Our Mormon Brothers?

Reformed Evangelist ^ | May 14th, 2007 | Jeff Fuller

[Gamecock]

The following draws from the book Is the Mormon My Brother by apologist James White. Earlier this year, Paul Kaiser reprinted a Worldview article titled 10 Mormonism Facts which generated a myriad of responses from visitors who stated that Mormons were being misrepresented and are simply our brothers & sisters in the Body of Christ. Let’s look at what Dr. White presents using LDS resources:

The First Vision

Without question the key revelation in Mormon Scripture regarding the nature of God is to be found in what is known as the First Vision of Joseph Smith. The vision itself is fundamental to all of LDS theology. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie described the vision:

That glorious theophany which took place in the spring of 1820 and which marked the opening of the dispensation of the fullness of times is called the First Vision. It is rated as first both from the standpoint of time and of pre-eminent importance. In it Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son, both of which exalted personages were personally present before him as he lay enwrapped in the Spirit and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.

This transcendent vision was the beginning of latter day revelation; it marked the opening of the heavens after the long night of apostate darkness; with it was ushered in the great era of restoration, the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:21.) Through it the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens, and because of it the truth about those Beings whom it is life eternal to know began again to be taught among men. (John 17:3.) With this vision came the call of that Prophet who, save Jesus only, was destined to do more for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. (D. & C. 135:3.) This vision was the most important event that had taken place in all world history from the day of Christ’s ministry to the glorious hour when it occurred.(1)

And Mormon Prophet Ezra Taft Benson said,

Joseph Smith, a prophet of God, restored the knowledge of God. Joseph’s first vision clearly revealed that the Father and Son are separate personages, having bodies as tangible as mans. Later it was also revealed that the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, separate and distinct from the personalities of the Father and the Son. (See D&C 130:22.) This all-important truth shocked the world even though sustained by the Bible. (2)

How is it that the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens and the knowledge of God was restored by this one vision? While the story is as familiar to Mormons as John 3:16 is to Christians, we present Joseph Smith’s own recounting of the story in full, taken from the LDS Scriptures (and hence carrying canonical authority). However, we note that the account that appears in the LDS Scriptures was written in 1838, eighteen years after the events described:

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon bysome power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)–and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;(3) and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, Never mind, all is well I am well enough off. I then said to my mother, I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true. It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? (Joseph Smith History 1:14-20).

What does this vision, recorded in LDS Scripture, teach concerning God? First and foremost, it presents to us the concept of a plurality of gods. This arises from the fact that God the Father is a separate and distinct physical entity from Jesus Christ, His Son. God the Father is possessed of a physical body, as is the Son. This is why McConkie can claim the creeds of Christendom were smashed to smithereens, for the vision has always been interpreted by the LDS leadership to teach that God the Father is a separate and distinct person and being from the Son. The unity of Being that is central to Christian theology is completely denied by Joseph Smith in the First Vision. Hence, you have one God, the Father, directing Smith to another God, the Son.

While it is not our intention to critique these teachings at this point, it should be noted that there are a number of problems with the First Vision, and with the entire development of the LDS concept of God as well. As we noted, this version of the First Vision was not written until 1838. Previous versions, however, differed in substantial details from this final and official account. Most significantly, the presence of both the Father and the Son as separate and distinct gods is not a part of the earlier accounts.(4)

————————————————-

(1) Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine,2nd ed., rev. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), pp. 284-285, LDSCL.

(2) Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), p. 4, LDSCL. On page 101 of the same book, we read this strong statement:

The first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith is bedrock theology to the Church. The adversary knows this and has attacked Joseph Smith’s credibility from the day he announced the visitation of the Father and the Son. You should always bear testimony to thetruth of the First Vision. Joseph Smith did see the Father and the Son. They conversed with him as he said they did. Any leader who, without reservation, cannot declare his testimony that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith can never be a true leader, a true shepherd. If we do not accept this truth if we have not received a witness about this great revelationwe cannot inspire faith in those whom we lead.

(3) One of Mormonism’s leading scholars, James Talmage (and a General Authority), said the following in the General Conference of April, 1920:

This Church, therefore, from its beginning, has been unique, for the organization of the Church was forecasted in this declaration that at the time of Joseph Smiths first vision there was no Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth; and I do not see why people should take issue with us for making that statement (CR1920Apr:103).

(4) I noted a number of the historical problems with Mormonism in Letters to a Mormon Elder, pp. 88-106. For a fuller treatment of this issue, see H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism (Salt Lake: Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp.1-41, and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), pp. 143-162.

[Rameumptom]

>>>Imagine what could happen to our country if the powers of the presidency were entrusted to someone who is seriously keeping a covenant to consecrate everything they have to the LDS church.

I hate to break it to you but Mormons have served in High positions of Government for along time without problem (exception Harry Reid). Mormons have had their hands on the triggers of nukes in the military for many years now.

Reagen appointed more Mormons to high government positions than any other president. He trusted them. Ezra taft Benson served as Sec. of Agriculture while he was an ordained Apostle of the church. (he was one of the most strident anticommunists and he dismantled a lot of beauracracy and subsidies).

[MHGinTN]

For those tending toward being confused by all the dissembling and obfuscation from Mormonism Apologist claiming Mormonism is Christianity:

Differences between Mormonism and Christianity

	Mormonism	Christianity
What is the Church?	The LDS Church is the only true church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 1:30); all other churches are "wrong," all their creeds an "abomination," and all who profess them are "corrupt" (Joseph Smith, History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price). One either belongs to "the church of the Lamb of God" or to "the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). Joseph Smith taught that everybody but Mormons will be damned (History of the Church 3:28), and the Book of Mormon teaches that if an individual doesn't repent in "this life" then one is sealed to the devil and "this is the final state of the wicked" (Alma 34:32-35). For LDS, this Book of Mormon passage typically means that apostates or these sons of perdition who willfully deny Christ and His Church after being a part of it end up in "outer-darkness" forever excluded from the presence of God in His celestial kingdom. But depending on how good the other non-members are in this life and the next determines their place in one of two lower heavenly kingdoms or "degrees of glory"--the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms--both of which are still outside the presence of God in His kingdom (D&C 76). Whether there may be any possible advancement out of these kingdoms still depends on acceptance of the LDS Church as the only true church.	The church is a body of various believers and groups of believers. The one true church is the invisible, spiritual, and universal body of Christ in heaven and on earth made up of all those true believers from various local denominations or visible churches. Unity in the church does not demand complete uniformity in its various manifestations. God loves diversity. Yet the church's unity is in Christ, who is the vine. People in various denominations who are committed to the Vine are the branches; no one particular manifestation of the church is the vine (Matthew 16:18; John 15:5; Acts 15:35-41, 20:28; 1 Corinthians 11:19, 12:13ff.; and Ephesians 4:1-13).
What is divine salvation?	Divine salvation is unconditional for resurrection and conditional for eternal life. In one sense, salvation is universal immortality and resurrection by grace alone, and is given to everyone except apostates. In another sense, salvation is eternal life or exaltation into the highest kingdom. The latter is dependent on grace through faith and one's works (2 Ne. 25:23; D&C 76:40-44; and Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 669-71).	Divine salvation is always conditional. Divine salvation is always from sin and its consequence of separation from God. This salvation is always conditioned upon faith. Until this occurs, God considers the individual dead. When this salvation occurs, one has eternal life (Jn. 5:24; Romans 5; Eph. 2:1-10; and 1 Jn. 5:10-13).
Are there other Gods?	There are many Gods for other worlds, and each God is equal to the God of this world in terms of His nature. There are many gods who create and rule over other worlds, and on those worlds, worship excludes the God of our world. So there is only one God for us, and this God is typically referred to as the Heavenly Father. Mormons may also speak of the term "God" in reference to "the Godhead," which is a team of separate Gods (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 576-7; Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-7 [pre-2002 edition]; Abraham 4:1, Pearl of Great Price; Gospel Principles, 245 [1997 edition], and 302; "God," LDS Bible Dictionary; and Blake Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1996], 99-146).	There is only one God for all worlds. There is only one God who created and rules over everything in existence. LDS simply devalue and weaken God when they think that He did not create something like some other world (Genesis 1:1; Deuteronomy 4:39; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 96:5; Isaiah 40:12-20; 43:10; 44:6, 8, and 24; Jn. 1:1-3; and 17:3).
The Trinity?	The Trinity means three separate Gods, who are one in their nature and become one in purpose. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods, who are one in purpose and nature, but not in a being they share eternally (Ibid; Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372 [pre-2002 edition]). There was a time when the person of the Father (Elohim) was without the person of the Son (Jehovah) as His Son. Thus, there was a time in which Elohim was not the Father.	The Trinity means three inseparable Persons, who are eternally God in purpose, nature, and being. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct or different persons, who are eternally and inseparably one in purpose, nature, and being (Ibid.; Mt. 3:16; 4:10; and 28:16-20). So the Father is not the same person as the Son, and the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father, but nonetheless, each Person eternally makes up the only Being of God there is.
Are men and God the same nature or species?	Men and God are of the same nature or species. The nature of these gods is identical to the nature of man, and as such these humans had to become gods; they haven't always been gods (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345 [pre-2002 edition]; Thomas C. Romney, The Life of Lorenzo Snow, 46; D&C 76:23-4; and Abraham 3:18-28).	Men and God are not of the same nature or species. God has His own unique nature that man, a created being by definition, cannot ever have. God is God by nature, and not by obtainment (Ps. 90:2; Ezekiel 28:2 and 9; Hosea 11:9; Acts 14:15; Galatians 4:8; and 2 Peter 1:3-4).
Does God in His nature have flesh and bones?	God is an exalted man with flesh and bones. God the Father and Jesus Christ have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. Personages of spirit are still material with a certain form or shape, but they are not as tangible as the bodies of those who are sent to a mortal planet (Ibid.; D&C 130:22; 131:7-8; and "Spirit" in the LDS Bible Dictionary).	God is not an exalted man with flesh and bones. Since He is the Creator of all things outside of Himself (e.g., the entire material universe), God is too big for a body. He does not need a body or anything else to operate anywhere in all of creation; He is all powerful. And since He is all powerful, He can take any type of form or nature to show up any way He wants to (1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:24; Luke 3:22; and Jn. 4:21-24).
Can human beings become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world?	Human beings may become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world. Worthy Mormons may become gods to create, rule over and receive worship from their own worlds some day. They will do this exclusively as the god or the team of gods for that world or that set of worlds (like the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are for this world or this set of worlds), and thus the God of this world will not perform those functions there (Ibid; D&C 76:50-58 and 95, 132:15-23, 29, and 37; and Gospel Principles, 302 [1997 edition]).	Human beings cannot become Gods for other worlds as God is God for all worlds. When all believers become what some Christians such as C. S. Lewis call "gods" in heaven (although the Bible never uses this language of glorified individuals), they are still dependent and human "gods," and not God by nature, who alone is eternally the Author and Sustainer of literally all that is outside Himself. He is the only God in this fundamental sense of the term (Ibid.; and Lewis, Mere Christianity [N.Y.: Macmillan, 1952], vi, 160, 172).
Was the God of this world once a man who became God?	The God of this world was once a man who became God. God is an exalted man, who needed to do certain things in order to become God for this world (Ibid.; James Talmage, Articles of Faith, 430; and Gospel Principles, 41% [1997 edition]).	The God of this world is the God for all worlds, so He never was a man who had to become God. God has always been God, and thus is not so needy (Ibid.).
Does the Father have a Father?	The Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father before Him. God the Father has a Father whom He followed as Jesus had followed His Father in order to become a god (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 373 [pre-2002 edition]).	There was no Heavenly Father before the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no other God before God. He is not so weak that He needed to serve and receive counsel from some other God in order to become God; He always was God (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:12-20; and 43:10).
Does God need a wife to become God?	God needs a wife to become God. God the Father has at least one wife that He needed in order to become exalted to Godhood, and by at least one wife we on this world were all literally born as spirit children prior to taking on our tangible bodies of flesh and bones via our mortal parents (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 516-7; Brigham Young, The Journal of Discourses 1:50; Gospel Principles, 15 [1997 edition]; and the popular hymn "O My Father").	God does not need a wife to become God. Since God is not a man by nature it is impossible for Him as the eternal God to even enter into a human marital relationship that He would need to become God and sexually produce us. It is just as impossible for God to lie. He does not need anything, let alone a wife, to become God. If it were even possible for the Father to strive to exaltation, then we would expect God's courtship and marriage to be a perfect one in which He received counsel from the other partner(s). But what kind of God would this be? As the All Perfect Being by nature, it is also impossible for God to receive any counsel (Ibid; 1 Kings 8:27; and Hebrews 6:18).
Is there anything that the Father did not create?	There are things that the Father did not create. Thus God the Father did not create the planet that His Father had already created. No God for any world created all worlds. No God for any world created intelligence, matter, or the laws that govern them. These are eternal. Any person, including a God for any world, eternally existed as intelligence, and not as God (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 373 [pre-2002 edition]; D&C 93:29-33; 131:7-8; and Abraham 3:18-28).	There is nothing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did not create. There is only one Being who created and rules over everything in existence. LDS simply devalue and weaken God when they think that He did not create something like some other world (Gen. 1:1; Deut. 4:39; Isa. 40:12-20; 43:10; 44:6, 8, and 24; Jn. 1:1-3; and Acts 17:24-28).
Is there anything that the Son did not create?	There are things that the Son did not create. Jesus being the literal son of exalted human gods obviously did not create all things either. For example, He did not create the planet He was born on as a spirit child (Ibid.; Gospel Principles, 17-20 [1997 edition]; and 27-29).	There is nothing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did not create. Prior to becoming man, Jesus existed as "the only begotten God" (Jn. 1:18, New American Standard [NAS] and in the best Greek manuscripts). As such, He created everything that was ever created from the very beginning (Jn. 1:1-3). When LDS relativize His creation to only concerning the things of this world or this set of worlds--i.e., not literally all worlds, this devalues and cheapens Jesus, who has not only the nature of man (1 Timothy 2:5), but also the nature of "God over all blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5, emphasis added).
Are Jesus and Lucifer spirit-brothers?	Jesus and Lucifer are spirit-brothers. Jesus was the first one born of heavenly parents, and Lucifer was a younger sibling. Jesus is referred to as Lucifer's, as well as our, elder brother in the pre-earth life (Ibid.; and Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel through the Ages, 15).	Jesus created Lucifer. For LDS to think that Christ is simply our and Lucifer's elder brother in some supposed pre-earth life is blasphemous devaluing of Christ's divine nature. Christ may rightly be referred to as a brother in our humanity, but in addition to that, He is our Creator... and not simply of our bodies (Ibid.; Colossians 1:13-18; Heb. 1:2 and 6-14; and 2:6-18).
Has Jesus always been God?	Jesus has not always been God. Jesus, like all other gods before Him, had to become a God. He is the literal Son of God like we are children of God, but He's without sin (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-7 [pre-2002 edition]).	Jesus has always been God. Jesus has always been the only God there is along with the Father and Holy Ghost (Ibid; Isa. 43:10; Mt. 28:19; Jn. 1:1-3 and 14; and 8:56-59).
Should the Son receive the same worship as the Father?	The Son should not receive the same worship as the Father. Jesus is not worshipped equally with the Father, since Jesus is not our begetter. Jesus is not even directly prayed to. Prayer is directed only to the Father in the name of Jesus (Gospel Principles, 41 [1997 edition]; McConkie, BYU Devotional [March 2, 1982], 17, 19, and 20).	The Son should receive the same worship as the Father. Since Jesus is God by nature, He is worshipped equally with the Father. Jesus receives both worship and prayer, and we are commanded to do so (Mt. 4:10; 28:16-20; Jn. 5:18-23; 14:14, NAS and in the best Greek manuscripts; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2; and 1 Jn. 5:13-15).
Who is the Holy Ghost?	The Holy Ghost is a man and son of God. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father. It is fundamental Church doctrine that God is the Father of the spirits of all men and women, that Jesus is literally God's Son both in the spirit and in the flesh, and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit separate and distinct from both the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Eternal Godhead, and is identified also as the Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, and the comforter" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 2:649; cf. D&C 130:22-23; and "Holy Ghost" in the LDS Bible Dictionary).	The Holy Ghost is God by nature. Since the Holy Ghost is the inseparable third person of the only Being of God there is, He is not a man by nature that became exalted into a separate god for a Godhead team (2 Samuel 23:2-3; Mt. 28:19; Acts 5:3-4; and Acts 13:2).
Is God a racist?	God curses certain individuals with dark skin. The races are determined by how worthy individuals were prior to this mortal life. Blacks were not as faithful in their first estate. The Book of Mormon teaches that God cursed certain Israelite American Indians with dark skin, and this was meant to keep them from interbreeding with their white brethren. This scripture also teaches that God blessed some who repented with white skin. Nothing concerning the revelation in 1978 to give "all worthy males members" the priesthood invalidates these beliefs (Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61-7; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 527-8; Alma 3:6-9; 2 Ne. 5:21-4; and 3 Ne. 2:14-6).	God does not curse anyone with dark skin. God blesses humanity with different colors of skin, and no skin color is more favorable to Him than another. Race is not the real issue anyway, for we are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:28).
Did Christ die for all sins?	Christ did not die for all sins. Christ did not atone for the murderer, since there is no forgiveness for him "in this world, nor in the world to come." And Christ did not pay for more than a one-time offense of adultery, since such violators cannot be forgiven either (D&C 42:18 and 25-29). Actually, according to one apostle, Christ atoned simply for Adam's sin, and left "us responsible only for our own sins." This apostle goes on to quote the 2nd Article of Faith that claims "men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Le Grand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [1976], 98). Other LDS prophets have taught that there are certain "sins" that one may commit that are beyond the atonement of the Son of God, and one's own blood must be shed in such cases (Young, The Journal of Discourses 3:247; 4:53-54; 4:219-20; and Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:133-136).	Christ did die for all sins. Christ atoned for all sins (Adam's as well as everyone else's). The Lord Jesus took the punishment of everyone on the cross. The debt we could never pay has been completely paid by the Lamb of God, and to those who receive this gift, they are declared "justified" or "not guilty." This is the good news (the gospel) for everyone, including the adulterer and the murderer (Isa. 53:3-12; Mt. 18:21-22; Rom. 3:24; 4:5; 5:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14-21; 1 Pt. 2:24; and 1 Jn. 1:8-2:2).
What role do good works play with our standing before God?	Good works are meritorious for right standing before God. Good works are a necessary requirement of salvation and right standing before God (1 Ne. 3:7; 2 Ne. 25:23; Alma 5:27-28; 11:37; 34:33-35; Moroni 10:32; D&C 1:24-33; 25:15-16; 42:18-29; 58:34-43; 82:5-7; 3rd Article of Faith; Gospel Principles, 74-78 [1997 edition]; and 122-127).	Good works are not meritorious for right standing before God. Salvation is a free gift that must be received through faith alone, and this automatically is demonstrated by the overall good life produced by it (Ibid.; Rom. 11:6; Gal. 3:11, 23-26, and 5:6; Eph. 2:8-10; and 1 Jn. 5:10-13).
Baptism for the dead?	Baptism for the dead is required. Baptism in place of the dead is an essential ordinance done in LDS temples on behalf of those who died not receiving the benefit of LDS baptism (Gospel Principles, 255-262 [1997 edition]). Joseph Smith said, "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead" (Fielding Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 356 [pre-2002 edition]).	Baptism for the dead is not Christian. Baptism for the dead is done by those outside of Christianity, since the Apostle Paul made a contrast between what "they" do and what "we" do. Paul said that even those who do baptism for the dead believe in the resurrection. How much more should we, who do not baptize for the dead and are led by apostles who were eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection, believe in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:29-30).
The Priesthood?	The Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are offered to worthy male members. There are two forms of the priesthood: the Aaronic (the lesser one) and the Melchizedek (the greater one). Without the authority of the priesthood no man can see God and live. It is available for all worthy male members of at least a certain age, who desire to act legally in the name of the Lord. This was extended to those males with black ancestry in 1978 (D&C, Official Declaration--2; 84:6ff.; and Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:80).	The Aaronic priesthood was done away at the cross and the Melchizedek priesthood is unique to Christ. The Aaronic priesthood was done away at the crucifixion of Christ, since He has become our permanent high priest. There is no more need for Levitical priests to offer imperfect sacrifices on behalf of the people in the temple. Jesus alone is worthy to hold the Melchizedek priesthood. Any believer today who has been called out of darkness into the light, regardless of age, race, or sex, is a member of the holy and royal priesthood. The believer operates in the highest authority that is offered today, viz., that of being a child of the Lord Omnipotent. Christians have the true priesthood, since they have the true God who gives it to them (Jn. 1:12; Gal. 3:26-29; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:14; 5:9-10; 7:11-8:2; 9:24; and 1 Pt. 2:5 and 9).
The Bible?	The Bible is unreliable and incomplete for faith. The Bible is the word of God only as it is translated correctly (8th Article of Faith). Evidently, it was not translated very well since Joseph Smith's translation (JST) is quite a bit different from all other versions (also cf. 1 Nephi 13:23-42 where the Bible is corrupted after the founding 12 apostles). Nonetheless, LDS use the King James Version. LDS also have three other books of Scripture--the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (cf. 2 Nephi 29:3-14). Joseph Smith taught that only LDS believe the Bible and "all other sects believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds" (History of the Church 3:28).	The Bible is reliable and complete for faith. The Bible claims to be the word of God, and the Bible--including Jesus--promised that it would be faithfully preserved. The general consistency of the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the thousands of other ancient manuscripts, lectionaries, and citations from early Church Fathers all attest to this fact. The Bible is by far the best attested work of antiquity. The Bible is archeologically, historically, prophetically, and scientifically accurate. And since the Bible contradicts all the other scriptures of the LDS Church, they should all be damned (Ps. 12:6-7; Proverbs 30:6; Isa. 40:7-8; Mt. 5:17-19; 24:35; Jn. 10:35; 17:17; and Gal. 1:6-9).

[Rameumptom]

George Washington took his oath of office on a Masonic Bible. He was buried according to full Masonic ritual.

[MHGinTN]

Which version of Genesis chapter 50 do you believe, Joe Smith’s which adds hundreds of words and includes Smith’s made up prophecy of his advent ‘in these latter days’ or the Hebrew from which the Old Testament was translated into Greek? And that is available via the Dead Sea Scrolls. Without the aid of the Hebrew scholar who was hired to assist Joe, how much Hebrew ‘translating’ do you think Smith could have fabricated?

[Rameumptom]

>>>The Book of Abraham is a total fabrication right from the mind of a liar

You were pinged in to this thread later so you may have missed my earlier posts where I address this.

If Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Abraham why does the text match ancient documents discovered 100 years after he died, like the Testament of Abraham, The Apocalypse of Arbaham and The Egyptian Book of the Dead?

[Rameumptom]

I followed your link. IMO, the "analogy" of rolling back an odometer is pretty lame. Interesting that the site builder also solicits donations. Things that make you go HMMMMM?

I thought you said you were bowing out of this thread?

[MHGinTN]

Smith was a fraud. You figure it out while in a lull from your apologetics misdirection games. The funerary document Smith claimed was the book of Abraham has been found numerous times buried with mummies from Egypt, exactly the same, with only a different name of the embalmed as a variation on the text. Keep it up, apologist. The light is good for FR as we oppose this cult and expose the lies and fraudulent claims.

American cannot afford to have Romney be the Pubby nominee because it will usher in the Rodham-rodent and a filibuster proof Senate to appoint leftist subpreme court judges who will rubber stamp the leftist societal engineering now planned by the DNC ghouls.

[MHGinTN]

For those nowconfused by the deceit of apologist trying to obfuscate the truth regarding the fabricated 'translation of the book of abraham':

Youtube on the book of Abraham: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE

[Rameumptom]

I get the feeling you are linking pseudo scientific articles without really understanding them. A basic thing about science is it is almost impossible to prove the negative. IOW, you have the unfortunate taks of proving that there is not and never will be a link between the DNA of the ancient Americas and the Hebrews. You have started out in an unenviable position. OTOH, I only have to show that there is a link, which unfortunately for you there is.

The Q-P36 genetic haplotype as evidence linking Hebrew and Native American DNA

Researchers have also focused attention on one genetic haplotype as potentially providing evidence in favor of a link between Hebrew DNA and Native American DNA. The haplotype in question, known as Q-P36, is found in 31% of self-identified Native Americans in the US (Hammer 2005, p. 5).[10] It is also found in 5% of Ashkenazi Jews (Behar 2004, p. 357)[11] and 5% of Iraqi Jews. In addition, a rare branch of Q-P36, called Q-M323, is found in Yemeni Jews (Shen 2004, p. 251).[12]

ANother article I can;t find quickly also discusses the mitochondrial link. But don;t let science get in the way or anything. (What next proof of human induced Global Warming)

Besides the arguments you push are built on a straw man argument. The BoM itself never claims that all modern Native Americans are descended from BoM people’s. It does record the fact that there were other people’s already here. IOW, the Jewish DNA is just one group of people’s here.

[Elsie]

An hour?

I’ve got DIALUP!

[Osage Orange]

Uh...no replies.

That's odd.....

[Elsie]

Notice the part I bolded? God said Man had become "one of Us"

Nope...

Notice the part I bolded? God said Man had becomeAS "one of Us"

[colorcountry]

LOL! We need to get you up to speed!

[Elsie]

... (like everything the antis' put out, they just can't tell the truth about us ...

EVERYTHING???

[lupie]

No, not necessarily the thread, time permitting, just a certain individual or two within the thread.

[Elsie]

Chief Running Bear wants to know if he’s a decendant of Jacob or Esau or Joseph.

How how the LDS organization help him?

[MHGinTN]

You have no idea what I understand regarding DNA and genetic tracing. As a matter of fact, the DNA evidence shows Native Americans ARE descended from Asians not Jews ... a proof in the positive that stands up in courts, son. But that was a nice try at dissembling the truth to support your cult’s field of lies.

[Elsie]

The native Americans are not related to Israelites, they are descended from Asians.

You make me greatly saddened...

--Chief Running Bare

[lupie]

Here is from an excerpt from the story of why an ex-mormon left who discovered all the lies from within Mormonism. He family had been Mormons for several generations. And after he discovered Smith lied, several of his family members also did their research and also left:

"At this point I decided to seriously investigate the Book of Abraham. For anyone who may read this who isn't familiar with the Book of Abraham, let me give you a brief history of this particular piece of Mormon scripture. A man named Michael Chandler was traveling through the Eastern United States with about a dozen Egyptian mummies and a couple rolls of Egyptian papyri in the mid 1830's, occasionally selling a mummy here and there. By the time he reached Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 (where the Saints were currently gathered) he had four mummies and two scrolls of papyri left. He would charge people a nominal fee to let them view the papyri and mummies. It was brought to his attention that a local man (Joseph Smith) might be able to translate the papyri. When Joseph looked at it he claimed that one scroll was an account of Abraham (the same Abraham in the Old Testament) in Egypt and that it was written by Abraham's own hand. Joseph claimed that the other scroll was an account of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by his brothers and his travails in Egypt. This was quite a find indeed. Several Church members pooled their funds and bought the papyri for $2,400 and Joseph proceeded to "translate" the papyri that contained the story of Abraham in Egypt. (See History of the Church Vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351 for a more detailed account)

The "translation" of the papyri was published in the Times and Seasons (a Nauvoo newspaper) as the "Book of Abraham". At the time Joseph Smith "translated" the papyri, the ability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics was in its infancy so there was nobody knowledgeable enough to dispute his claims.

In 1967, when the original papyri was found in a New York museum and turned over to the Church, every single legitimate Egyptologist that studied the Book of Abraham papyri came to the conclusion that it was nothing more than funerary text taken from the Book of Breathings/Book of the Dead. Even Mormon scholars agree that "...when one compares the text of the Book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same." (Ensign, July 1988, pg. 51)

Since 1967 the church has come up with at least 10 different theories as to why Joseph's translation doesn't match the actual translation of the papyri. The most common excuse the Church has given over the past 3 decades is the opinion that we don't have all of the original papyri that Joseph Smith worked with and it is possible that the part of the papyri that Joseph actually translated the Book of Abraham from is still lost.

In an Ensign article from July, 1988, BYU employee Michael D. Rhodes wrote: "The Prophet described the papyrus he used in translation in these words: ''The record .. found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.'' (History of the Church, 2:348.) The Book of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor state of preservation. It must have been in much the same condition in Joseph Smith's day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other totally unrelated papyri." (Michael D. Rhodes, "I Have a Question," Ensign, July 1988, pp.51)

This was yet another example of the Church intentionally omitting certain details to make the facts fit their predetermined conclusion that the Church is true. In the Ensign article written by Michael Rhodes, he quoted Joseph Smith's description of the papyri but you'll notice that he omitted something in the sentence "The record .. found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation." This sentence originally read, "The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation."

Mr. Rhodes had to have known that by removing those four little words ("of Abraham and Joseph") and then describing the quote from Joseph Smith as the Prophets' description for "...the papyrus he used in translation..." he was completely changing the original meaning of the quote from that of a general description of all of the Egyptian papyri to just a description of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham came from. The fact of the matter is that the scroll of papyri which Joseph Smith referred to as the "Book of Abraham" was in a state of poor preservation from the moment it fell into the Church's hands and had never contained any red ink. However, "...written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation" perfectly describes the untranslated scroll that was referred to as the "Book of Joseph".

Also, there is rock solid evidence that the papyri remains that are currently in the Church's possession to this day are the same scraps of papyri that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated into what is now known as the Book of Abraham.

I am still confused as to why the current "prophet, seer and revelator" of the Church doesn't use his ability as a "seer" to translate the papyri that Joseph Smith clearly identified as the "Book of Joseph". If he was in fact a true "Seer", Gordon B. Hinckley should have no trouble with such a task."