Salvation by Justification and Works

Mormons believe that our works play an important role in our salvation. President Spencer W. Kimball wrote:

“... However good a person's works, he could not be saved had Jesus not died for his and everyone else's sins. And however powerful the saving grace of Christ, it brings exaltation to no man who does not comply with the works of the gospel.”—Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, 206-208.

I love the foregoing quote by President Kimball as it clearly illustrates the dual roles of man and God in working out our salvation. I have written a brochure, which I will paste here, which addresses most of the TULIP vs. LDS issues. I present it with just a few modifications.

Mormonism is Far More Biblical:

Reformed Evangelism’s Fatal Errors Compared to LDS Doctrine

By RBV

Is it really just a Divine crapshoot to be saved? Reformed Christians, also commonly called Calvinists, adhere to a belief that there are 5 basic tenants of their faith, represented by the acrostic (fancy word for a beefy acronym) TULIP. The most fatal error is that it is unscriptural. We will see that in a moment. It is also based on the false Trinitarian concept of God.

Before we address TULIP and its stark contrast to Mormonism, here is what the parts stand for and some related scriptures:

T is for the total depravity of mankind. No way for man to find his way out of the sinful nature he has. Romans 7:18; Romans 3:9-10, 18; Romans 8:7-8; Eph 2:3,

U is for Unconditional Election. God chose whom he will save, and absolutely nothing we do can change that determination. Because of total depravity, you can do no good worthy of salvation. John 6:37,39, 44, 63-65; John 3:3,6; Romans 8:28-32; Eph 1:4-6, 11; Eph 2:1, 5, 8; Romans 9:11-26; 1 Cor 4:7.

L is for Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. Christ only died for those he will save, not all mankind. Mt 25:33; Mt 7:22-23; Luke 10:20; Col 3:1-6; Acts 20:28; John 17:9; Eph 5:25.

I is for Irresistible Grace. Even if you don’t want to be saved, and when you are depraved you really don’t, God will drag you into salvation and you will respond when you hear the message of salvation. 1 Cor 4:6; Daniel 4:35; Ps 115:3; Romans 9:14-20; Jn 6:44, 64-65; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Acts 16:14.

P is for the Perseverance of the Saints. Once you are saved, there is no way to lose your salvation. Romans 8:30-39; Philippians 1:1-6; Hebrews 9:11-15; John 6:35-40; John 10: 22-30.

There is no Free Will or Choice in Calvinism!

The first problem, which is totally fatal to Calvinism, is the lack of Free Will or Choice. They have argued this since Calvin cooked up this idea, and it was affirmed at the Synod of Dordt. But mankind is free. It is a scriptural position: 1 Pet 2:16;

Matt. 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Mark 8:34 ¶ And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Galatians 5:1 ¶ STAND fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Paul is talking about our freedom to chose to be righteous or sinful. Even if he is talking about “saved” people, it would mean men could choose to sin and fall away.

Luke 10: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

The Spirit had not come yet (John 15:26; 16:13). So how did Mary choose the good part, if corrupt mankind is incapable of choosing good?

This is too silly in some ways to even argue. Calvinists don’t really believe people are totally depraved and incapable of doing good, or they would not be able to actually participate in legal processes, elections or believe in disciplining their children.

God is Sovereign

Evangelicals believe God is so powerful, he will overwhelm mankind’s freewill to complete his ends. Thus, he always gets what he wants. The problem is the tie-in to Free Will: God wants everyone to be saved:

1 Timothy 2:4 [God] will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Not All Men Are Saved

Calvinists admit that all men are obviously not saved. They are unable to explain Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2:4, but assert the rest of scripture supports their position, so it must just be accepted on faith that we are incapable of fully understanding.

Here is an illustrative quote: “We should never give the unsaved the idea that God loves them savingly or redemptively—for that would imply that He gave Christ to die in vain for the sins of the non-elect, or that He is powerless to save those He wishes to save.” (by Mitch Cervinka, a Calvinist explaining 1 Tim 2:4) http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/Articles/1Timothy2_4.htm Mr. Cervinka tries to force an interpretation to the Greek words which effectively means the phrase “all men” really means some men. Oy. He never deals with Romans 5:18 or 1 Cor 15:21-22, where "all" must mean "all", or we are reduced to a theology as the key for scriptural interpretation, and actually reading the words of scripture has no value.

More devastating to this non-Christian approach is the fact there is so very much scriptural support of God’s desire to save all people. Aside from 1 Tim 2:4, there are similar passages in almost every book of the New Testament:

2 Peter 2: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Titus 2:11¶ For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Also Rev. 22:17 and Deut. 30:19

Faith is Offered to All Men Through Preaching the Gospel

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

For Paul, belief meant obedience.

Romans 10: 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Election is Because God Knows Who will respond, Not because he does not want everyone saved:

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

As I have described in a previous blog post, the Potter's clay is in fact the vehicle of salvation. God has chosen that. The analogy of the Potter's clay and God choosing Israel as the vehicle for those blessings to be funneled is the clear, historical meaning of the teaching in Romans. Every Jew was conversant with the teachings in Isaiah and Jeremiah 18:6, and so Paul aims his comments in Romans 9 to the Jews among the Christians of Rome. He says so in the text. To fail to understand the audience to whom Paul was writing is one of the main reasons Calvinists have twisted the argument of God foreknowing and selecting the vehicle of salvation into God pre-destining only some of His children into salvation, despite His express wishes for all of His children to be saved.

Did Christ Only Die For a Few People?

The idea that men are free to choose, but they will always choose evil because of their natures is the same as not having a choice. The Bible actually taught about this condition at some length. It is the argument of MANSLAUGHTER.

In the Pentateuch, Moses taught that if a man accidentally killed another man, he could run to a designated safe city called a city of refuge. There he could wait until the death of the High Priest, and emerge without penalty. If he were to leave before the death of the high priest, and he were caught outside by the family of the dead person, the family had the right to kill him. (Numbers 35).

It is clear from the passage that motives matter. If there is no ability to sin (or in TULIP’s case, not sin), then there can be no punishment. This is why Mormons hold that little children are saved (Moroni 8:22). If you cannot comprehend the act you perform, you cannot be held accountable. Jehova says in Num 35:29 that these are “statute[s] of judgment” for all generations. Did God’s Judgment change?

Mormons hold that Christ died for all mankind.

First, he died to provide the resurrection for all men (1 Cor 15:21-22). This act on Christ’s part justified all mankind into God’s presence. Let’s examine three critical passages:

Romans 3:22-25

22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Notice that because all have sinned, all have Christ’s sacrifice extended to them. It is unto all AND all that believe. Two classes are clearly taught here.

Paul follows this up by explicitly stating who is JUSTIFIED by the atonement of Christ:

Romans 5:18

18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

To show this is not just a twisting or contorting of just a few passages from Paul by the Mormons, here is what John says on the subject as well:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2, NIV translation)

Are Mormons Universalists?

No. But this is where the false constructs of the Sovereignty of God and Pre-destination just conceptually collapse. God absolutely wants all men to be saved. But he honors mankind’s agency. This goes back to the purpose of the Fall:

Genesis 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…

Calvinists would have you believe that the ability to choose was lost after God said it was what made us like Him. Of course God knows who will be saved. But knowledge of the future is not forcing it upon us. Mankind must be free to choose, and able to be saved, or God is a partial God, and a respecter of persons.

So Who Were Those Given to Christ?

Calvinists often quote John 6:44 which reads:

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The problem is they fail to note that this passage is very limited in scope, and is fulfilled. Let us read a little further on in John:

John 17: 11 ¶ And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Christ leaves no doubt here. He was with those God gave him. He asks God to keep them. And he acknowledges he saved all of them, except Judas. His comments in John 6:44 are about his Earthly ministry. He considered everyone his sheep (Matt 9:36), and yet also realized that they would someday be separated, like sheep and goats (Matt 25:32-33). His teachings in Luke 15:1-7 on finding the lost sheep, and especially on sinners repenting cannot be construed as salvation to a certain prescribed class. All have sinned. A sinner repents, and the angels and God rejoice. It is an open call. In one of the most moving and prophetic passages in all scripture about Christ, Isaiah 53 describes all of us as sheep who have gone astray, and Christ suffered for us who esteemed him as nothing.

We Can Lose Our Salvation

Because of mankind’s free will, men can lose their salvation. This is taught all throughout scripture. (Ezek. 18:25-28; Matt 5:13; Luke 8:13; 1 Cor 10:12-13; Gal. 5:4; 1 Tim 4:10; Heb 6:4-6;10:26; James 5:19-20; 2 Pet. 1:10; 3:17; Rev. 2:5)

Calvin was a control freak. Thus we see him advocating a Control Freak God. Calvin found justification in the control freak mentality of God, as he saw him, for committing mass murders and torturing and hurting untotaled numbers of people. So of course God takes vengeance against the wicked. They were unsaved, and not really people anyway. He never really loved them or wanted to save them. But just in case, even if Calvin did a bad thing, his eternal security was assured, in his mind, so he could in fact murder, but it was OK. Paul teaches that all have fallen short. We are saved from our sins, as we apply our will with the will of God. President Spencer W. Kimball made this awesome observation:

“... However good a person's works, he could not be saved had Jesus not died for his and everyone else's sins. And however powerful the saving grace of Christ, it brings exaltation to no man who does not comply with the works of the gospel.”—Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, 206-208.

The Mormons get it right with three verses of scripture:

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

Alma 24: 11 … it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts…

Moroni 10:33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. (This verse also explains perfection in vs. 32).

Hopefully this is enough information to illustrate the clear LDS vs. Calvinistic position. I truly believe one of the main driving aspects of Calvin's doctrinal formulation was his candid realization of the horrific crimes he continued to commit after his supposed "saving" moment. The thought of losing his own personal salvation led him to a doctrine which essentially ignores what men do and delivers man into a kind of Divine lottery. The logical and practical inconsistencies this doctrine creates for interacting with daily life makes it worthy of the not-so-becoming title of "cheap grace". It also forces a person to ignore the very plain teaching by every prophet that sin is to know good, and do it not. (James 4:17)

The logical consequence of total depravity is that no person can know Good or Evil, and therefore cannot be convicted of transgressing the Law. Christ's atonement would therefore cover 100% of mankind. Otherwise a Calvinist must assert that even the unsaved among mankind can know good and evil, and have the ability to choose which to follow. But then logically God would have to accept them on their own merits and desires, thus providing the need for both absolute grace to absolve men of their sins, and a converted heart to desire to be obedient to the commandments of God. This is why Hebrews 5:8-9 states of Christ:

8. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered ⁹and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

Christ is our Saviour, our example and the only name whereby we must be saved. Calvinism destroys that by forcing the willful sinner in with those pursuing obedience, and making false all of the statements of scripture requiring our obedience for salvation.

Salvation is a free gift, but it is gift given only to those who answer the Kings call to enter the Wedding Feast (Matt 22:1-14). He requires us to wear His robes, which means not only responding to the call, but obeying His commandments. The story makes it clear that people choose to respond, of their own will, since the will of the King was for all to enter. That all do not enter means somehow mankind is able to assert their individual will's over that of God.

Come my friends, choose to enter the Feast.
Peace

Observer Effects and Attitudes

Anti-Mormons don't get it. They do not engage LDS people in normal ways, but then they draw conclusions from the reactions of the people they pester. Here is a fun link to several great examples of this attitude, and the truly narcissistic view they have of Mormon interactions with them. They are seemingly baffled the Mormons have the nerve to say they are Christians. They JUDGE the Mormons in the harshest of terms and apparently possess a gift of divination, for they KNOW the only reason the Mormons won't interact with them is because their true righteousness crushes the false Mormon system of religion.

It is called observer effect and bias. Start with your "discovery" already firmly in mind. Negatively interact with the environment, and then pretend your anecdotal assaults on Mormonism and their chilly response to "drive-by insults" constitute the norm within the LDS people. Of course ignore the studies and surveys of active LDS people which accurately reflect their attitudes, understanding and level of commitment to their beliefs.

Sadly, what we see in most anti-Mormons is simply a conversion from one horrifically unhealthy life destroying compulsion to another. Whether it is sexual sin, pornographic addiction or good old mind-numbing pride, it is easy to see these ministerial muppets for the unChristian practioners they are. Why do they assault the Mormons? Because they love them! That is why they use terms like "Mormon Repugnance", "inauthentic dialogues", "confrontational evangelism". Even talking with people who think this is normal makes one want to take a bath afterwards.

They just don't get it: They are still sick, lost souls. Transferring one severely bad addictive behavior to another compulsion means you are still sick. I have personally spoken with many of the "stars" of anti-Mormonism. Some I believe are just frauds who have figured out how to make a living and boost their pride. Some seem to do it to cover up their sins. But many, many seem to be sick people who really do not understand how 12 step programs work. They show up like lemmings every 6-months to Temple Square or the LDS Pagent or Temple gate. Throw a few uninformed words onto a web page or blog somewhere and you get the kind of pernicious passionate know-nothing who feels the fact that 500 people frowned at them or told them to go home translates into a widespread trend among 120,000 conference goers. Average length of conversation which went into opinion formation: 2-seconds. Average amount of study of non-Anti-Mormon scholarly materials? 2-seconds. Average time they kept an open mind: You guessed it: 2-seconds.

I will be at Temple Square during conference in April for at least a few sessions. Sadly, I know there will be several of the usual group of uninformed anti-Mormons confused that the Mormons won't stop to hear their sophmorish deridings of the LDS faith and their "true" god. Truly unBiblical god, but then, they will not stop and speak with the Mormons who will politely but thoroughly walk them through the scriptures to show them the error of their ways. When someone tries, they have one answer: "You are just trying to waste my time."

Such is the observer effect. Define the end at the beginning, and then expound your parochialisms. As if handing out brochures and studying poorly researched material made you an expert. You couldn't pass a bone-head math class with that kind of suspended intellect. Which is why the observers still haven't figured out why the Mormon masses have truly figured them out. The effect of being observed.

See you at the gates. Peace.

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).