Accusation: Mormons Don't Understand Grace or the Unnecessary Pursuit of Good Works (Part 1)

I received an interesting series of comments/accusations to various articles I wrote a few months ago. I have a little time on my hands, so I thought I would take some of that time to respond to one of the lengthier accusations. I will break it into three separate articles so as not to bore you and to keep each article a little more focused.

Following is the entire section of the accusation I will address in this and the next article. I will then break it down and respond to the various accusations/comments.

Accusation:
“You say that you believe that you are saved by grace but how are you saved by grace if you still have to do things on your own accord to reach the highest level of heaven?
Grace, by definition, is unmerited, meaning you have done nothing to deserve it and nothing you can do can make you deserve it. Therefore, truly being saved by grace is accepting that because of my sin I deserve death but Jesus chose to die in my place and believing in that truth allows me to live eternally with God. The end. Good works, keeping the commandments, or being a good person do not get me into heaven. Salvation requires of me to believe in Jesus' sacrifice for me and if I truly believe that, one will see it in the way I live my life. But the way I live my life after that salvation moment is not what brings me salvation. Only Christ can give salvation. Nothing I do can make me deserve more than another.”

Response:
In order to appropriately -and thoroughly- respond to these comments, it would be best to start with a proper, fundamental understanding of what “grace” is. We will then be much better positioned to address the issue.

“Grace” comes from the Greek “Charis” (Khar-ece) and means “graciousness in manner or act”—especially the divine influence upon the heart, and it’s reflection in the life (Strong’s concordance). The “grace of God” then, is the graciousness and influence of God in his dealings with his children (“saved by grace”) and/or the direct effect of that grace in an individual’s life (“I succeeded by the grace of God). One of my favorite descriptions of grace is it’s “enabling power” in the lives of the faithful. Also, Peter puts it well: “But the God of all grace... make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.” -1Pet. 5:10

Yes, we’re talking semantics here, but it is important to have a correct understanding of what the concept of grace actually means instead of parroting certain phrases in the Bible without knowing their true meaning.

Now, are there varying amounts or degrees of grace someone can have in their life? Yes. Again, I will refer to the words of Peter. -I think it’s fitting that two versus before the one I want to focus on, Peter warns the Church (since he was leading it) to be careful in dealing with Paul’s writings because some believers got mixed up in doctrine and fell away from the Church because of them. For Context’s sake I will quote the four versus here:

15. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
-2 Pet. 3:15-18

So Peter commands the members of the Church to “grow in grace.” He is not saying to grow “into” grace, but increase in degree of grace as well as the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I think it’s logical and probable that Peter and the other apostles had more of the Lord’s grace with them than a half-hearted member of the Church who just went through the motions. -It's not necessarily an "either you've got it or you don't" thing.

***Thus-far we know that grace is the “graciousness,” “influence” or “enabling power” of deity and that this influence can be had in varying levels or degrees in our lives.

On to our focus.

Accusation (Part 1):
“You say that you believe that you are saved by grace but how are you saved by grace if you still have to do things on your own accord to reach the highest level of heaven?Grace, by definition, is unmerited, meaning you have done nothing to deserve it and nothing you can do can make you deserve it.”

Response:
I agree that the human family does not really “deserve” to receive Heavenly Father’s grace; after all, Adam and Eve did eat the fruit, right? I do however believe that God’s plan included sending his Son, that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting ilife.” -John 3:16

You will agree with me then when I say that we need to believe in Jesus Christ in order to gain everlasting life (be saved) because you already said “believing in that truth allows me to live eternally with God.” Believing is a verb (which describes an action), which means believing is doing something. So, we do something (believe) in order to gain everlasting life (be saved).

It seems like a safe assumption (to me at least) to say that believing in Jesus Christ not only gains us eternal life, but the grace of God. That seems reasonable, right? -If we’re saved by grace, and if belief gains us eternal life (salvation).

Belief qualifies us for grace, not because we deserve it, but because God is bound when He makes a promise. It is obvious then that we do have to do things of our own accord (believe) in order to reach the highest level of heaven (Eternal life).

Accusation (Part 2):
“Therefore, truly being saved by grace is accepting that because of my sin I deserve death but Jesus chose to die in my place and believing in that truth allows me to live eternally with God. The end.”

Response:
More or less. We will clarify “belief” in the next article.

continued...

Accusation: Mormons don't understand the Spirit or the Atonement

Following are some random accusations towards Mormon beliefs on the ministry of the Spirit and how the Atonement works accompanied by my responses. This is a continuation of the same correspondence mentioned in the posts on 9/30/08 and 10/05/08.

Accusation:
We were born in sin and have a natural instinct or desire to sin but He also gave us a conscience and when we do something wrong He “reminds us” or “tells us” in that little voice. The closer we are to Him the louder that voice is. It’s not a feeling because feelings are not the voice of God but a true knowledge.

Response:
-I assume that you will agree with me that the fruits of the spirit are granted to those who are close to God. I also assume that you believe the Spirit is a teacher (John 14:26).
Paul defines the “fruits of the spirit” as “love, joy, peace, longsuffering...” -Gal. 5:22. I don’t know what your particular experiences have been, but when I learn something from the Spirit (who is a teacher), and experience the fruits of the spirit, I experience love, joy, peace, etc.; which, are feelings. I do not think you believe love, joy, and peace aren’t feelings.
So, often when the Spirit teaches something, there are feelings involved.


Accusation:
When we sin we need to confess it and ask for forgiveness. Not like a revolving door like “I’ll sin now and confess later and everything will be alright.” God knows our hearts.

Response:
-I absolutely agree. One of my favorite biblical verses on this subject is Heb. 6:1 - “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection (*there’s that “perfection” word again); not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God...”


Accusation:
The “restored gospel” is full of do’s and don’ts. Mostly do’s. You can’t “buy your way into heaven” by going to church, paying tithing, and doing temple work. You can’t get a better seat in heaven by having lots of children, becoming a missionary, or being a bishop.

Response:
-The Church of Jesus Christ does not teach that people can buy their way into heaven. The only “buying” that ever happened in the gospel is Christ buying us with his sacrifice (1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23, 2 Pet 2:1). People who have not studied the truths that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches do not realize that the Book of Mormon harmonizes with the Bible in stating-

“Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” - 2 Nephi 10:24

We know that if we believe the Lord, we strive to keep his commandments, and he will reward us as He sees fit. Without the atonement of Jesus Christ, we would all be lost, no matter how righteous we were.

“yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement...”
-Alma 34:9


Accusation:
God loves all of us and desires a true relationship with us. He is a great friend, and wonderful father. You can get to heaven if you accept Him as your personal savior.

Response:
-I absolutely believe if we accept God’s Son, Jesus Christ, and do what he asks us to do, we can return to live with Him in heaven.


Best Wishes,
Rusty

Accusation: Marriage is not a commandment

Accusation:
I'm sorry but Gen. 1:28 says nothing about marriage being a comandment. It says to be fruitful and increase in number and to rule over the earth and the fish in the sea, etc. Yes, procreating does seem to reference marriage but it doesn't actually say that one needs to be married and no where does it say that doing anything that was mentioned was a commandment.

Response:
I appreciate that you care enough about this subject to take the time to express your opinions.
“God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it”
-Gen1:28
I think we can all agree that when God says to do something, that constitutes a commandment. He commanded man to have children. How could he have children without having sexual relations? Having sexual relations outside of marriage is called fornication, which is a very serious sin.
It would appear to me that in order to keep God’s commandment (be fruitful, and multiply), man would need to have sexual relations with his wife (who he was married to), otherwise it would be fornication.


Accusation:
God does not say that people HAVE to be fruitful and multiply, let alone be married.

Response:
As we just established, when God says “do this,” or, “do that,” or, “be fruitful, and multiply,” it is a commandment. A command is to “give an authoritative order” (Oxford American Dictionary), hence, it is something you “have” to do. If you do not, it is sin that needs to be repented of.
“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
-James 4:17
I can see that this subject is one that you care about, so the most helpful thing might be to turn the page of our bible (from Gen 1:28) and read Gen. 2:22-25-

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

I don’t think the Lord could be more clear than this. This is obviously not a commandment to only Adam and Eve because Adam and Eve were the first of the human family, therefore they could not leave their father and mother. It is a commandment to all of us, in every age.
In fact, one of the signs of the “latter times” is that “doctrines of devils” would be taught, including “forbidding to marry” (1 Tim. 4:3). So the devil doesn’t want us to get married. Why is that?


Accusation:
If he did, then what happens to people who are infertile and cannot have children? Are they not keeping God's commandments because they cannot have children? This argument just simply does not work.

Response:
Ahh.... This is another beautiful truth that the true gospel of Jesus Christ simply explains. If we are physically unable to keep a commandment, how could a just God condemn us for not doing so? He doesn’t. It’s the heart and the motive that count.
I think Paul’s words will work here: “for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15).
Another scripture I like (which does not necessarily refer to marriage) will fit nicely here as well:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.” -Doctrine & Covenants 124:49

I do agree that God punishing those who could not keep his commandments would not be a good argument. But people cannot use this as a cop-out to half-heartedly “try” to keep a commandment and then quit because they think they can’t do it or don’t want to make the necessary sacrifices.


I hope that helped answer your comments/questions. I promise you, from personal experience, that following the Lord’s plan is where true happiness is found.

Best Wishes,
Rusty

Question: Why don't Mormons believe all you have to do is say you believe in Christ to be saved?

Question:
Why is it so hard for one to believe that God loves us enough to die for us and that all He asks is that we believe in Him?

Response:
-The truth that God sent his only begotten son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16) has caused many to stumble. Many of Christ's early disciples left him because he taught them things which were “hard” (John 6:60). Many “christians” error today, because they suppose that a mere verbal profession of belief is all that is necessary to achieve salvation. Jesus Christ himself defined what a believer should do:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” -John 14:12

Remember, devils also believe in Jesus as the Son of God; think of Legion who proclaimed the divinity of Jesus (Mark 5:7), and the spirit that the sons of Sceva tried to cast out, stated, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?” - Acts 19:15

If we truly believe in and love Jesus, we keep his commandments. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” -John 14:15.

“3. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” -1 John 2:4

So, yes. With everything in context, all that God asks of us is to Believe in His Son.


Comment:
Communion is a way for us to renew our commitment to give Him our lives in return for the Him dying for us.

Response:
-Agreed, mostly. I know you did not mean this, but it’s not realy a barter. It’s not that “he did that, so we will give him this.” We all owe the Lord everything that we are, and “communion” is a reminder of this.


Comment:
He does not ask us to become perfect, He says to turn away from sin.

Response:
-Actually, he does “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” -Matt 5:48. That wasn’t just him asking us to be perfect, he commanded it.


Best Wishes,
Rusty

Question: How could God take the gospel from the earth?

I received an interesting email recently from someone who had many questions about the Church. In order to best answer her questions, and share the responses with all of you, I broke apart her email and will post her specific questions/comments accompanied with my responses.

Question:
I would like to ask why a loving god would remove the gospel from the earth for so many years and then have it restored?

Response:
It might seem wrong for a loving God to take away the gospel and leave his children in darkness -I agree. His children, however, are often ungrateful and forgetful, and sometimes downright spiteful.
Without going into much detail, it was man that corrupted the Church and caused the Lord’s spirit and guidance to be withdrawn from the early Church. All that was left was a shell of the divinely inspired organization that the Lord himself set up. Many of the original apostles expressed concerns about what would happen to the Church and it’s teachings after their departure (Acts 20:28-30, Gal 1:6, 3:1, 2 Thes. 2:1-3, etc.). I especially appreciate the writings of Peter (who was the appointed leader of the early Church):

2 Peter 2:1 -
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Also, you can find interesting writings of Peter in “The Apocalypse of Peter,” found in the Nag Hammadi Library. -This was a volume of early religious writings (similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but date in the first two centuries) found in Egypt in the 1940’s. *Note that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not uphold the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Library, or other apocryphal writings as part of our offical canon. Interesting things can be discovered in them, however. In the Apocalypse of Peter, Peter speaks about many who would set themselves up as leaders of the early church and oppress those who try to follow the correct path and teach incorrect doctrines. These “pure ones” (those that follow in the correct paths) will look forward to a “restoration,” in the future. Peter spends a fair amount of time identifying how the false priests and teachers would usurp power over the early church. If you are familiar with the Bible, you will recall how Jeremiah laments frequently over how the leaders of Israel caused the people to stray and deny themselves of the blessings of heaven.

The Illustration to the right is a depiction of the crucifixion of Peter, who, according to legend, was crucified upside-down because he felt unworthy to be martyred in the same way that his Lord was. The fledgling Church was left not long after without any of the original apostles to guide it. Leadership was diluted and different factions arose in attempts to seize control and governance of the church. The confusion only increased until the Day the Lord saw fit to restore the truth.

Accusation: The Truth About Mormons - Part 4

ACCUSATION
"It doesnt bother you that joesph smith went to jail murdered 2 people and was killed himself and now they have changed the story trying to say.."this is where joesph smith shed his blood for our sins."?"

RESPONSE
I understand how absurd much of what is taught in The Church of Jesus Christ may sound, after all... I am a convert and use to make fun of Mormons myself. Does it bother me that Joseph Smith went to jail (on more than forty occasions I might add)? It might if he had done anything worthy of imprisonment.
The sad truth about many accusations that flutter around regarding the character of Joseph Smith is how woefully erroneous they are. For example, the accusation you just gave against Joseph Smith did not have any reference attached. Much of the anti-mormon literature out there is the same, not bothering to give any references. -Especially on the more extreme claims.
One of these extreme claims is that the story was changed to say, "this is where joesph smith shed his blood for our sins." I'm sure that you mean well by writing these things, but the problem in doing so is far-reaching. Those who are curious about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints might read a statement like this and accept it as true without "doing their homework." Then, they will perpetrate those falsities to others, thinking they are informed and so on. I know, I did the same thing.
To put this statement of yours to rest, I will only reference one verse in the Book of Mormon:
"And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men." -Mosiah 4:2
This statement was made by a group of people in roughly 124 B.C. Whether or not you choose to believe that this actually happened, you're the one that's accountable for that. What you can't deny is that the Book of Mormon clearly testifies that it is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us, not Joseph Smith. The story has never changed. Those who say otherwise have not "done their homework."


ACCUSATION
It doesnt bother you that in Revelation 22:18-19 says " For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD unto him the PLAGUES that are written in THIS BOOK: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of prophecy, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART out of the BOOK OF LIFE, and out of this city, and from the things written in this book."
Does that bother you?

RESPONSE
It does not bother me that this statement is recorded in the Bible. It is disappointing to me though, that so many people still quote this verse in hopes of discrediting the Book of Mormon. I've already written a more in depth article on this subject (the holy bible is very specific bout adding to or taking away). To put it simply (and succinctly), "this book" is referring to exactly that -the Book of Revelation. Remember, Bible comes from the Latin, "biblio," which means books, or library. John's statement is referring only to the Book of Revelation. In case you're interested, John wrote the Gospel of John 15-25 years after the Book Revelation. I don't think he wanted to invoke the plagues upon himself.



ACCUSATION
have you ever looked into your own beliefs and others? I'm not here to lash out..I'm here to help you from this great deception of lies. Do some homework and ask yourself questions. I pray that the TRUTH is what you see.
GOD BLESS

RESPONSE
I appreciate your concern for my welfare and thank you, I have researched the beliefs I've subscribed to. I am a convert, and I can say with a certainty that I have seen and tried what else is out there. NOTHING has brought me anything close to or resembling the happiness and peace I have felt since joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And thank you for your advice to pray about these beliefs. I have done so in and have felt the peace and joy that come only from a loving Heavenly Father, through the Holy Ghost, confirming that these beliefs are true. I also hope that from my responses you have been able to tell that I have done a little bit of homework. May you be blessed as well.

Best Wishes,
Rusty

Accusation: The Truth About Mormons - Part 3

ACCUSATION:
“Although the bible stays the same as today (word for word when the sea scrolls were found)- dont you ever questions why the mormon book has been changed 100's of times? Do you realize that the bible is the only book EVER to have 40 different authors, 3 languages, 3 contents, over 1500 years and none contradicted itself?”

RESPONSE:
I can appreciate your earnestness in defending the Bible and it’s divine origin. Most people in the world don’t realize that the one of the main purposes of the Book of Mormon is to serve as “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

Unfortunately, many pastors and religious teachers dismiss the Book of Mormon without actually reading what it has to say. This is how many misnomers are promulgated about the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We also defend the Bible because, quite simply, if the Bible is not true, neither is the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon testifies of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his role as the savior of mankind. We however recognize that the Bible has gone through many translations and has undergone many modifications over the past 1900+ years. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered they did not correlate “word for word” as you said, but did however have many of the same writings. Curiously, there were many other books of scripture discovered with the Dead Sea Scroll cache that are not in our current version of the Bible. This is no big surprise, seeing that even today protestants and other non-Catholics exclude the deuterocanonical texts that are found in the Catholic Bible.

Interestingly enough, if you take the time to study the dead sea scrolls (I own a great version called “The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls,” by Geza Vermes), many teachings actually support what Mormonism teaches.

Now, as far as changes to the Book of Mormon, I’m surprised you low-balled the number that much. There have been thousands of changes to the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon. And if I left it that, I would be doing exactly what many ill-informed critics do. –Not clarifying what that means. We have most of the original hand-written manuscript on record and it is actually printed for all to see and compare to all who wish to see it (see The Critical Text Project for the Book of Mormon, Royal Skousen). Those changes were mostly punctual or grammatical. Much to the chagrin of nay-sayers, the doctrines and stories found in the Book of Mormon have not changed.

Next, let’s talk about your following comment: “Do you realize that the bible is the only book EVER to have 40 different authors, 3 languages, 3 contents, over 1500 years and none contradicted itself?”

It’s important to recognize that the Bible is not one book, but a collection of books. Bible comes from “biblia,” which is the Latin word, meaning library, or books. So, it is not ONE book that has the qualifications you just mentioned.

Just to humor you, the entire Book of Mormon (which is also a collection of books) has many authors too. It also contains fragments of at least 3 languages, spans at least 3 continents, and covers at least 2,600 years. –By the way, the Bible covers much more than 1,500 years, more like 4,100 years.
Hope that cleared things up a little bit.

Best Wishes,
Rusty
truthisrestored.blogspot.com

Accusation: The Truth About Mormons - Part 2

continued from "Accusation: The truth about mormons - Part 1"

ACCUSATION
“and asked about what church to go to..and that angel of light said none…”

RESPONSE
Joseph wanted to join a church because he thought it the right thing to do. He asked God which church to join because he was confused by all the different teachings from the different churches (happens a lot, right?) and he wanted to know which church God approved of. Jesus Christ (not an angel of light), told young Joseph to join none of them.


ACCUSATION
“they are ALL WRONG..which states that EVERYTHING about them and beliefs arnt true-then your calling GOD a LIAR! THAT MEANS GOD WAS WRONG>>>>GOD IS NEVER WRONG.”

RESPONSE
This was one of those moments when I was shocked. Jesus Christ, said that the Churches were wrong and that Joseph must not join any of them. This does not mean that “everything about them and their beliefs aren’t true.” I’m not sure how this naysayer made this jump, but it was a big one.
We believe that almost all churches have pieces of truth in them. We invite others to take what truth they have, and come and see what truth can be added to that, as our late beloved President and Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley said. So, this would not make God a liar, but Satan and evil men would be the liars.
“God is never wrong.” No argument from us on that one amigo.

Best wishes,
Rusty
truthisrestored.blogspot.com

Accusation: The Truth About Mormons - Part 1

Every now and then, a comment comes along that leaves me, well… speechless; actually, shocked might be the better word. After reading your comments on Mormonism, I feel it my responsibility to shed some light on the subject for the benefit of whoever may find themselves reading this, and/or possibly the actual naysayer and author of these comments.

ACCUSATION - Part 1
"If you believe that GOD is the same "today, yesterday and forever" then why would you need a mormon bible? If you believe what Joeseph Smith taught that when he was drawn to an angel of light (which means= Devil) and asked about what church to go to..and that angel of light said none..they are ALL WRONG..which states that EVERYTHING about them and beliefs arnt true-then your calling GOD a LIAR! THAT MEANS GOD WAS WRONG>>>>GOD IS NEVER WRONG."

ACCUSATION
If you believe that GOD is the same "today, yesterday and forever" then why would you need a mormon bible?

RESPONSE
We absolutely believe god is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) and that is one of the main reasons that we believe we need the Book of Mormon. The Bible records God speaking to his prophets for 4,400 years, if he is the same “yesterday, today, and forever,” don’t you think he would also speak to his prophets today? The prophets of the Book of Mormon had our day in view when they wrote their records. It serves as a second witness to the Bible in bearing testimony to the truth that Jesus is the Christ and that salvation is to be found in his gospel.
If you think it’s not necessary to have another book that supports the Bible’s teachings, you might well take Mark, Luke, and John out of the Bible because they basically say the same thing. Preposterous, right?
–By the way, the Mormon Bible is the King James Version, meaning the Bible we read from. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.

ACCUSATION
“If you believe what Joseph Smith taught that when he was drawn to an angel of light (which means= Devil)…”

RESPONSE
Two things jump out immediately in this comment that show this naysayer’s lack of study on the subject:
First, Joseph Smith did not claim to be “drawn to an angel of light.” His claim was even more amazing in that God the Father and Jesus Christ visited him in response to his humble prayer when he was fourteen.
Second, angel of light does not mean “devil.” I assumed when reading this that the naysayer was referring to 2 Cor 11:14 which reads, “for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” In context, this verse is saying that in order to deceive, Satan can transform into an angel of light (or imitate, because Satan obviously can’t be a righteous angel). The proceeding verse (2 Cor. 11:13) mentions deceitful workers that transform themselves into apostles of Christ. I think we can agree that wicked men cannot literally transform into the Lord’s chosen apostles.
Just for added good measure, let’s mention that “transformed” in these verses is translated from the Greek “metaschematizo,” which means to disguise.

to be continued...

Best Wishes,
Rusty

Question: Was Jesus Married?

QUESTION:

Dear Rusty,

I have a question do mormons believe Jesus was married? I was also wondering about their thoughts on the virgin Mary. If they believe Jesus was married do they believe he had more than one wife. Thank You so much for taking the time to answer my questions.


RESPONSE:

Sorry it took a couple days for me to get back to you. I actually wrote a short article on this topic on my site truthisrestored.blogspot.com.

My answer is my own opinion from my own study over the years. I have no problem believing that Christ was married. As a matter of fact, I am more disturbed by the belief that he was not.

Marriage is and always has been a commandment of God (Gen 1:28). Christ was perfect in every way, including keeping every commandment of God. Therefore, if someone professes that Christ was not married, they're also saying he did not keep the commandments, which would make him not perfect. See what I'm saying?
As far as him having more than one wife, it would not surprise me one way or the other. Polygamy was a common practice then and was approved by God (Think of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David (2 Sam 12:8), etc...)

Mary, the mother of Jesus was one of the most righteous of Heavenly Father's daughters. How many others would be trusted with the role of being the Mother of the Son of God? the exact details of Christ's conception are not nearly as important as the fact that he was conceived by miraculous means and was literally the Son of God. Some people unwisely get hung up on the means of his conception instead of the reason for it.

"We believe in God the eternal father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" -Articles of Faith, Joseph Smith: 1

"There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent." -Mosiah 3:17 (in the Book of Mormon)

I hope I've been able to answer your questions satisfactorily.

Best Wishes,
Rusty

Accusation: Mormons follow the devil. They even sing it in their hymns

ACCUSATION:
Mormons deny that they follow the devil. In their hymn book, on page 116, they declare that they do: “Is it enough alone to know that we must follow him below.” How can any Mormon deny that they follow the devil when it is in their very so-called “hymn book?”


RESPONSE:
Yet again, another marvelously misinterpreted passage, taken royally out of context. Well, I have come to expect no less from nay-sayers.

I believe quoting the rest of the verses would help shed some light on the real meaning of this hymn.

1. “Come, follow me,” the Savior said.
Then let us in his footsteps tread,
For thus alone can we be one
With God’s own loved, begotten Son.

2. “Come, follow me,” a simple phrase,
Yet truth’s sublime, effulgent rays
Are in these simple words combined
To urge, inspire the human mind.

3. Is it enough alone to know
That we must follow him below,
While trav’ling thru this vale of tears?
No, this extends to holier spheres.

4. Not only shall we emulate
His course while in this earthly state,
But when we’re freed from present cares,
If with our Lord we would be heirs.

It appears that, if our friend had read (or at least acknowledged he had) the rest of the verses, we might not have had to address this subject. It is obvious the hymn is praising Jesus Christ and expressing the importance of following the Lord (Jesus Christ) below (on earth) throughout this life.

It would well behoove our friend to take a few moments and read the March Ensign (Church Publication) as well. That might better inform him of our beliefs about Jesus Christ.

I hope to get back to my normal posting schedules (1-2/week). Suggestions for new topics are welcome.

Till next time…

Best Wishes,
Rusty
truthisrestored.blogspot.com

Accusation: Polygamy is evil and is not biblical

I’ve been thinking lately about writing an article on polygamy. It will be somewhat exhaustive, and dealing with a very sensitive subject, so obviously it will take some time to feel comfortable publishing it. As for now, I’ll just write a few comments on the subject.

For one, I’m always a little bit alarmed at how viciously “bible-believing Christians” attack the Church for this part of its history. Are not the very covenant people descended from Father Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? They were righteous above those of the earth to the point that the Lord kept his promises made to them and established them as his people.

Polygamy was not part of the Mosaic Law and hence was not abolished when Christ fulfilled the Law. It is a practice condoned by the Lord when he needs to “raise up seed” unto himself (Jacob 2:30).

If someone believes the Bible, then they have to believe that the Lord approved of the practice. Even during the time of King David the Lord approved of the practice. In fact He gave wives to David as a blessing. When Nathan came to David and reprimanded him for his sin against Uriah, speaking in he name of the Lord he said, “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s WIVES into thy bosom….” -2 Samuel 12:8

Now, polygamy is currently prohibited in the Church, not because it is wicked (indeed it could not be if the Lord’s chosen people come from the practice) but because the Lord does not deem it necessary at the moment. The policy did not change because of pressure from the government. They had been persecuted almost a half-century for the practice before the LORD commanded it to cease for the time.

The Lord is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). If someone says the Church is wicked because they once practiced polygamy, they are calling the Great God of Heaven wicked for commanding it.

Best Wishes,
Rusty
truthisrestored.blogspot.com

Accusation: Joseph Smith had a vivid imagination and made up the Book of Mormon

I wrote and answered this accusation, just because I had the time and haven't had any questions asked in the last couple days that I felt like making a post of. Enjoy...

ACCUSATION:
Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon, and the supposed Hebrew/Egyptian names and words therein. He just copied some names from the Bible and made up a couple words and called them Hebrew. -“Liahona”, for instance. Who’s to say that Joseph Smith didn’t just make that word up?


RESPONSE:
The story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is understandably difficult for many to accept or even consider. Many nay-sayers of the Church espouse many theories for it’s unexplainable appearance. One, is that Joseph Smith copied it from another manuscript and changed the names and some of the story. Another is that Brother Joseph was delusional and hallucinated his experiences. Some even claim that he just flat out made it up. Even if any of these were reasonable explanations, it would be a far cry to claim he made up words, claiming they were Hebrew, providing a translation of them, and then have them turn out to be correct. That doesn’t just happen.
Though you could not necessarily “prove” the Book of Mormon authentic by analyzing names, words, and phrases used, and finding them to be accurate and contemporary with Biblical Hebrew, it would give the record some additional credence in a scholarly light.

The word “liahona” is used only once in the Book of Mormon to describe the curious object Lehi found outside his tent one morning (1 Ne 16:10). Alma calls it the Liahona centuries later:

“38 And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director—or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it.
39 And behold, there cannot any man work after the manner of so curious a workmanship. And behold, it was prepared to show unto our fathers the course which they should travel in the wilderness.
40 And it did work for them according to their faith in God; therefore, if they had faith to believe that God could cause that those spindles should point the way they should go, behold, it was done; therefore they had this miracle, and also many other miracles wrought by the power of God, day by day.” -Alma 37:38-40

Nephi described it thus:
“a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.” -1 Nephi 16:10

Alma (or Joseph Smith, claim the nay-sayers) defined the Liahona in Alma 37:38 as a “compass.” Let’s take a look at what the Hebrew might have looked like.

The first use of compasses were mentioned in Chinese and Western European records in the 12th Century AD; so obviously, ancient Hebrews did not have a term for something they had never seen or heard of before. -Joseph Smith was familiar with what a compass was, and could therefore render a plainer translation when he used the word compass in the translation of Alma 37:38.

Naturally then, they (Lehi’s party) would do the best they could do to describe the object, and probably by what it actually does. It showed the course they should take, and pointed the way (or pointed whither, as Nephi said -1 Ne 16:10) they should go (Alma 37:39-40).

I imagine it’s safe to assume that the English spelling of “liahona” is meant to phonetically resemble or represent the Hebrew word, just like the Hebrew names used in both the Bible and Book of Mormon.
Now, Liahona is not one word. I believe it is a combination of three words.

L, in English is the equivalent of ל (lamed), in Hebrew. By itself, ל means “to.” Like “to” eat, or, “to” the store.

יה, or yah, is God.

הנה (hanah), means “hither” or “thither.” It also means “thitherward.”

When a ל (to) is used before another word (like “to” study) it is connected. ללמוד is the conjunction of ל (to) and לומד (study), meaning “to study.”
ל'ההנה would roughly sound like “li-yah-hana,” coming close to liahona, and means “to” + "God" + “thither” = “thither-to-God”.

I’d say that comes pretty close and would be a pretty darn good guess for an uneducated farm boy. I don’t believe that Joseph was guessing or making things up.

Little textual evidences like this example can’t literally prove the Book of Mormon to be true, nor can they be the basis of someone’s faith. But, they are fun to find and use in defense of the gospel. Till next time…

Best Wishes,
Rusty
truthisrestored.blogspot.com

Accusation: Mormons live in a burning house

INTRODUCTION
The other day I happened to run across a web site that purported to be a ministry to reach out to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and teach them the truth. As expected, I didn’t see anything new except the same old weak and “recycled” (a term one of my friends used) accusations used against the Church. It’s especially obnoxious when these people try to use the Book of Mormon text to teach us what we believe.

As I perused it’s content, a few statements caught my attention:

“If you saw a house on fire with someone trapped inside, what would you do? Would you drive by without doing anything? If you knew you could help the person, would you try? Nothing stimulates a sense of urgency more than a life and death situation.
When you see a Mormon, do you recognize that that person will suffer the everlasting fire of hell for eternity? Do you believe that Mormonism places its members inside a burning building that collapses into hell at the moment of their death?
Like followers of Judaism, Mormons believe their own works will give them righteousness. In truth, every Mormon who doesn’t trust in Jesus as his or her substitute, relying solely on Christ's righteous works, is living in a house that is on fire.”

My reaction was probably similar to yours: I rolled my eyes and shook my head. I decided that if this author’s true motives were really to reach out in truth in love to mormons (this is the site by the way, truthinlovetomomormons.com – You might not want to go there, by doing so they will start to move up in search engine rankings and that’s a bad thing), then they would probably be willing to make corrections if their assertions were shown to be incorrect. I emailed the author and asked if their statements were implying that Mormons don’t believe they are saved by grace. Following was their reasoning for their accusations. Following that is my response.

*Disclaimer – I hope no one is offended by my response. I was a little facetious in my response email to hopefully impress upon them the “silliness” of their accusations.*


ACCUSATION
“Dear Rusty,

Thank you for taking the time to send us an email. We appreciate your comments!

You asked if we were correct in our assertion that LDS people do not believe in being saved by grace. The LDS Bible Dictionary states, “This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts” (p. 697). Also, 2 Nephi 25:23 says, “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” The book True to the Faith says that “The phrase ‘after all we can do’ teaches that effort is required on our part to receive the fulness of the Lord’s grace and be made worthy to dwell with Him” (p.77). How do you interpret these quotations? Doesn’t it say that grace is the power God gives people to save themselves only
after they have done everything they can do? So according to these
sources, LDS people do not believe in being saved by grace. Can you cite sources that tell me otherwise?

The LDS sources contradict what Jesus says in the Bible, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Heavenly Father has given us a free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. All we need to do is believe, just as the Bible says.”


RESPONSE
Thank you so much for your speedy response! I also appreciate the thoroughness of your response.

In answering your question, I will assume that you have read the Book of Mormon many times, cover to cover, and really studied and pondered it’s message in order to more fully be able to show “truth in love to Mormons.” After all, it is souls your trying to save, and you would definitely not want to bear false witness about your brothers and sisters.
In my reading I’ve run across a couple interesting verses in the Book of Mormon. I imagine that you have also run across the same verses from during your deep and objective studies of the Book of Mormon.

“24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is ONLY in and through the GRACE of God that YE ARE SAVED.” -2 Ne 10:24

“17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be NO OTHER NAME given nor any other way nor means whereby SALVATION CAN COME unto the children of men, ONLY in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.” -Mosiah 3:17

Sounds like a similar teaching to that found in John 14:6, right?

It might be interesting to read 2 Ne. 25:23 and instead of trying to interpret it, let it speak for itself:

“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.”

I did not read anywhere in this verse that we save OURSELVES with the grace of God. I see that it is by grace that we are saved. I observe no disharmony between the Bible and the Book of Mormon on this subject. PAUL states that we are saved by grace, Nephi states that we are saved by grace.

I believe then that we are agreed Mormons believe they are saved by grace.

What then does “after all that we can do” mean? Maybe in your studies of the Book of Mormon you have also run across an insight into this phrase. A group of wicked Lamanites had converted and joined the believers stated, “it has been all that we could do… to repent of all our sins….” -Alma 24:11

Surely we agree that the Bible teaches repentance of sins.

Well, I hope this clears that up. I would appreciate it if you altered your web site content to reflect what Mormons really believe on this subject, and maybe, if you have the time and care to be correct, study out your other accusations made against the church and update accordingly. I don’t think you want people thinking that your accusations were not thoroughly researched.

Best Wishes,
Rusty

-PS
I have not heard back from them and their site has not been updated, last I checked.

What is "Blood Atonement?"

Question:
Did Brigham Young preach blood atonement? -Christ’s blood was not enough?

Response:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or “Mormons,” are often slandered because of a misunderstanding concerning statements made by early church leaders, particularly Brigham Young. As a matter of fact, they never even used the term “blood atonement.” The true meaning of Blood Atonement (If we are to use this term) refers to the atoning powers of Christ’s blood and sacrifice. Through this act man may be cleansed “through the blood of the lamb.” Some have twisted the words of early, and recent church leaders to say all sorts of inaccurate things and brassly proclaim that that’s what Mormons believe.

What God (and the early church leaders) did teach, is a form of capital punishment for grevious crimes (such as murder murder). The teaching states if a person has been received into the Church and received a fullness of truth, if they shall sin against this greater light by murdering, the atonement of Christ alone will not “absolve the person of the consequences of the sin.” -Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Blood Atonement The offender would need to voluntarily suffer the will of the Lord will the atonement take effect upon the offender. The doctrine is found in the Old Testament:

“Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”
-Genesis 9:6

Some believe that this is a wicked teaching. Those who believe the Bible to be the word of God accept this teaching as divinely inspired. This was a commandment given before the Law of Moses, hence, when the law of Moses was fulfilled, this commandment was not nullified.

It is important to note that the Church does not, and has never enforced this law on their own accord. Offenders are delivered up to the courts of our country to be judged according to their crimes.

I hope this answered your questions.

Best Wishes,
Rusty
Truthisrestored.blogspot

Accusation: Mormons teach they can become Gods. This is not biblical.

The following remarks were comments to one of my earlier posts (copied exactly as written by commenter) : “Do Mormons teach that we can become gods?”. I though that I might not only respond to his comments, but make his comments and my response a new post, so that others might have the opportunity to enjoy the discussion. So following the section entitled “Accusation” (right below) is my response.

ACCUSATION:
Jesus used the term “gods” to describe how they presented themsevles. Look at the very next verse; Psalm 82:7; “But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” God says that although you present yourselves as "gods", you are really just mere men! The word "god"(note lower case G) is used to describe those who have authority over people in certain circumstances.

We must remember:
Isaiah 44:6; "I am the first and I am the last apart from me there is no God.”
Isaiah 46:9; "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me."
Isaiah 43:10; "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."
Isaiah 45:21-22; "...there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other."

Furthermore; you and I cannot become a god; no matter how hard you try. God does not have a god-wife. God has always been God; He was not a man from another planet before He became God. If He did, where did it all start? And if it had a start then it has to have an end. God is timeless; He has always existed and will always exist. Jesus did not exist separate from God before the creation of the universe. Lucifer is not the brother of Jesus; he is a fallen angel. I could go on but I won't. I pray that the lies of the Mormon truth would be revealed to you. I pray that God will give you the strength to step away from these lies and see the truth.

RESPONSE:
Ani ohev ze Tanakh. Ve Atah?

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you. I just now have the chance to sit down and respond to your comments. Before I do though, I just wanted to let you know that I have studied Hebrew, and you and I will be using a little bit of it to work out your assertions. I understand that you mean well, but I hope that when we’re done, you won’t rush to make the same comments. This will not be an argument. This will merely be a discussion of these topics, so that other readers will have an opportunity to review the subject. I would also like to emphasize that I speak on my own accord, not the Church’s, and I submit that my following comments are from my limited knowledge.

ACCUSATION PART 1:
“Jesus used the term “gods” to describe how they presented themsevles. Look at the very next verse; Psalm 82:7; “But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” God says that although you present yourselves as "gods", you are really just mere men! The word "god"(note lower case G) is used to describe those whot have authority over people in certain circumstances.”

RESPONSE:
-“gods” in this example is translated from אלהימ (El-o-heem) This is the same exact word translated as “God” in nearly every instance throughout the Old Testament, including “In the beginning “God” created the heaven and the Earth” (Gen. 1:1) An important thing to know about Hebrew is that adding the “im” or “ot” is usually how to pluralize. –Depending on word gender and context. A literal definition would be “Gods.”

-Capitalization is not relevant because there is no such concept (no capital letters) in Hebrew. The differentiation between “Gods” and “gods” is a moot point. Any interpretation based of this reasoning (a difference between “Gods” and “gods”) is an interpolation in something that doesn’t even exist.

-The Lord saying “I have said, Ye are gods,” In a sarcastic or facetious way, followed with “and all of you are children of the most high,” in a truthful way (Acts 17:29), doesn’t make sense (in my opinion). Both parts are either sarcastic/facetious, or both parts are true. Since holy writ states we are all the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:29, also Romans 8:16) I am lead to the conclusion that both statements in this verse are true and literal.

ACCUSATION PART 2:
“We must remember:
Isaiah 44:6; "I am the first and I am the last apart from me there is no God.”
Isaiah 46:9; "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me."
Isaiah 43:10; "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."
Isaiah 45:21-22; "...there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other."

RESPONSE:
-We just mentioned above how the true rendering of “God” throughout the Old Testament, INCLUDING BEFORE THE CREATION, should be “Gods.” If evidence is wanted in the English translation, one need not leave the first chapter of Genesis:
“And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness….”
If we are to interpret the verses listed above (Isaiah verses) at face value, then we would have an issue. Who would it be that God was talking to? And who is the other person that God is forming man in the image of? I don’t want to sound condescending here, but I do not believe God is schizophrenic. From these findings I am of the belief that God was not alone in the beginning. Just for good measure, let’s mention God’s reaction when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit: “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of US…” (Gen. 3:22).

-From the above I submit that God was not alone in the creation. There were “Gods” in the beginning (let us, our image). This would mean that Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 46:9, and 45:21-22 do not mean that God is the only God there is, though it might appear that way if isolated from the rest of scripture. I think the Lord is really emphasizing the importance of our commitment to and worship of Him in these instances (again, this is just my understanding, which isn’t much).

-As to the Isaiah 43:10 reference, I noticed something I hadn’t before that was very interesting. The Hebrew form of “god” here (in the Hebrew text) is not the same as the other three (and most of the other references in the Tanakh-Old Testament). It is translated from
אל, a short form of איל (ah-yil), which basically means a “chief”, or something/one very strong. This would be in harmony with a verse from Psalms 82 (which we quoted earlier). Verse 1 reads, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.”
Again, this reference emphasizes to me the reverence due to God the Father, and recognizes Him as the “chief” or “head” among the gods, and holding a unique station.

ACCUSATION PART 3:
Furthermore; you and I cannot become a god; no matter how hard you try. God does not have a god-wife. God has always been God; He was not a man from another planet before He became God. If He did, where did it all start? And if it had a start then it has to have an end. God is timeless; He has always existed and will always exist. Jesus did not exist separate from God before the creation of the universe. Lucifer is not the brother of Jesus; he is a fallen angel. I could go on but I won't. I pray that the lies of the Mormon truth would be revealed to you. I pray that God will give you the strength to step away from these lies and see the truth.

RESPONSE:
-There is a spiritual mind-set that I call “Eternal Tunnel-Vision.” It basically means that some people only focus on a few small aspects of the eternal gospel and don’t consider or believe there is more to the big picture that is available or seek after it. I have wondered many times what other faiths consider heaven to be. I have wondered what other people consider heaven to be, and why they want to get there so bad. Is it really a place where saved people strum a harp and sing hymns everyday, all day, for eternity? Is there something more to it?

-Faithful saints are promised that, if faithful, they will receive a glorified body like Christ’s (Phil. 3:21), be like Christ (1 John 3:2), and inherit ALL things with Christ (Romans 8:17, Hebrews 1:2). So what are we if we are like Christ and possess ALL things? It’s overwhelming to think about, but I believe that would be a God. "St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, 'God became human so humans would become gods' (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)." -reference Interestingly enough, this same Athanasius penned the Athanasian Creed (description of the trinity) in the fourth Century AD, which is the basis for most Christians understanding of the Godhead. In the future, please, don't call this sacred doctrine un-Christian.

-I have not read in the Bible that God does not have a wife. I do however find him not alone before the creation, as discussed above. God also commands man to marry (not part of law of Moses) saying that it is not good for man to be alone. Is there conclusive proof in the Bible that God is married or not? I have not found it. I do however find more evidence pointing towards yay, than nay.

-Speculating on the ontological aspects of God’s life is fruitless. The fact is that we time-inhibited mortals cannot wrap our minds around infinity. The fact of the matter is that no mortal knows the whole story. The Bible is a woefully insignificant spec of a record in terms of what’s been happening in the cosmos for eternity. It would be rash for anyone to declare they know with certainty when and how any being came into existence. As for me, I am not concerned with these things. They will all be revealed at some point.

-As to Christ and Lucifer’s being brothers, there is already an entry on this subject posted on my site.

SUMMARY:
Thanks for bearing with me. I wanted to make sure we cover the points thoroughly. I also appreciate the genuine interest in my eternal well-being. By the way, my greeting at the top means “I love the Tanakh (Bible). And do you?”

I am grateful that the “Mormon truth,” as it was called above, has been revealed to me. I have studied and researched a lot. I have many physical evidences supporting my faith. But, the most powerful and compelling buttress of my faith is the still small voice, which fills my soul with faith, hope, and the pure love of Christ.

I do pray that my Heavenly Father will give me strength and grace to stand firm and undaunted in the truth. The Truth that has been Restored.

Best Wishes,
Rusty
truthisrestored.blogspot.com

What is the Adam God Theory?

Hello everyone. I hope everything finds you well. I got a great message (in my lds.net account – it’s great) from a new friend from Pennsylvania named Ken. Ken has a sister that converted to the Church, and he now has some questions about the Church. He asked some good, honest questions about the church’s history and teachings. My next four posts will consist of his questions, and my responses.

Ken’s Question:
What do you know about the Adam-God theory? Was Adam a God? Will he become a god in heaven?

This whole fiasco comes from one misquoted Brigham Young statement found in the Journal of Discourses (a 26 volume collection containing discourses of some of the early leaders of the Church). I’ll quote it for you so you can see exactly what I’m talking about:

“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body…. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.”
-Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pg. 50

So that’s the quote, Ken. What many “anti’s” have said regarding this passage is that Mormons believe Adam is God the Father. Absurd, right? Yes, it is. These nay-sayers don’t bother quoting anything else Brigham Young intentionally, or out of ignorance. And honestly, how many average people will go out and read a 26 volume series to put everything in context? Here is the very next paragraph following this last statement:

“It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael….”

Here, in the very next verse Brigham identifies these individuals as separate. –Meaning that Heavenly Father and Michael/Adam were not the same being. President Young was not dumb. -Through his leadership most of the western states were settled and developed.
President Young is simply saying that Adam is the Father of our race, he has become a God (I discuss this topic here: Do Mormons teach that we can become gods?), and he is whom we will be familiar with instead of those from other of God the Father’s creations (we believe Heavenly Father has created many other worlds besides ours).

To summarize: Adam (or Michael) is not Eloheim. Eloheim is God, our Heavenly Father. Adam is the father of the human race, not our spirits, and has become a God.

Best Wishes,
Rusty
truthisrestored.blogspot.com

Accusation: Mormons believe warm-fuzzies signify truth. This is not biblical.

Accusation:
Mormon’s say that feelings signify the Holy Ghost is telling you something is true. This is not biblical.

Response:
Proof-texting is the term used for “proving” something by supporting your stance with “authoritative” quotes; e.g., God loved the world for “God so loved the world” (John 3:16). This is a popular practice amongst the religious debaters of the world. The reason I mention it is to point out a flaw in it. Many people can be passionate about a certain aspect of the gospel and quote one or several scriptures to support their belief in it. The rub is that so can many others on the same subject, and reach a totally different conclusion. They think they are just as positive and sure as the other guy. See the problem?

So, how does one discover the real spiritual truth of a matter? Here’s something interesting to do: Ask a evangelical “Christian” why he believes in Jesus Christ. You will probably get one of two answers, and one of them, if you ask again, will probably end up being the same as the other answer. So really, you’ll usually get the same answer: “I just know it in my heart.” That sounds a lot like feelings, doesn’t it? It is incredibly ironic that other Christians claim that Mormons teach an unbiblical method of recognizing truth.

Let’s explore a couple New Testament examples, and keep it short so you don’t comatose with boredom. This is where one needs to quote sources that are commonly accepted as legitimate (at least in Christian circles).

1. How did the early disciples truly know that Jesus was the Promised Messiah/Christ? Was it through a cognitive process? That was definitely part of the picture for some, but let’s look closely at Simon Peter. Many others were with Peter when they witnessed Jesus performing mighty miracles, yet many stopped following him when they did not understand Jesus’ teachings (John 6:66). Why did Peter believe and know that Jesus was the Christ when others saw the same miracles? Jesus answered this question himself:

“Blessed are thou Simon Bar-jona [Peter]: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” –Matt 16:17

How does the Father “reveal” things to his children? Through the Holy Ghost:

“But the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things….” –John 14:26

The Holy Ghost is the great teacher and converter. His whisperings are usually not audible, but are recognized as thoughts, impressions, or feelings in the heart. The Bible is replete with examples of this concept. When impressions are made by the Holy Ghost, they do not soon leave. Before accusing Peter of Denying Christ three times, remember that earlier in the same night he proved that he would fight to the death for Jesus (Matt 26:51). I don’t think believe that Peter was scared to claim discipleship of Christ because he already proved he was not. I believe that he knew he was the leader of the fledgling Church and had to carry it forward. This strong “testimony” was born of the spirit and feeling that he felt in his heart.

2. Two disciples were walking on the road to Emmaus after the death of Christ discussing the recent events. Jesus appeared to them and they did not recognize him by sight. Christ taught them from the scriptures, and broke bread, at which time “their eyes were opened, and they knew him….” They recognized the savior at this point, but confirmed it when they said, “Did not our heart burn within us…?” –Luke 24:13-32

Remember, many hundred people saw Jesus perform miracles and yet turned away. Miracles and signs don’t convert. Can we say “Judas Iscariot?” It is a combination of mental learning and confirmation in the heart/feelings.

In the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of scripture containing the revelations of the Lord to his prophets in recent history, we find this enlightening description of revelation:

“Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.
‘Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation….” –D&C 8:2-3

I know that Jesus lives and is my savior not because I have seen him or have taken a recent trip to heaven, but because I have 1) read of him and pondered his life and teachings and 2) the Holy Ghost has born witness of the truthfulness of these things to my
heart and mind. By this same process I have come to know the Book of Mormon and Bible are true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Church established by Jesus Christ himself.


Best Wishes,
Rusty

Truthisrestored.blogspot.com

Accusation: The story of Moroni and the Book of Mormon contradicts Gal. 1:8

Accusation: Galatians 1:8 "if we, or even an angel from heaven, should preach unto you another gospel than which has already been preached to you, let them be accursed".

Do any Mormons recognize this verse? Don't they find it interesting it was included in scripture hundreds of years before Joseph Smith claimed to have a "vision" given to him from an "angel from heaven"? Hello?


Response: Hello.
Gal. 1:8. Yes, anti books do use that one a lot.
Are you concerned about the angel Moroni declaring the gospel? Or are you concerned about "another gospel?"

If it is an angel in the latter days declaring the gospel...read Revelation 14:6-7
"I saw another ANGEL, flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting GOSPEL to preach unto them that dwell on the earth...." -There's your angel preaching the gospel.
If it is "another gospel," that's an even more simple answer. It is NOT another gospel. It's the same one That Jesus and his apostles preached. If you do not agree it is because you have not read the answers that have been given already thousands of times.

Best Wishes,
Rusty

Why does the LDS Church teach there was an apostasy?

Question:

Why does the LDS Church teach there was an apostasy?
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall, not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

So if you believe there was an apostasy than one of the following must be true. (1) Jesus' words in the passages just cited were misreported; (2) Jesus did in fact say these things but didn't really mean them--at least not in the way they had been understood by Christians for the first eighteen centuries; (3) Jesus was a liar, or (4) Joseph Smith was wrong and Jesus meant what he said.

Matthew 24:4-12; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 21:7-8; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; and Jude 17-19. Passages that say that "many" will fall away. This refers to apostasy in an individual sense. Not a complete apostasy of the entire Church.

The Lord established the position of Bishop to ensure that the church continued. There was no Great Apostacy. There is apostacy of individuals, and there is corruption in all man made institutions but the Church continued through the position of the Bishop.


Response:

Great Question!
It’s refreshing to see actual scriptures quoted. Let’s tackle this question together.

First, Peter comes from “petros,” which means “a piece of rock.” When you look at the Greek text (the best that is available because we have no original) you will find that when Christ says “upon this rock I will build my church,” that rock in this instance is “petra,” which means “a mass of rock.” –You can find this in a Greek lexicon and/or early greek manuscripts. Readily available prints of these are Strong’s Concordance and any Greek-English New Testament Translation. Now, it is a play on words (as was stated earlier) but it really draws a distinction. It reads "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros-a piece of a rock), and upon this rock (petra-a mass of rock) I will build my church….”
So, Peter is not the rock (petra) upon which Christ was to build his Church. What was the petra (mass of rock) then? Well, what is the antecedent of this last statement? It had just been REVEALED to Peter that Jesus was the Christ (v.16-17). Hence, Peter (who had just experienced personal revelation testifying of the divinity of Christ) was told that revelation (like he just experienced), was to be what the Church was built upon.
No discredit to Peter! He was an amazing man. He was the one willing to fight to protect Christ when he was taken to court (John 18:10). I personally don’t feel that Peter denied Christ “thrice” because he was scared, but because he knew that he was needed to carry on the Lord’s work and was not supposed to die at that time.

Now, as to your other scripture references, I found it interesting that you chose to quote some of them.

Acts 20:29-30 – Paul knew that after his departing (note: did not say “last days”) “grievous wolves” would enter in, and “many disciples” would be drawn away. This happened after Paul’s departure, 1900+ years ago.

As for the rest of them, we actually use those same verses to prove the apostasy and general falling away from the truth.

You also stated that, “The Lord established the position of Bishop to ensure that the church continued.” The Bishop was a shepherd that watched over “A” flock.
Now, which office was appointed to be the foundation for the entire Church? Let’s keep quoting Paul, he’s doing great.
“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
‘And are built upon the FOUNDATION of the APOSTLES and PROPHETS, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
‘In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
‘In whom YE ALSO ARE BUILDED together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” –Ephesians 2:19-22

If the foundation of Christ’s Church was to be apostles and prophets, which church has them today?

Some nay-sayers will say “Nay… hold on a moment. The office of apostle was only necessary for the founding of the Church and was not supposed to continue.”

Paul states that Christ gave “some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers…

Until when?

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” –Eph 4:11,13

When “we ALL come in the unity of the faith,” and every “Christian” quits quibbling about their differences we won’t need apostles anymore. Until then, we’re all trying to come to that unity of faith. Where is that? I believe it is the Church that has apostles and prophets and that is built upon the “petra” of revelation.

Best Wishes,
Rusty