Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 14

How Might Mormons Respond? - pg 61

Farkas and Reed attempt to summarize chapter three with their dissertation on how Mormon's might respond to their list of errors and contradictions, but their attempt to shed further dark light onto the LDS Church and its doctrine falls far short of any creditability, mainly because their work in this book has shown to be grossly inadequate and faulty.

They claim they did not misrepresented any Mormon words or scriptural verses out of context, but this I have shown is a false claim. You can search this blog for the word "context" and see several entries. One of which was taking Orson Pratt's words out of context and intent (see http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/07/chapter-2-basis-for-evaluating.html ). In this part of Chapter three, Farkas and Reed purposely used the words of Mormon leaders to misrepresent the Mormon Challenge as an invite to attack Mormon teachings and words, using Orson Pratt's invite as one of their examples. IN truth, as with all the other challenges offered by Mormon leaders, the Mormon Challenge referred to a sincere encounter and questioning. One that comes with integrity and legitimate information, including the use of the true words of God. It does not refer to the use of fabricated evidence, doctrines and claims, neither did the Mormon Challenge refer to illicit uses of information to misconstrued meanings and intentions. It also did not include the misrepresentation of God's word, be it in the Bible or Book of Mormon. The Mormon Challenge gave no acceptance or invite to evil or wicked designs, in fact the nature of the Mormon Challenge denounced evil and wickedness because it accepted only sincere and honest efforts, in other words, "to reason together". There is no such reasoning in the works of Farkas and Reed.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 13

Should you curse your enemy? - pg 59

There is a repeating pattern of ignorance on the part of Farkas and Reed, sorry to say. This pattern is the complete negligence toward the Bible and knowledge of its doctrines.

IN this attempt by Farkas and Reed, they try to claim that there is error in Mormon Doctrine by pitting one part of Mormon scriptures against the other. Sometimes Farkas and Reed even misuse the Bible to make the false accusation or comparison, but in this case, it is purely from the scriptures held by the Mormons.

Farkas and Reed claim by D&C 103:24-25 and D&C 98:44, that the Mormons, on one hand teach to curse others or curse their enemies, then they use 2 Nephi 12:43-44 and D&C 64:9-10 to say that Mormons teach to forgive all men.

This (false) contradiction and (false) error is bred from their own ignorance, but if Farkas and Reed proclaim they know the Bible well, then they are breeding contention, falsehood and lies, which is the work of the devil. Either way, they have failed to prove any error or contradiction and this is why.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 12

Should the Church pay its workers? - pg 59

In this attempt by Farkas and Reed, they suggest that Mormon's are confused because on one hand Mormons say church work is not payable, then in another it is. When they try to make the scriptural comparisons, they fall, because the scriptures have not and do not proclaim that "church work" is a payable work. Payable work as referred to having a job. Farkas and Reed refer to the following scriptures as their proof that church work is payable.

Doctrine of Covenants
D&C 24:18; 42:70-73; 51:13-14; 75:24-25; 84:78-79, D&C 86-89; 119:1-2.

Bible
1 Cor. 9:1-14; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Numbers 18:21; 3 John 6-8; Matthew 10:9-10.

In reading these scriptural references, none referred to being paid for church work. This is why.

In order to understand the "economy of God", a person must properly understand the doctrines of God and Farkas and Reed have failed miserably in this area. This leads me to explain the meaning of the word "work" and how it applies for the Church.

There has been and still is a big debate about faith versus works, whereby many Christians in the world proclaim that the Bible denounces work as part of salvation saying that only faith is required, not work. Take a look for yourself. Enter "faith versus works" (without quotations) into a Google search and you will see the long list of arguments of either for faith only or for faith and works together. So much so that even YouTube entries have been made on that same topic. You can attend the following YouTube presentation by a Christian that explains, from the Bible, what the word "works" means, saying it refers to spiritual work. In fact he did a good job of the understanding of faith and works. Here is that link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTaYEdzVoP4

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 11

 Is intelligence (our spirit) eternal or was it created when we were - pg 56

Anti-Mormonism will forgo any attempt to understand for the sake of accusation and persecution.

It is sad to see that people take the simplest meaning of words and twist them completely out of context and application. Farkas and Reed claim that the words used in various Mormon scriptures and two Bible scriptures contradict each other, saying that the Mormon belief that our spirits are eternal is contradictory with other Mormon scriptures and the Bible that our spirits were created and are not eternal. Here is what it looked like in the Farkas and Reed book.

Intelligence (spirit) is eternal.
Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth...Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. (May 1833, D&C 93:23,29)

...if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal....(Abraham 3;18-19)

Intelligence (spirit) was created
For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created....(Jacob 4:9)

...Adam, your father, whom I created. (September 1830, D&C 29:34)

Who shall say that it was not a miracle that by his word the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth; and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought? (Mormon 9:17)

...the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. (Zechariah 12:1)

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

In these excerpts of scripture from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible, Farkas and Reed bold certain words to convey a meaning they wanted others to accept. Their definition and use of certain words constitutes misuse. It was misuse because Farkas and Reed attempted to force such a narrow bias meaning of these scriptures that they have actually twisted them out of context which effectively altered their meaning and application.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 10

Who is the Only Begotten of the Father? - pg 52

This part of Chapter 3, I would say, is the best example of the ignorance held by Farkas and Reed, whereby they know very little, if anything, of the scriptures and know nothing of the manner which God works. In this part of Chapter 3, Farkas and Reed make a poor attempt to claim that Mormons are contradictory on the topic of who is the only Begotten of the Father. In their consistent, "Yes - No" format, they used the scripture of Moses 5:9 to claim that this scripture makes the Holy Ghost as the only Begotten of the Father and then use the Mormon scriptures of D&C 138:14, D&C 93:11 and Moses 1:6 to say that Jesus Christ is the only Begotten of the Father. In truth, this contradiction does not exist and is false.

In the Mormon scripture of Moses 5:9, it says the following,

Moses 5:9
And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.

In that passage, the Holy Ghost speaks to Adam and bears record of the Father and Son. The Holy Ghost does not signify himself as the only begotten, since the context of that passage confirms that the Holy Ghost speaks about the Son, being Jesus Christ. The word "which beareth record..." signifies what the Holy Ghost is doing for Adam and the word "sayeth" refers to the the Holy Ghost bearing record of the Father and Son. The Holy Ghost speaks in the first person pronoun and shows a pattern in the scriptures. This pattern is called divine investiture of authority. This means the person speaking has authority to speak for another and speak in the manner as if he is that other person. The world knows this in terms of the word "proxy". In this case, the Holy Ghost has the "divine investiture of authority " to speak for Jesus Christ and speak as if he, the Holy Ghost, is Jesus Christ by speaking in the first person pronoun, but that does not change the Holy Ghost into Jesus Christ. That is the divine power of proxy, to speak for another person as if you are that person, or stand in for the other. Just like Jesus Christ stood in for us and paid for our sins as if he was each of us.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 9

Is polygamy acceptable to God? - pg 51

Farkas and Reed claim that Mormons say plural marriage is acceptable as quoted in Mormon scriptures of D&C 132:58-66 and D&C 132:38-39, then claim that Mormons contradict themselves in their scriptures of Jacob 2:24; Mosiah 11:2; Ether 10:5; D&C 101:4 and the Bible, Timothy 3:2,12; saying that plural marriage is not acceptable, but is this a true contradiction or merely a poor understanding of Mormon doctrines?

Polygamy was first discussed in the review of this books introduction of "Mormonism, Changes Contradictions and Errors" ( http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-1-introduction-to-mormonism_30.html ). I provided examples from the Bible showing that God condoned and directed his prophets to have plural marriages. The Bible clearly taught plural marriage by example, with oses, Abraham, King David, King Solomon etc. It is no surprise to see the existence of plural marriage (polygamy) in the Bible, yet it seems that Farkas and Reed want to misdirect people into thinking that God never had his servants practice plural marriage or that God always prohibited it.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 8

Has God Let his Scripture be Tampered With - pg 49

It was the attempt by these authors, Farkas and Reed, to claim that the written word of God is incorruptible by men. They first list three Mormon references that either say some of God's written word has been lost ( 1 Nephi 13:26,28), incorrectly translated (Article of Faith #8) or not reliable for comparison (Church News, June 20, 1992, pg 3). In their standard "Yes - No" presentation, they then make the effort to claim that the word of God as written in the Bible is incorruptible and guaranteed safe from any influence and tinkering of men. Their proof that God's written word has been unaffected for 1800 years are the Bible passages of John 17:20; 1 Peter 1:23-25 and Ephesians 6:17.

Their initial words in their defence of the Bible, right after quoting John 17:20, were,

If Mormonism is correct, then this prayer of Jesus Christ was of no effect for about 1800 years. Incredible! Jesus prayed for those who would believe in him through the word of his disciples. It is not logical that he (Jesus) would let his disciples' word be lost and diluted

From their statement, it appears that they believe that God's written word cannot be altered by mankind, not corrupted, changed, modified or added to or removed. For them to believe this, is "Incredible". Such a belief of theirs is not only naive and contrary to the Bible itself, but complete devoid of common sense logic. If God guaranteed his written word to survive 1800 years from the time of Christ, then why did God (Jehovah, which is Jesus Christ), command mankind not to alter, modify, add to or remove the written word of God? This commandment is in Deuteronomy 4:2,

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. - Note: emphasis is mine)

In addition, this Bible passage of Deuteronomy 4:2, is well used by other Christians to declare Mormon scriptures are contrary to the Bible. This alone brings up the belief among Christians that Bible passages have been "altered" within the bindings of the Book of Mormon, which gave rise to the likes of Farkas and Reed, who are quick to use selective Bible passages to prove their theories, accusations and claims. Have they truly read and understood the Bible?

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 7

Are Vicarious Ordinances for the Dead Effective - page 47

Farkas and Reed tried to present Mormon scripture in an attempt to claim there is a contradiction in Mormon teachings regarding Baptism for the Dead, what they call "vicarious ordinance". According to their beliefs, this contradiction shows that vicarious ordinance works and it does not work. They begin with the following scripture,

1 Corinthians 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

They coupled this scripture with D&C 137:1-5 to claim that the Mormons believe in this vicarious ordinance as helping the dead with their salvation, but as usual, Farkas and Reed have cut and pasted Mormon scripture improperly, here is the scripture of D&C 137 properly quoted,

D&C 137: 1-10
1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.
2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;
3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.
4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.
10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

(Notice that verse 7 explains the reason for the "vicarious ordinance"; also note, Farkas and Reed gave the reference as D&C 137:1-5, this is incomplete. For what they quoted in their book, the proper reference was "D&C 137:1-5,7".)

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 6

How many Gods are there? - page 45

Reading through Chapter 3 of the book, "Mormonism Changes, Contradictions and Errors", I become less and less patient with the poor style of research that Farkas and Reed have done, showing a clear disregard for proper and honest reporting. In this subheading of "How many Gods are there" Farkas and Reed, again, misuse the words found in Mormon doctrine, trying to pit words against each other to convey a false image of error and contradiction.

Throughout this part, Farkas and Reed show the scriptures in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price that pertain to the teaching that there are three Gods (plurality of Gods) and there is "one God". Their imposition of the false doctrine they call "The Trinity", tries to force the idea that the three Gods, The Father in Heaven, The Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all in one, rather "all one". It would be fair for Farkas and Reed to present their beliefs as they know it rather than try to misuse the scriptures as they have so far, but at least present Mormon doctrine correctly.

As it is, Farkas and Reed try to claim that Mormon doctrine is contradictory when it says that there are three distinct Gods and all three are one God. To clear up the mess they created in their book, I will present this doctrine here using the references they included in their book under this subheading and where needed, include the passages in proper context.

D&C 130: 1-3
1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.
2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.
3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

Couple the above verses with the reference given by Farkas and Reed,

D&C 130:22
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 5

Does God the Father have a body of flesh and bones? - pg 44

Farkas and Reed try their hand to deceive against Mormon doctrine that God the Father has a tangible body of flesh and bones, by first using D&C 130:22 to establish to the reader this Mormon doctrine and belief, then claiming that Mormon doctrine contradicts itself by claiming that God the Father is a "spirit", which, to Farkas and Reed, is a spirit being that has no body or flesh and bones. Here they begin to use scriptures from the Book of Mormon, then marked one of the scriptures listed with a footnote number 4. Going to their notes at the back of the book (see page 234), footnote four states,

It may be said that this was an apostate, a wicked person saying this. But note that Alma, an alleged true prophet, did not correct this teaching. In addition, other Mormon scripture, as shown below, says the same thing.

I found this attempt by them as misleading, which is sickening because it is becoming frequent throughout their book. By taking scripture from the Book of Mormon and claiming it says something other than what it truly says, is committing falsehood. They are falsely claiming that the words found in the Book of Mormon scriptures came from Alma's teachings about the nature of God the Father, when they did not. Allow me to show you the deception Farkas and Reed committed.

The Book of Mormon scriptures they used were, Alma 31:15; Alma 18:2-5; Alma 18:26-28; Alma 22:8-11. This is what they cut and pasted from these scriptures into their book, page 44, making the words "wast a spirit" and "wilt be a spirit forever" bold to stand out.

Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 4

Men become Gods Just like the Father did? - God was not always God, man can become a God like he did - pg 41

Farkas and Reed are dealing with two parts of one concept in Mormon doctrine. One is that men can become gods and the second was that God was once man like us. The single overall concept is the progression to eternal godhood from mortality, a concept and doctrine that exists in the Bible. The part that is hard to accept for many is that God the Father (the God that Jesus prayed to) was once mortal like us and progressed to godhood.

The issue occurs because many do not understanding the concept of eternal progressions, of how mortals can become as gods. Without this understanding, there would be no hope to understand the concept that God the Father was once mortal.

Farkas and Reed are not trying to debate the concepts of eternal progression, they cannot, they do not understand it either, but they are attempting to make people think that there is a contradiction between Mormon doctrines and beliefs by presenting examples of Mormon doctrine of eternal progression of man and doctrine that God is eternal and never ending and examples of doctrine that state God was once a man. It is their position and belief that God could not be once a mortal man and progress to godhood and be an eternal, everlasting God at the same time, but I will show you it happened and is true.

On page 41 of their book, Farkas and Reed begin with references taken from the Mormon scriptures of D&C 132:20 and from a Mormon book titled, "Gospel Principles 1986 edition". They begin by showing that Mormons believe that mortals can become as gods, but what they have not shown you is how this belief or doctrine stems from the Bible and is not isolated to the Doctrine and Covenants.

Their first reference to "Can men become Gods..." in D&C 132:20, is easily found online at this URL - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/20#20. Please read the preceding passages to gain a basic understanding of how people can become as a god.

The next reference they used was taken from "Gospel Principles, pg 290, 1986 edition". This is a Mormon Church handbook for new converts and is still in use today (2009). - [Please note, the page reference for 1986 edition is pg 290, but since, it has changed and now appears on page 302-303, (1997 edition)].

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 3

Has Jesus Christ always been God? - pg 39

When Farkas and Reed try to denounce Mormon doctrines, they do this by creating or manufacturing contradictions on the basis that all Christians believe the same thing about the nature of God, when they do not.

As their proof they refer to D&C 93: 12-14,21. These Mormon scripture passages speak about Jesus. Of how he did not receive the fulness at first, but received it grace by grace until he received his fulness and was called the Son of God because he did not receive the fullness at first (verse 12-14). Verse 21, referred to Jesus Christ as being the first born in the beginning with the Father. By these verses, Farkas and Reed claim that Mormon scripture denotes Jesus as not a God because he had a beginning and did not receive the fulness at first because he (Jesus Christ) moved from grace to grace.

I believe Farkas and Reed need a few lessons in God's doctrines, even those found in the Bible and need a few lessons on how to understand Mormon beliefs and doctrines.