Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Shawn McCraney and Adam's Road Deadend for Ex-Mo's

Tuesday I watched Shawn McCraney on his program, Heart of the Matter. He had on the show Lynn Wilder, mother of Adam's Road band member Micah Wilder. She is a former BYU professor of special education, and left the LDS Church about a year ago. She was on with two other ex-LDS, Stephan, who had known Micah Wilder while also serving in the Orlando LDS Mission, and his wife Sarah. Both by all appearances were at one point very strong LDS. But I want to make some observations about the illogic of all three of their positions.

First, I think it should be pointed out that people leave the LDS Church all the time for many reasons. Mostly for lack of interest. Some because of fear of dealing with sin, some because they have been offended. (Side note: Lynn Wilder laughed that she was constantly asked what sin she had committed or who had offended her, saying she was too old to commit big sins. Since these are far more likely reasons to leave the Church than over doctrinal issues, I can understand why she is asked about it, even if she thinks it is odd.) Somewhere way down on the list of reasons is over doctrine.

Doctrine is a funny thing. Most find it AFTER they decide something is wrong. Stephan noted he always felt confession of serious sins to a bishop seemed wrong to him. When he heard about Micah Wilder and others leaving the Church, because that seed existed, he then pursued his study of the New Testament (NT). So he already felt there was a problem, not knowing then, or apparently now, that confession to a church leader IS based on NT doctrine:
16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.James 5:16

In fact, Lynn and Stephan and Sarah all exhibited their continued NON-Evangelical beliefs in various statements throughout the show. They simply seem to sweep their differences under the rug, I would guess because they refuse to acknowledge that their "New Faith" has many more holes in it than the LDS beliefs they left, when both are compared to the NT.

A caller asked if her LDS family were going to hell for not having left the LDS Church, even though they talk of Jesus and do so many good things with such a good spirit. Stephan said "No", that they could still be saved according to the NT even after the resurrection, that God does not throw away people. Then the caller said "but Mormons have another Jesus, and the Bible says only he is the way to heaven". At this point Shawn stepped in and said if they have the wrong Jesus, as the Mormons do, they cannot be saved. Sarah said that if good deeds were enough, there would be no need for a savior. Do these two realize they contradict each other? Does Stephan realize no Evangelical theologian of any prominence agrees that this position clearly exists in the Bible? Shawn McCraney constantly talks of how Romans tells us that nature testifies of God, and God will find those who love him, but then he says that if that is the case, they must receive Christ in this life. And all of them seem to ignore Hebrews 9:27
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
As a Mormon, I find the NT does support the teaching of the Gospel to the dead, and their potential salvation (Jn 5:28-29; 1Pet 3:19-20; 1 Peter 4:5-6: Note in Peter the word "dead" is translated from the Greek "Nekros", meaning a dead body. Translators used the word "dead" in 1 Pet 2:24 for a different Greek word which means to be apart or removed or to die too something, but when Peter uses Nekros, he means a person whose body is physically dead, as in 1 Peter 4:5-6: 1 Cor 15:29.). But IF we must be repent and be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 7:10; 1 Pet 3:21);

IF salvation is only offered to those who have exercised faith and obey the commandments:

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Read all of Romans 6, if there is any doubt that Paul teaches obediently following doctrine is essential to being made righteous and obtaining salvation.)
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, [Christ] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
1 Pet 1:22 have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit...
Gal 5:4, 7 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

And IF the Bible teaches that ultimate salvation is to become like God:

Gen 1:26-27 26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
Ps 8:4-6 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:
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Rom 8:17 ¶ And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Rom 8:29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
1 Cor 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
1 Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
THEN I guess those Mormon NT writers were confused, inserting all this LDS gunk into the NT.

Bringing me to the last point. Stephan made a point of saying that temples and prophets were unnecessary. Again, such comments make me wonder if he just read the tract from his Adam's Road dudes, or if he actually read the NT. Anti's love to point to Hebrews 1:1-2 as their proof text that Jesus was the last prophet. Because of this silliness, I long ago wrote a brochure on the subject to cite the numerous instances of NT prophets leading the Church AFTER Christ. Agabus comes to mind. Barnabus (Acts 13:1) comes to mind, too, also showing their critical role in continuing to lead the Church, even if they don't have ANY separate books or revelations attributed to them. See Acts 15:32; 11:27; 21:10; Eph 3:5; Eph 4:11. And read Revelation 11. Two prophets are going to show up, be killed, lay dead in the street, and come back to life. You will be on the wrong side of God if you really believe new prophets are unnecessary.

If temples are unnecessary, why did Christ say he would come to his suddenly? Why did the Apostles, including Paul, continue to worship at the Temple of Jerusalem AFTER Christ's resurrection?

You ex-mo's really need to do more research and questioning before changing out your faith for a brochure. This is serious stuff, not just a new T-shirt that helps you feel less guilty because you don't have to confront your sin with shame and sorrow. Send me an email. We can talk. Or go to and research your questions or submit them to the ask a question service. There are answers. Thus we see for every person leaving the Church over a doctrinal issue, 100 join the Church for the same reason.


Stefan said...

This is Stefan that was mentioned in this article, and I am very happy to explain and provide all references and also discuss all concerns presented in this article. The author has sorely misrepresented the material at hand and it is easily explained with proper reconciliaton and attention to specifics in scripture. For example, the apostles never did any work in the Jewish temple after Christ's assention in Acts, but were teaching the Gospel and were thrown in jail for it. The True temple of God is the Body of Christ (and our bodies) and the actual dwelling place of God in the heavens, which is what Christ refers to. The author of this and anyone else may contact me at I would also be happy to discuss and clarify the misrepresented material in this article over the phone by providing me with your number and a time to call. You are also free to submit a request to be my friend on facebook and see the extensive material I've posted there. Search for me on facebook using: Stefan Dennis Utah. I have my little boy as my main facebook picture.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Thanks for writing in. I do appreciate it. That being said, I think you perfectly illustrate what I believed about your level of scholarship:

You don't know what you are talking about.

There is no question, as in none, that Paul was in fact performing an ordinance in Acts 21:23-27, in the Jerusalem Temple. He is completing a Nazarite Vow. There are so many websites that explain this, I am not going to do it here. But the completion of the Vow required three offerings: A he-lamb; a she lamb and a ram, for burnt, sin and peace offerings, respectively. Thus you will note the Apostles tell Paul to pay for the offerings for himself and the four others (Acts 21:24). Custom was they spend the last 7 days before the offering in the Temple grounds to avoid becoming accidentally unclean.

By the way, did you notice the circumstances:
The Apostles tell Paul to join with the four others to show the Christian Jews continue to live and honor the Law.

Also, the four others with whom Paul joins were already completing their own Nazarite vow. In other words, without regard to the symbolism of Paul's act, Christians were routinely engaging in ordinances in the Jerusalem Temple more than 25 years after Christ's crucifixion.

I will send you a note today to get your facebook info. Tell you what, I meet with members of Shawn McCraney's audience pretty much every Tuesday night at around 9:45 pm at the Village Inn at 2900 South State Street in Salt Lake City. Since there are anywhere from 6-15 ex/non-Mormons and me as the only LDS person, this is always a lively time to visit. That way if you get in trouble or confused, someone can bail you out from your team. :-)

Anyway, I will post a new article addressing your issues after I have a chance to read your friend's documentation. In the mean time, go to or , and look up all of their Bible commentaries for this passage. They are all written by Trinitarians, and I predict not one will agree with your position. It's funny that Barnes' New Testament Notes says of verse 23: "[it]shows that the Christians at Jerusalem did not disregard the institutions of Moses, and had not been so far enlightened in the doctrines of Christianity as to forsake yet the ceremonial rites of the Jews."

This is simply hilarious. So James the less, who was probably Jesus' brother, and the other Apostles and Elders, who had issued the decree of Acts 15:23-29 doing away with the Law of Moses in most circumstances for gentile converts, don't get it! Right. This is sort of your position, I think. The Apostles, like the Mormons, are ignorant of the proper role of the temple, and Paul falls right in there as well.

I look forward to your refutation/ cancellation of these passages of scripture.

Anonymous said...

Who doesn't know what they're talking about?

I love your arrogance and ignorance. It's so great that you're able to completely take scriptures out of context and twist them to your own ends. It's no wonder since you are, when all is said and done, promoting a cult.

Constantly and consistently the author's of the Bible make it clear that following the law and rituals did nothing for salvation. It was fine to do them if one felt inclined to do so, but once it became a determiner for salvation, that's when it crossed the line.

Besides, in the context of Mormonism, this topic is joke. Joseph Smith's temple has nothing to do with the Biblical temple, so it's a mute point.

Dallan L said...

Well it's not hard to see that Anonymous has nothing to add but antipathy. We get it, you're a coward and you are full of hate toward mormon's and cannot back it with anything. This topic is a joke? Which is why we can guess you added nothing for intelligent people to gather from your statement.

pitcher said...

It's your ball. You have the bully pulpit and I see that you use it with glee.

Just a few points.
Why is the Savior never praised or worshiped? To worhip Jesus I think that an occasional song or his name used at the end of a prayer doesn't cut it.

If you believe that the Bible has been corrupted so badly, why refer to it at all? I know that the leaders of the church will have you think that the BookofMormon has more authority than the Bible. You can't deny this. Have you read the bookofm, and this is repeated over and over. Are members asked to read the Bible first? NO!

The prophets told us Christ was coming and what his plan was. The apostles finished by writing letters of the great love and the gift of grace that has been offered to all.

There is not 1 mention in the Bible of the Father ever being a man. I don't think that a finger or a backside gives any proof of God having a physical body either.

The physical temple is not an important theme in the New Testament. Early Christians, "even the apostles" never mentioned or tried to build another temple to perform ceremonies.

Just wondering, is anti anti Bob, Bob launsberry? If so, I listen in the AM sometimes.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Thank you for taking the time to send in a few comments. I truly appreciate it. I don't feel it is possible to fully understand other people's opinions if we don't directly interact on issues we find either the most challenging or the most damaging.

So let me take a whack at this.

I appreciate your point about outward praise, but I think you are simply wrong. We praise and worship Christ in the most sincere and true form each week as we partake of the sacrament, humbly contemplating our sins and seeking forgiveness and strength through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ Himself chided those who worship only with their mouth by saying "why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). Lip worship is precisely what Jesus chided the Jews for. Of course, when we do what Christ asks, or try to do what he asks and fail, our critics attack us as being a "works" oriented Church. I just think that it is hard to have a faith and worship life that thinks it can "Continue in sin, that grace may abound". (Romans 6:1) Oh, and Paul finishes that verse by saying: "God forbid".

I don't believe the Bible has been "corrupted so badly". But it has been corrupted, and in many areas properly restored. But problems with the Bible are a non-issue so long as there are living oracles of God on the earth, and we have the Spirit to personally guide us.

As for the precedence of the Book of Mormon over the Bible, there is a very good reason we are asked to read it: Because the Spirit testifies about it. No such promise is included in the Bible directly. However, you don't know as much about Mormonism's use of the Bible in its study as you seem to think. In the LDS curriculum, we spend two years reading the Bible, then one year on the Book of Mormon, then one year on the D&C, Pof GP, and Church history. We in fact spend twice as much time studying the Bible in Church Sunday School classes as we do the Book of Mormon.

One last point. Last year the Barna group came out with their annual survey of religious topics. Despite the fact that Mormons have 4 different books of scripture and non-LDS Christians only have the Bible, Mormons studied the Bible more than the non-LDS Christians. So while you may think it degrades the Bible to say the BoM is also scripture, the reality is that most Christians care less about reading the Bible than Mormons. There is something very significant in there.

Your point about prophets and apostles doesn't seem to have a question or a clear purpose. But if the idea is no more prophets and apostles are needed, then I would point out that the NT shows there were continual appointments of both AFTER Jesus' resurrection. If that responds to your point, let me know, and I will give you the citations (start with Acts 13:1-4, and then get your mind around the clear need for continuing prophetic leadership capable of revising scripture as found in Acts 15. No such body exists today in the non-LDS world which could deal with divisive issues in the so-called "Christian Church").

Actually, God is personified as a man in appearance starting in Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 2, Genesis 5:1-3; Genesis 32:30 (definitive); Judges 13:8-23 where the Angel of Jehova is identified as Jehova, and is called "the man of God". Hmmm. What did God look like?

The Temple continued to be central to Christian worship even after the ascension of Christ. They saw it both as a teaching venue (Acts 3-5) and as a place to fulfill oaths and covenants made with God (Acts 21:17-30, esp vs 23,26,27), which specifically include Paul not just going to the temple, but paying for the offerings to be made, and himself completing the vow of the Nazarite, keeping himself Legally Clean. Again, most Christians tell me they have read the Bible many times, and yet are shocked to learn that all of the Apostles, including Paul, continued to view the temple as central in their community worship.

Since the Temple was not destroyed yet before the close of most letters by Paul and Acts, we would not expect to see them advocating building a new one. Paul however notes that the "man of sin" is going to be sitting in the "temple of God" opposing God. Which temple do you think this is? Does he sneak into God's Temple in heaven? This is a yet future event, according to Paul, so when did it happen and where?

On the other hand, apparently the role of the Temple in the Revelation of John is lost on you. John discusses the temple of God by name some 16 times. Why does God need a Temple in heaven? There is a temple in heaven, but at the end of times there is no physical temple as there was previously, as John notes "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev 21:22).

Further befuddling your reasoning are the references by Peter, John and Paul to the Melchizedek priesthood, the royal priesthood which Jesus gives to those who will be priests to God and his Father. Revelation notes Jesus has made us "kings and priests" (Rev 1:6), a role we fulfill as "we shall reign on the earth" (Rev 5:10). This shall be at least 1,000 years (Rev 20:6).

So tell me, what is the role of a priest? According to the Bible, what does a priest minister in? (Hint: Heb 9:6; 10:11). Remember, the priesthood was changed (Heb 7:12), not done away with. It was God's plan from the beginning to have all men be Melchizedek priests, but through sin, Israel had the priesthood restricted (Ex 19:6, note the language and to whom it was to be given, therefore not the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood.)

So unless Peter, Paul and John don't understand the concept of priesthood, they all affirm it is necessary, and since the function of the Melchizedek priesthood was to work in the holiest part of the Temple where it was given to Christ and kings as part of our adoption as sons by God (Ps 2:6, 7). Christ is of course uniquely sinless, so the atonement could only be done by him. But his ordination to be a priest and king (Heb 5:5)is something we as children of God also have the right to inherit (John 1:12; Rom 8:17). How can we be a Joint Heir, ruling and reigning with Christ if we don't have the same anointing to sonship as a king and priesthood?

No Launsberry here. He lives in NY, I am in Utah.

Anonymous said...

I love how so many make attacks that do not address the actual issues. They are either ad hominem ("I love your arrogance and ignorance"), off subject ("If you believe that the Bible has been corrupted so badly, why refer to it at all?" The real question should be why can't you, pitcher, refute with it?), or unsubstantiated opinions ("It's so great that you're able to completely take scriptures out of context and twist them to your own ends." Yet, no clarification as to what was twisted is provided).

Keep it up, Bob. You're doing just fine.

pitcher said...

To anonymity, I have legitimate questions. You claim that I twist things? Take a look in the mirror. Your comments are annoying.


The resurrection, the atonement, baptism etc. can be found in all of the major teachings that came from Jesus Christ. Mormonism has created all of the laws around the main theme of the New Testament. With all of these laws, men falsely precieve they have worthiness or righteousness. This idea has been repeated by man throughout history and it is a huge blunder. God is not a respector of men.
I was taught that Jehova is Jesus. Not so! The name Jehova could be the trinity complete or 1 part of the trinity.
Are you aware that most of the comments on this board spew, "my dogs better than your dog" and
the verses you list defending Mormonism is speculation of men. You can tell where they came from, "man". Over time, men have tried to pull God down to their level. Joseph did the same thing when he claimed that God was an exhalted man. Joseph proceeded to take power from God and use Gods name to control people and justify his own sin.

Tony said...

It is clear that the only men they came from were those ordained of God, called as Apostles. Bob cites directly from the Bible, and yet you claim that it is pure speculation.

The trinity is, to put it lightly, incomprehensible and against known logic. It tries to define a God that it defines as unkowable, and then makes him three-in-one. I am sorry for the person who has to explain and defend such a creed, for they don't have an easy road ahead of them.

The fact taht Mormonism seems to have so much from the New Testament should say something about the veracity of it's doctrine.

I can tell you that I do not percieve that I am righteous because of my own works. It is not anything I did. I am an imperfect being, and I'll be the first to admit it. (I'm sure you'd agree haha).

I owe my Savior, Jesus Christ, and my Heavenly Father, everything. My life, my breath, the people I know, my happiness in life, everything.

I know that Jesus is the Christ, not because of flesh and blood, or because I read a book, but through the Holy Ghost. My Father in Heaven has revealed that truth unto me.

I sincerely hope that you would take a leap of faith, ponder upon the teachings found in the LDS Church, and truly pray about these things with an open heart, desiring to know. It may sound crazy to you, but I can tell you that it changed my life. I know that it can change yours. And whether you accept that invitation or not, I leave it with you in all the energy and care of my soul, and do so in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Anonymous said...

There is so much more than this, but I have to be brief. What that interview with Stephan, Sarah and Lynn didn't say was that this "great missionary" Micah Wilder spent may days not out tracking (as a devout and obedient missionary would do), but spent most days with Joseph Warren in their apartment hanging out, disobeying his new mission president, and his (at the time) girlfriend (now wife) disobeyed her parents and ran away to Florida and went to Micah while he was on his mission. (Hmmm, I don't think your girlfriend is allowed to be with you on your mission. Needless to say, Micah had a dishonorable release and told his mission president that if he was to go home, he would go home his own way and not on the plane the mission president had arranged. His "born again” experience sounds more like embarrasment and hurt pride than it does “finding Jesus”.

trevor said...

i've just recently stumbled upon this blog.


good work, Bob.

as for pitcher, i believe you are the one that is mistaken. your arguments are weak, and i'm not just saying that because i am LDS. you provide literally no evidence of what you are saying. you have not backed up one single point with an appeal to scripture, which i assume you believe to be the infallible and all settling word of God. if you do in fact believe your faith to be so much higher than the intellectual ranks of a few members of a worldwide cult, hellbent on stripping the joy out of pure christianity, than i suggest you use your bible and back yourself up. you are making yourself look like a fool.

you twist the bible's words, it's pure speculation, joseph smith was a power usurper, blah blah blah.


use the bible to defend yourself! after all, truth will prevail, will it not?

i think it's pretty clear which truth is prevailing here.

by the way, pitcher, it might do you some good to educate yourself on what exactly constitutes official doctrine in the LDS church, because, as far as i'm aware, our church has never come out and stated that God is merely an "exhalted(sic) man."

please, if you are going to try and make a bunch of cult members look bad, at least do us the favor of understanding what we actually believe to be doctrine first.

pitcher said...

I will no longer post a response. This site is not secure and doesn't work very well. Its' a waste of time.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

That is the absolute lamest excuse I have ever heard. As you apparently don't know (not a big surprise you don't know something you are writing about, but pointing out the obvious is apparently necessary here), this is NOT my website. Blogspot runs the website for the purpose of blogging, and they have tens of thousands of blogs. I have NEVER had a hacking incident or anything which could be called insecure (knock on wood)! Frankly, I am going to guess that because everyone sees what you no doubt see, that your arguments are unsupported, weak and not well constructed, as well as totally lacking in a Biblical basis, you have taken the "Adam's Road", easy road, and opted out of real research or change based on the results. Sorry for you, and we will miss your comments. They were enlightening from the perspective of seeing the typical critic's basis of attack.
Happy trails, and please keep reading.

Anonymous said...

Tony, I am sorry for the person who has a God that is bound by human understanding.

My main problem is the way people believe the truth is revealed to them...

The chairman of the Church's Public Affairs Committee, Elder M. Russell ballard once said in an interview:

"That's how people will come to know whether or not the BoM is true. You will not get to know it by trying to prove it archeologically, or by DNA, or by anything else. Just pick it up, and read it and pray about it. And you will come to know that religious truth is always confirmed by what you feel. And that's the way Heavenly Father answers prayers."


He who trusts in his own heart is a fool,
But whoever walks wisely will be delivered.
Proverbs 28:26

God specifically says, "Don't trust in your heart! It's a liar and will make you a fool!"

fool - a person who is duped; a person who acts unwisely or imprudently
(Oxford American Dictionary)

Ouch. Pretty harsh words to the entire church community that knows this gospel is true because they "felt it in their heart."

(for the record, I'm not posting anonymously out of "fear." I have nothing to hide from. I just don't want to have to make an account.)

Also, I feel like all these low blows and ridiculously rude remarks aren't going anywhere. Accusing Micah of not having a true born again experience? And Bob's constant arrogance makes me have no more respect nor does it make me consider your points any longer. Maybe if you truly want to reach a wider spectrum rather than just the TBMs, you should try being more gracious. Just a thought.


Greg said...

What about the fraud of The Book of Abraham, and no evidence of any civilizations or DNA groups as described in the Book of Mormon.
Brigam Young wrote that black people only exist on earth to represent Satan.
These days your church missionaries can't win many educated converts when all it takes is a google search to learn the truth. The last hope of the LDS church is converting the third world of uneducated and non-internet savvy members. However third world members cant pay good tithings to support the church.

Joseph Smith practiced polyandry by marrying eleven women who stayed married to other men. Most Mormons refuse to accept this truth until shown the genealogical and recorded evidence.
The truth is "wife swapping" was condoned and practiced by Joseph Smith. However Smith was the one who decided who, when and where another man had to share his wife with the Prophet.

andrew said...

to all adams road members.. repent..

Anonymous said...

So many members are leaving the LDS Church that the leaders have to send out warning letters all over the world to stop the bleeding. It truly is a funny thing Google is. Truth is found and people become free!

Bob said...

What letters are you talking about? The ones on political neutrality? Encouraging us to watch General Conference? Please, tell us what you mean.

Anonymous said...

Hi everyone,
Forgive my English, ma native language is French but I hope to be able to explain myself plainly.
Even if I am from the LDS church I have to admit that some comments might have been harsh to non member of our faith. This being said I also notice that on this page the Bible is almost exclusively cited by LDS.
I just wanted to give some light on the comment of Anonymous about truth being confirmed by what we feel. I always find insights by reading different version of the Bible in different languages or just looking at the different translations in the same language. I am not a scholar and my sources are very basic but some help for understanding can be found on and on I hope it will help the readers to better understand what this scripture means.
For my part I can testify that the promise found in the Book of Mormon in Moroni 10:3-5 but also in the Bible in Jeremiah 24:7, Proverbs 2:2-3,10, James 1:5 is true. I know that God loves us, that Jesus is the Christ, my redeemer, and that through his sacrifice and by obeying his commandments I can be saved. I also know that we have a living Prophets and living Apostles on earth today to hold the keys of salvation (Matthew 16) and help us on the way back to our Heavenly Father. I feel so grateful to have receive such insights directly from God and know that anyone that humbly pray to know the truth can find it. I testify of these things in the name of my savior Jesus Christ. Amen


m1k3p said...

The Mormon Church is the only true church on Earth. This fact alone is what makes the story of those that reject it's glad tidings so sad. They will never find happiness in this life, or in the life to come. Matthew 7:21-23 (Note the reference to "..doeth the will of my Father..." - Grace after all that we can do baby!!)

Josh Nelson said...

As usual one raises layers upon layers of considerations where I suspect there may not be much willingness to concede to any one point proven in his mind or not. Prove to any one of us that your mind could be changed based on sound explanation or confirm our suspicions that you've already made up your mind about how to think.

Josh Nelson said...

I like 1 John 5:9 as the Bibles version of Moroni 10:4-5...

Josh Nelson said...

+1 = PS Staying on Adams real road+ linking to him genealogically.

Josh Nelson said...

Its even on the sermon on the mount. +1 for a good find.

TheLdsLife said...

Visit YouTube Channel "MormonEvidence" and you'll get a start on what you say we don't have.

Doug said...

I know LDS don't/won't read "anti" material, feeling it is propaganda to lead the masses astray. So, I will reference the site that I have copied and pasted the following snippet from. It discusses the plagiarism that Joseph performed as he wrote the BoM.
Joseph Smith copied 13 consecutive chapters from Isaiah into 2 Nephi with minor word changes. This is clearly excessive. If the alleged original copier, Nephi, had access to the writings of Isaiah, which he would have to given the extensive copying, then simply referencing them and providing commentary would have been sufficient. This is clear evidence that Joseph Smith was copying from the Bible to provide filler for the Book of Mormon.

There are others mentioned on this page as well, including some analysis of WHY the translation from Joseph Smith clearly doesn't make sense in context. If you are TRULY interested in finding the truth regarding the veracity of the LDS faith, I would recommend checking out this webpage:

from -

Bob said...

There are many reasonable, logical holes in your assertions. First, Nephi had access to the scriptures, but they were in a completely separate set of Brass Plates, not in his history. Your judgement that it is excessive is just that, your judgement. I remember reading something in Isaiah about "your ways are not my ways". Maybe you have never read the Old Testament. Huge sections recite other sections. Since all those scriptures are in the current Bible, clearly, by your standard, that is excessive, right?
Second, you are aware, since you are an expert on the production of the Book of Mormon I am assuming you have done the research, and know that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey didn't have a Bible in the house when they were translating. You knew that, right? And they had no papers or books in the room during the translation. You were told this by your friends at your favorite LDS explanation website, right? And they also explained there is no explanation for the plates Joseph showed people, nearly two dozen people, right?
Lastly, they also explained the BoM text revision in Isaiah 2:9 is actually a better revision in comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls, than the KJV text?

Bob said...

So Doug, here is the original KJV text, as cited at your favorite website (maybe second favorite after mine now, hmm? :-)):
"[9] And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. [10] Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty. [11] The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day."
But the BoM changes verse 9:
"[9] And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not."
This change makes verses 9 and 10 seem a little odd together because earlier verses in the chapter are about the idols which people have started worshiping, but verse 11 starts to explain God will humble them.
Enter the Dead Sea Scrolls. First, it turns out that out of the whole chapter, verses 9, 10 and 22 were different, and in the cases of verse 10 and 22, possibly not even in the original. In fact, verse 9 is shortened and indicates the proud are humbled and come to god, not worshipping idols. Which is what the text of the BoM shows.
Here is the Dead Sea Scrolls verse:
"9. But humanity will be humbled and a mortal brought low."
The rest of verse 9 and all of 10 are missing. Then verse 11 says:
"11. And the haughty looks of humankind will be brought low, and human pride will be abased; the LORD alone will be exalted on that day."
So note verse 9 starts with a "But", meaning a change in scene. Bowing down to the idol is not the intent of verse 9, it is the humbling to go before the LORD.
And while the BoM doesn't hit the text of the DSS, the DSS are also not 100% consistent either. The only thing the 3 DSS and the Septuagint do have in common is they disagree with the KJV translation of the far younger text, and point to mankind repenting of their worship of idols.
So, since you quote verbatim from this section of your favorite website, you would do well to actually research changes to the text. The BoM doesn't get it perfect, but the change is better than the KJV text.
And you said the copying of the text was excessive. How do you explain the BoM being a better rendering to the meaning of the text than the KJV Bible which you claim Joseph Smith simply copied?
I will wait on your answer.

Anonymous said...

Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

Anonymous said...

First of all, Mormonism relies on incorrect interpretation and misunderstanding of context in order to thrive in the minds and religiously driven folks who do not understand the true gospel of the true and biblical Jesus the Christ. the scriptures used in the post to try to claim Mormonism is in there, point the opposite direction of Mormonism. Who were those verses speaking to? Those who had been born again and who had been adopted as God's sons and daughters. Mormonism is very much a deceit and is not found in the Bible at all! of course those who misinterpret and twist scripture would quickly say that Mormonism is in there, yet it all just shows the ignorance toward HOLY scripture to ever claim that Mormons believe in the bible, or that Mormonism is found taught in the Bible. I am a born-again believer who knows full well what Mormonism is all about and if Mormons would do research into their own doctrines and history as well as study the Bible without those blinders on, they would see clearly that Mormonism is not of God, and that the Bible speaks of the true Jesus, not the made up Jesus by Joseph Smith, and the true gospel, not Joseph's fake gospel with works and masonry and a lot of other evils in it, the One true God, not the polytheism and henotheism of Mormonism.