, after he arose from the tomb, and that he made known unto him those heavenly truths by which alone mankind can be saved." Lorenzo Snow, JD vol. 18, page 299, October 6, 1876. Note this is a General Conference address.

Now we have Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and George A. Smith all saying that the two personages were really God and Christ.

Bob, are you reading the same things I'm reading? Where in the above quote does Brigham Young say that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820? Where did Lorenzo Snow say that? Was Lorenzo Snow referring to the vision in 1821 that Joseph wrote about in 1832? Now I'm confused. Please send me the quotes that you are talking about because you clearly must be reading one thing and sending me another.


Now, due to the limitations of being at home, I cannot get much depth into the works of William Smith, Orson Hyde or Lucy Mack Smith. There is an excellent discussion of William Smith’s statements at http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#6 .

But here is the problem you have. Your assertion is that the use of the word “personages” did not convey a concept of divinity, and that, according to you, it was not established to be God and Christ until much later. But Joseph in his 1832 statement says it was the Lord. He also said that it took place in 1821 and he failed to mention God at all. All of the people I have been able to research believe the same. But not until well after 1860. You must prove, to carry your argument, that those personages were thought to be angels AND that the persons using the phrase NEVER associate the participants in the first vision with God or Christ. I never make the claim that Joseph's contemporaries "never associate the participants in the first vision with God and Christ." You are putting words into my mouth Bob. I simply said that "...over 40 years after Joseph's alleged 'first vision', Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?

"That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820.

"His motive for seeking God in prayer also changed significantly over the years. From no motive (a spirit appears with news of gold plates), to a desire to know if God exists, to a desire for forgiveness of sins, and finally, to a local religious revival.

"Most importantly, even the heavenly visitor(s) that he saw were constantly changing. Depending on the account Joseph gave, it was either a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, Jesus, and finally, the Father and the Son."



If there is even one example of their understanding being different than your assertion that personages = angels but not God or Christ then your argument fails.

You have yet to show me a single quote from any of Joseph's close friends or family members prior to 1860 (40 years after the vision) that show a firm belief that Joseph saw God and Christ in the Spring on 1820. C'mon...if he saw them like we are told, surely there must be a few quotes from his friends and family within 40 years of the event to back it up.

Further, you must prove that the common and reasonable understanding of the context of the personages was generally understood to not be God and Christ. You have completely failed in that regard.

They all repeatedly refer to his 1820 vision as one of "an angel". I think you would be hard pressed to find any rational person who would believe that "an angel" is the same as God and Jesus Christ.


Let me now compare your statements:

"I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though."

"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?"

Both statements are now demonstrated false. Your theory is wrong. Show some honor here and admit it. And change your web site.

Nope. Once again, you still haven't shown me a single quote from a single friend or family member of Joseph Smith that believed (or stated) prior to 1860 that Joseph saw God and Christ in 1820. Show some honor here and admit that Joseph's friends and family members clearly were unaware of this claim until well after 1860 when they put their heads together and started to get their story straight. It kind of reminds me of a bunch of teenage school boys who made statements to the police about some petty crime and then later try to put all of their stories together in an attempt to get their story straight. If they could only somehow get rid of their earlier damning statements.......



Since you cite only 11 sources, all but one I would say are presented out of context, Really? So you are now claiming that all but one of my quotes are not referring to Joseph's first vision? Ah, it is so amusing to watch the futile attempts of a Mormon apologist. When in doubt, deny deny, deny. Next you'll tell me that there are no significant changes made to the temple endowment or the D&C. I hope the 15 citations I present are adequate to fulfill your derisive comment about lacking details. All of them post 1860. By the way, I did it on purpose to see how you would answer. Do you really think I am going to walk into a debate without my facts in hand ahead of time? Yes. You see Bob, the "facts" and evidence (not to mention the truth) are on my side. You don't know me, so maybe you did. But I never do. Further, I will concede that the quote by Brigham Young is weak (I will research a few more), but I think the other 14 quotes are solid. Solidly over 40 years after the fact. Moreover, your quote from Joseph Smith’s diary is very misleading because, as you must know, Joseph says in his 1835 recital of the first vision experience that he saw many angels in addition to the two personages when he was 14, and the fact he says in the 14 November 1835 entry that he first was visited by angels at that age is correct. Which November 1835 story? The Nov. 9, 1835 story refers to two personages but in no way identifies them as God and Christ. He does however mention seeing many angels. Joseph gave another account of the first vision on Nov. 14, 1835. When this account was incorporated into the History of the Church, it was changed. It originally read “I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old” but was amended to read “I received my first vision when I was about fourteen years old”. Thus, by eliminating one account from the official church history (the one on Nov. 9th) and altering the second, a clear contradiction is removed between Joseph’s earlier claim to see angels in the first vision, and his claim in a later version to see the Father and Son in the first vision.

By the way, you do know the word angel means messenger, right? So Christ, though divine, is the messenger of the Father, for example. Check out Acts 17:18 where Christ is described as a daimonion / strange deity in his roll between God and men.

Oh, so now it appears as though you are saying, "I think you took your quotes out of context but if you are right then that's ok because the dictionary definition of angel is a heavenly messenger and I'm sure we both agree that Christ was certainly a heavenly messenger." How very sad that you need to stretch so far to rationalize your faith in Mormonism. Bob, would you ever in a million years tell people you had "seen an angel" if in fact you had just seen the Savior of the world? I sure as hell wouldn't. We are to believe that Joseph Smith would.

I have other aspects to my life than to document falsehoods on anti-Mormon sites. I will get after the Moroni-Nephi discussion another day. Sure you will Bob, sure you will. Better yet, skip right over to the false translation of the Book of Abraham. Your denial mode will need to be set to full strength for that one. But since I have presented unimpeachable and irrefutable proof of the falseness of your statements, No you haven't. All you've proven is that sometime after 1860 many LDS Church leaders started showing the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in 1820. Likewise, I have proven that that belief was virtually unheard of until at least 1860. I am now going to be watching to see what you do. If you do nothing, then I know that my 3rd hypothesis about your motives was correct. Your "3rd hypothesis" was that I "...feel justified in lying about and distorting LDS history". You have yet to show where I lied. My original statement still stands: Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints until at least 40 years after the alleged incident took place.

I actually agree with you. It is much easier when the truth is on one's side. I cannot really offer you a break of any kind, since you have put out material easily refuted. You have yet to "refute" any of it. Like I say, I will be interested to see your response. I can vigorously disagree with people and still enjoy them. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy of double standards. Since I have now spent a total of about 7 hours researching your material, and have easily located statements contradicting your thesis, I am still waiting to discover where you fall in the spectrum of sincerity. It took you 7 hours to find evidence that "the brethren" started showing a belief in today's version of the "first vision" somewhere after 1860? You could've just asked me, "When did the story start to change?" and I could've saved you 6 hours and 58 minutes. You need to invest your time more wisely, Bob. You have found nothing that "contradicts my thesis". I was well aware of the fact that starting in the 1860's "the brethren" started to polish Joseph Smith's story to make it more consistent. I was also aware of the fact (that you seem to be unaware of) that "the brethren" have also taken great steps to change the history books retroactively in an attempt to make many inconsistencies in early Church history disappear. Joseph Smith himself started that trend with the second drafts of the Book of Mormon and the D&C. You really should compare the 1833 D&C (aka the Book of Commandments) with the 1835 D&C. The massive changes made to the D&C in 1835 prompted Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer to say, "Is it possible that the minds of men can be so blinded as to believe that God would give these revelations...and then afterwards command them to change and add to them some words which change the meaning entirely? Is it possible that a man who pretends to any spirituality would believe that God would work in any such manner?" (An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887) It should be noted that several Church leaders over the decades have denied that any changes have been made to the Doctrine & Covenants. Apostle John A. Widtsoe, for instance, maintained that the revelations "...have remained unchanged. There has been no tampering with God's Word." (Joseph Smith — Seeker After Truth, p. 119) Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth president of the church, likewise maintained that there "...was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting " the revelations." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 170)


I await your response.

Best wishes,
RBV


Sorry for the delay but, like I said, I'm moving and answering e-mails is not a high priority right now. Especially e-mails from those who desire the Mormon Church to be true more than they desire the truth (no offense). Frankly Bob, the only reason that I responded at all was because I was once like you. I firmly believed in the Church and even went so far as to write letters and make phone calls to some of the biggest anti-Mormons around (FYI, I am not a fan of the term "anti-Mormon". I couldn't possibly be more "pro-Mormon". They are "my people". However, I do strongly practice "anti-Mormonism" because I have no doubt that it will cause many sincere and decent people like yourself to follow prophets to damnation. Just curious, who do you think the Savior was talking about when he warned of false prophets? Interesting how the Mormon Church (and many of its 200 splinter churches) is one of the few churches on earth that insists that it has a "Prophet" at its helm. By the way, what good is there in having a "living Prophet" if he almost never offers any new revelations? At the very least one of them could "translate" the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith identified as "the Book of Joseph". It has been in the Church's hands since the late 1960's. Oh, wait.....I forgot, there's no need for the prophet to translate the Book of Joseph papyri. It's already been done by professional Egyptologists and they all (even the Mormon ones) are certain that the papyri has nothing to do with Joseph who was sold into Egypt.

I look forward to your response (not really, but I am trying to be polite).

Sincerely,

Mike Norton


From: RBV
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:50 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?

Mike,
Interesting response. Who in the heavens, besides God and Christ, ever appears to anyone in scripture, at any time, and introduces themselves as Father and Son? You miss the logic of the argument and history in general. If you can prove that the two personages could reasonably be construed as any beings other than the Father and the Son, that is your first step. And you fail at that. Second, you must prove that the leaders are confused about the first vision characters and "Church leaders [were] having a hard time keeping the story straight". The more logical and straightforward explanation, proven from their writings, is that they felt no need to issue an exact narrative each time they spoke, like Paul the Apostle, and saw the first vision as an event to be related in summary at times, and in detail at others. Your point lacks logic that they can give a highly detailed description of the first vision before and after talks that you claim show they are confused. What evidence of confusion due you have? Dimentia? Disorientation? Fainting or calling people in the rooms by the wrong names? Hardly. What you have are various venues of stories being related to audiences familiar with the facts of the first vision, since it was widely published, and not feeling a need to meet your standard of consistency.

Further, you blatantly dodge the fact that you said "I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though." WRONG. FLAT OUT WRONG and a continued distortion. Which is it. A shifting story, or one they are unaware of . Logically you are inconsistent and contradicting yourself. Either they knew the story, which contradicts your quote above, or they just willy-nilly chose between multiple stories. But your problem is that ultimately they are retelling Joseph Smith's story, and the exemplars intact from that have Joseph speaking with the Father and Son, whom he calls Lord, and mentioning multiple appearances of angels, which makes it possible for all of the stories to be accurate in the venues they were given.

Please address your logical inconsistencies. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Pick one. The problem with anti-Mormons in general is they don't feel the need to apply logic or history to their balderdash.

Since the Wentworth letter was widely published throughout the Church, and was more or less incorporated into the Pof GP early on, what do you think was the official position of the Church about the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith? Your quotations are certainly not representative of the general understanding of the leaders you cite, as I demonstrated, your cute comments not withstanding. You must deal with the evidence, and do that consistently, or you have no credibility. The first quote I place from George Q. Cannon devastes your assertion they were unaware of the fact it was a vision of God and Christ. You are wrong. Do you still stand by that, or are we now going to try and figure out the context and reasons why since we now know he did know it was God and Christ, why would he contract the story in a manner which you feel is unmerited? Further, we have the John Taylor, 1850 quote, less than 6 years after Joseph's death, explaining the first vision as being the Father and Son. Will you change your argument again when we pull contemporary journal and published accounts that Joseph testified of seeing the faither and son?

You are like talking to jello. Fortunately, I like jello. If we are to move forward, please actually respond to the information. I proved you were wrong. Admit it. If you want to change the subject and deal with inconsistent descriptions, that is a different point. Can you be a man about it and acknowledge that you have been flatly contradicted by history, but you want to move on? Your repetitious redirecting to the original quotes simply confirms my point: They did know it was god and christ, but in settings they used the term angel interchangeably with the two personages, whom he later id. John Taylor does it on his tract. Did you know that? Did you check? Since you particularly comment on his use of singular and plurals, let's see how he describes it in one place. He later calls the personages God and Christ, and he describes it as a visitation of an angel. Singular. And yet in the tract he describes two personages. So while you may not like the fact he mixes the number and description of the heavenly visitation, in the same letter he is comfortable with the context. Which means your attempt to portray John Taylor at the very least as being confused about the identity of the beings in the visit as wrong. Worse, John Taylor says this was related to him by Joseph Smith, and since it varies in certain unimportant ways in terms of its consistency with other accounts of the first vision, it is unmistakably genuine.

The story was widely published in official documents, something you also ignore. Get real here. Almost everyone in the audiences addressed by the extracts you want to cite knew the official version. And they did not have a problem with it. You must explain, and I honestly am dying to hear your explanation, how the widely published version of the first vision which even Lucy Smith quoted from in her book, how is it everyone had read the account, and you claim it was unknown? Really, explain that. I am all ears. You say virtually no one knew of the first vision account. Published, widespread history and the Churches 19th century critics all contradict you. This will be fun. Shall we go after this concept now? I will, since it refutes another point on your first vision page.

So pick your subject. We have established they DID know the vision was of God and Christ. Do you now want to argue some other point? Your webpage is still wrong, and honesty demands you change it. Or just acknowledge that you are not really interested in the truth, and leave it the way it is. Or leave it the way it is, and your actions will speak for you.

Peace.
Bob


From: RBV
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:52 AM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?

Really quick, you asked what was apparently to you an insightful and devastating question: "Bob, are you intentionally trying to prove my point? Who on earth refers to God and Jesus Christ as "personages"? " Well, in early Church publications prior to 1850, there are probably at least 25 references to God and Christ as personages. And since you quote from one of the sources, "The Lectures on Faith", I would think you would already know the answer to that question.
.
136Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
136A. Two: the Father and the Son. [§5. 1.]
...
138Q. Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the God-head?
138A. They do. [§3. 2.]

Since the lectures date from 1835, what do you think the accepted meaning of the 1838-1844 published statements of the Two personages, one of whom says "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; ". This was published in the April 1, 1842 Times and Seasons, the official publication of the LDS Church. Everyone read it. Who was the "me" ? Since the personage is quoting the OT in the first person, let's see:

Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
So, since God and Christ are described as personages in the LDS scriptures of the day (did you forget, you point out that the Lectures were considered "The Doctrine" part of "The Doctrine and Covenants" on your web page?), and the personages quote scriptures attributed to the Lord in the first person, and since Joseph Smith had published at least since 1835 in the official LDS publications that the Lord had appeared to him in the first vision, I am certain that given all the statements I supplied you, everyone knew of the personages of the first vision being God and Christ, and you provide only a few out of context quotes from people who elsewhere get it right. They weren't having trouble "getting their story straight", they were abbreviating a story they were relating to groups that all knew for themselves the circumstances of the first vision. Remember, it wasn't a virtually unknown event to Latter-day Saints. It was widely published in the US and England. Every member of the Church old enough to read had read of the vision or had access to it.

What you need to prove, which you cannot, is that despite it being widely published, consumed by every believing Mormon, they had recurring episodes of brief amensia scattered among very clear and precise recollection of the details of the first vision. You may not want to concede something so obvious, but it is like I always say, it is logic like this that makes the anti-Mormon positions so silly to anyone who seriously researches them. The Times and Seasons articles and the 1835 accounts also refute your assertion that no contemporaries for 40 years after the death of Joseph had the story straight. It was straight for at least 9 years prior to Joseph's death, and as you mention, it is in the Lectures on Faith that two personages constitute the godhead. The words and context, as well as the accepted LDS teachings of the day made it clear the two personages were God and Christ.

For 10 years after the first vision, the Church was not formed, so knowledge of the first vision was shared in a very limited fashion. Then, after the formation of the Church, it was verbally circulated, as stated by John Taylor and Parley P. Pratt, as well as accounts by Alexander Niebaurer (sp) and the press. It was widely published and discussed by anti-Mormons as well. You are the one on your web page quoting sources in the 1880's saying they still were confused and did not know the story, but it not so, and it is clear you know it. Keep shifting to new arguments, avoid getting pinned down. I am prepared to discuss this topic, and your writings, as long as you want. But understand, I will bring the discussion back to the point every time. So respond to the quotes, the data. From at least 1835 on, the use of the term personages and angel to describe the visit of the Father and Son to Joseph was not considered out of the norm in the group using the terms. I have provided examples, you have provided only your (profane) opinion that you would not use such language if it were you. That is the definition of an anachronism. Look it up. It is a word that if you really would understand, it would explain a lot about your being offended by what people did 120+ years before you were born. They did not know or care what you might consider acceptable. Your inability to put their remarks in context is why you make mistakes in interpreting history no historian would consider acceptable. But do what you want. The whole beam and mote analogy comes to mind.

Lastly, after you see you are thrashed, you want to move to the Book of Abraham. I told you I would go to the Moroni vs. Nephi farce, because, like this first vision abstraction, it is very easy to document the errors and deception of your approach. You have lied, since you assert that I have not pointed any out. You said they did not know of God and Christ visiting Joseph in the first vision, and you say "That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints." That is a lie, flat out.

I will get to the other areas of your webpage, but apparently you left the Church on the basis of not wanting to examine evidence at any depth. Let's at least get all the evidence on the table. This will make a great counter-point post to the lies on the Josephlied.com website, so I want to be thorough. And as I always say, if the evidence is so compelling, why do people need to lie and distort history. Really Mike, do you think anyone is going to take your statements seriously when you quote an 1889 George Q. Cannon text to prove he doesn't know about God and Christ appearing to Joseph, when in 1883 he quotes specifically that it was God and Christ that appeared? Or the John Taylor quotes from 1850? Or the 1842 Times and Seasons and 1835 Lectures on Faith, or D&C 130:22-23 published in April 1843? You may not care about historical facts, but I am willing to bet the average person reading this and comparing it with your webpages and statements will make the correct choice.

Game, match, set.

Let's move on to Moroni and Nephi. I will get to it next week.

Take a jello break while you move your household. Peace.