Mormonism: Changes Contradictions and Errors (Book Review)

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 14

2010-05-05T11:48:00.000-07:00

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.

They also claimed they have measured Mormon words by Mormon standards, but this was also untrue. It was not by any standards of the Mormons that Farkas and Reed used, it was their own personal contrived standards that they used under the guise it was of Mormons. I have repeatedly shown throughout this chapter three, that Farkas and Reed are untrustworthy in their words and works. One example I gave was how Farkas and Reed misrepresented the words of of Carlos E. Asay, claiming they contradict other Mormon leaders as to deny or contradict the open invite by Mormon leaders. (see: http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/07/chapter-2-basis-for-evaluating.html ). I have shown such a claim was false because of the technique Farkas and Reed used as crafted editing and pasting quotes. IN this, their standard was to make crafted quotes to make false claims. This shows a flagrant misuse of words, twisting the meaning and context, leaving out important information, failing to properly compare to the Bible to find the same "contradiction" or "error" (as they claim it to be). Simply search this blog with these key phrases; "misuse of words", "twist the meaning", "out of context", "leave out information", "compare Bible" or "comparison" to find several entries and examples.

How could any honest and sincere person accept the interpretations of Farkas and Reed? Yea, as they wrongly misrepresent the words of Mormons, how easy it is for them to mispresent the word of God also.

Their attempt to dissuade people from reading Mormon literature or scriptures is not by any legitimate means, neither by any honourable scholarly method and clearly not by any true spiritual understanding of God's word, but my misleading, deceitfulness, misrepresentation of words, taking words out of context, failing to properly research the scriptures and most of all, failing to understand what Mormons mean or say. Instead inserting their own failed interpretations. This is a standard pattern of all who are Anti-Mormons.

How might Mormon's respond, this blog has shown you how they respond, in direct research and comparison to the words written by Farkas and Reed. The use of information rightly and honestly, giving reference and example. Showing what the Bible truly says and standing in God's word.

It is sad, to see that Farkas and Reed try to portray their own negative views of Mormons and doctrines as contradictions and errors when in fact these errors and contradictions, show to be wholly contrived and manufactured by failed interpretations and misunderstandings, misrepresented and misapplied information, all from the minds and beliefs of Farkas and Reed. Contentiously claiming, even falsely, that Mormon words and scripture are in error.

In this chapter three, I have shown every claim they have made as false, I have shown where in the Bible the same alleged error or contradiction exists and I have shown how poor their research has been. What was interesting to see by this review, is the book by Farkas and Reed was published about 1995. In comparison to this day and age at the time of this review, in the years of 2009 and 2010, advanced access to information by way of the Internet exists. In 1995, an average person reading this book would not be able to access the references used by Farkas and Reed and would not be able to access the many Mormon publications because there was not an ease of access. For example, the Mormon publication, "The Seer" was only available in certain archives and library's in the United States and possible England. A person in Canada, South America, Europe, etc, in 1995 would not have access to such publications to read the excerpts within the proper context, because access required a personal attendance to the various libraries, which for the average person was impossible.

In 1995, such limited access proved somewhat profitable for Anti-Mormon books as this one. It allowed unsavory authors to make claims and mislead many, simply because of the lack of knowledge and access to information. People would either have to accept or reject the information in these books on face value. Before the ease of access by the Internet, the likes of Farkas and Reed have successfully misled thousands. Once a person has access to the same documents that Farkas and Reed have gutted and chopped to make their quotes and excerpts, their errors are revealed showing their claims to be false.

Does this confirm the Mormon Church as God's true Church? No it does not, but it shows the fallacy of such works as this book, "Mormonism - Changes Contradictions and Errors" by Farkas and Reed and as there is more, this review continues.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 13

2010-03-08T20:37:00.000-08:00

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.

In the Bible, God has not only cursed, but forgiven. In the Bible, God teaches that we are to curse, at certain times, and always forgive. Lets review some of the Bible passages and see what it contains about curses and forgiveness, to see if the same contrast exists in the Bible as Farkas and Reed accuse Mormons to have.

Deut. 27:13,15-26
13 And these shall stand upon mount Ebal to curse; Reuben, Gad, and Asher, and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.
15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
16 Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.
18 Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way. And all the people shall say, Amen.
19 Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.
20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.
21 Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen.
22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
23 Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.
24 Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen.
25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.
26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

That Bible passage contains 13 occurrences of the word curse. What else does the Bible show,

Gal. 3:10,13
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the claw, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Here we have Paul the Apostle in the New Testament calling certain people as cursed. It is not exactly cursing others, but it is denoting certain people are cursed. In the view of Farkas and Reed, this should be unacceptable, but it is the Bible and they advocate the Bible against the Mormons, so why are Farkas and Reed being hypocrites?

Matthew 25:41-43
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

In this chapter of the Bible, it is Jesus himself who speaks of others as cursed.

Matthew 18: 15-17
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Here is Jesus explaining that forgiveness is not given to a man who refuses to hear another who speaks to him about the trespass. There is no forgiveness given to this man who is negligence, because he becomes the same as a "heathen" and all heathens are cursed. (Ezra 6:21; Psalm 33:10; Malachi 1:14)

Matt. 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Here we have Jesus saying that we should love our enemies and bless them that curse us. IS this not the same as forgiving? Yet in the face of other Bible passages tat teach to curse, there is also Bible passages that give direction to forgive and love. Is this contrast then only a Mormon issue or is it also a Bible issue?

It is not an issue at all, but Farkas and Reed want you to believe it is.

Are the Three Nephites still alive on earth now? - pg 60

The attempt here by Farkas and Reed is to mislead the reader into thinking there is a contradiction in Mormon scriptures pertaining to the three Nephites.

In their classic yes-no presentation, Farkas and Reed attempt to show that Mormon scriptures are contradictory in regards to the three Nephites, saying that these Nephites are still alive on the earth and finding another scriptural passages to claim that Mormons say the three Nephites are not alive on the earth.

Here is the first scriptural passage they used to claim that the Nephites are on the earth, and certain phrases are in bold,

3 Nephi 28:1,4,6-8
1 And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, he spake unto his disciples, one by one, saying unto them: What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?

4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three, and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?

6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.

What these passages say is that the three Nephites are granted longevity and will not die as humans normally do. These Nephites will survive all the years without death and shall see Jesus Christ return and on the second coming, then these Nephites shall be changed from mortality to immortality.

Then Farkas and Reed use the scripture of Mormon 1:13, to claim that 3 Nephi 28 is false because Mormon 1:13 says something different. Below is what Farkas and Reed showed in their book to create the false contradiction,

The Three Nephites are taken away (Heading of Mormon Chapter 1)

But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease (Book of Mormon 1:13)

Where is the false contradiction? It is in how they excluded important information which misled the readers, because this kind of selective quoting was intentionally done to present a falsehood and not the truth.

The missing information is found in 3 Nephi 28, the rest of the passages for that chapter. It explains How the Nephites were kept from death and what state they are in. It also shows that initially, before the time of the Book of Mormon, the Nephites were "taken up into heaven" for a time and returned to the earth. You can read all this in the following excerpts from 3 Nephi 28,

(Three Nephites were taken up into heaven - a change in their body occurred)
13 And behold, the heavens were opened, and they were caught up into heaven, and saw and heard unspeakable things.
14 And it was forbidden them that they should utter; neither was it given unto them power that they could utter the things which they saw and heard;
15 And whether they were in the body or out of the body, they could not tell; for it did seem unto them like a transfiguration of them, that they were changed from this body of flesh into an immortal state, that they could behold the things of God.

(Three Nephites returned to the earth and ministered to the people - suggestion by Mormon that the Three Nephites were changed to survive death)
16 But it came to pass that they did again minister upon the face of the earth; nevertheless they did not minister of the things which they had heard and seen, because of the commandment which was given them in heaven.
17 And now, whether they were mortal or immortal, from the day of their transfiguration, I know not;

(The power given to the Three Nephites, shows they were changed)
19 And they were cast into prison by them who did not belong to the church. And the prisons could not hold them, for they were rent in twain.
20 And they were cast down into the earth; but they did smite the earth with the word of God, insomuch that by his power they were delivered out of the depths of the earth; and therefore they could not dig pits sufficient to hold them.
21 And thrice they were cast into a furnace and received no harm.
22 And twice were they cast into a den of wild beasts; and behold they did play with the beasts as a child with a suckling lamb, and received no harm.

(Three Nephites were compared to being like Angels - their spiritual state makes them invisible to mankind unless they choose to reveal themselves)
30 And they are as the angels of God, and if they shall pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.
31 Therefore, great and marvelous works shall be wrought by them, before the great and coming day when all people must surely stand before the judgment-seat of Christ;

(Three Nephites were caught into heaven - their physical body was changed in order for them to overcome death - this change is not the same change as what will occur during the second coming)
36 And now behold, as I spake concerning those whom the Lord hath chosen, yea, even three who were caught up into the heavens, that I knew not whether they were cleansed from mortality to immortality—
37 But behold, since I wrote, I have inquired of the Lord, and he hath made it manifest unto me that there must needs be a change wrought upon their bodies, or else it needs be that they must taste of death;
38 Therefore, that they might not taste of death there was a change wrought upon their bodies, that they might not suffer pain nor sorrow save it were for the sins of the world.
39 Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place at the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them, insomuch that Satan could have no power over them, that he could not tempt them; and they were sanctified in the flesh, that they were holy, and that the powers of the earth could not hold them.
40 And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ; and at that day they were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the Father to go no more out, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens.

What did all this say, allow me to summarize

The Three Nephites were changed to survive Death
They were given powers by God
They were not normally visible to anyone unless they chose it
They were raised into heaven by God for his purposes
They were returned to the earth from heaven, with powers to minister among mortals
This change is not the change that will occur in the second coming, but a change none the less

Therefore, did the removal of the three Nephites in the Book of Mormon detract or contradict what was said in 3 Nephi 28? The answer is NO, the fact that they were already taken up to heaven and returned once, is a fact that denounces and disproves the claims made by Farkas and Reed. The fact that the Nephites are among us, but not visible to us or said another way, we are not able to recognize them for what they are, we mortals are blind to their presences, unless they choose to reveal themselves. The fact that both Mormon and the Nephites were commanded to remain silent on some things is a testament that if any person has seen them, they are likely commanded not to speak of it, especially to the likes of Farkas and Reed.

The powers of God are unlimited, so for Farkas and Reed to leave out those important pieces of information is tantamount to contriving a conspiracy between them to perpetrate falsehoods and promoting ignorance.

These scriptures are not in error or in contradiction, but Farkas and Reed are.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 12

2010-01-11T17:12:00.000-08:00

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

Now that the meaning of the word "works" is established as spiritual work, we can now move to understand what God refers to when the scriptures speak of receiving support for these spiritual works. Since I am addressing the claims by Farkas and Reed, let us then look at the scriptures Farkas and Reed used and see what these scriptures really say about payment for spiritual works.

Doctrine and Covenants
DC24:18 - says to the missionaries that they are not to take any purse or scrip, the church will support them with things they need.
DC 42:70-73 - The families of Elders and High priests are supported out of the property that has been consecrated to the Bishop. A foot note reference in these passages was made to T.G. Consecration.
DC 51:13-14 - Bishop is to appoint a storehouse unto this church, which stores all things, especially money and meat that is needful for the wants of the people in the church. This includes the authorization to the Bishop to include himself as to receive help from the storehouse.
DC 75: 24-25 - Says it is the duty of the church to support families of those who are called that go out as missionaries. Verse 25 refers to help given by fellow church members that are willing to open their hearts, a statement made to say that fellow church members are to give, donate, share their wealth to assist others.
DC 84:78-79, 86-89 - speaks about responsibility, please see the footnotes for those verses. The phrase "worthy of hire" is not a statement that proves payment like in the world, it refers to being a worthy spiritual worker of God's church and for Zion. It continues in verses 86-89 to speak of receiving aid while on their mission.
DC 119:1-2 - refers to the members giving to the Bishop all surplus property for the purpose of building up the house of the Lord. It is important to read a bit further, where in verse 3, the surplus is the beginning of "tithing" of the people. Then in verse 4, that further others are tithed 1/10th of their interest annually. Further, in verse 5, tithing of surplus property is mentioned.
Bible
1 Cor. 9:1-14 - speaks about work in the vineyard. This is an analogy that speaks about God's work for the church, spiritual work, such as preaching, missionary work, etc.
2 Cor 11:8-9 - Paul speaks about the law of consecration, one of tithing. When he used the word "robbed", he speaks in the derogatory against those who claimed he robbed others. Paul addresses them who have failed to understand the Law of Consecration and Tithing, making it clear that with the Law of Consecration, where all give of their surplus to help others so each are not a burden to each other. You can read this very doctrine in 2 Cor 8:12-14 below.
Num. 18:21 - speaks about giving a tenth as an inheritance. This refers to Tithing, the sharing of wealth.
Matt 10: 9-10 - speaks again of trusting the Lord to sustain us in our "spiritual work", where our temporal needs of food, water, clothes are given to us to use as we work God's vineyard.

IN all cases, Farkas and Reed have refused to read the scriptures properly. This lays to question their motives. If they knew about the Law of Consecration, but did not tell you of this doctrine so the reader can judge for him/herself, then they have purposely misled and lied to all readers of their book. Keeping important information from people as they are fed falsehoods and lies, is a technique of Satan and since it is, they cannot be Christian. Yet if they did not know of God's Doctrine of Consecration, then they are speaking from the position of ignorance of both the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

As I have thus shown, both the Bible and Book of Mormon and Doctrine of Covenants speak about tithing (10% or one tenth of our surplus or wealth) to assist the Church in it's costs in the world, to help serve others and provide to the faithful in accordance to God's economy. The Law of Consecration is far more encompassing than the Law of Tithe because it asks all members of God's Church to give of all things they have so it can be fairly and equally distributed to each other so no one lacks and all are equal. You can read this in the following Bible scripture (please note the underlined words that signify consecration):

2 Cor 8:12-14
12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:
14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

It is very clear that God speaks about material wealth in terms of equality, no person is greater than the other in material wealth. This is the economy of God, how our temporal needs are met, no person goes hungry or without things they need, we support each other. This doctrine of God, therefore, has nothing to do with payment, as being paid the same way as working in a job in the world. The Law of Consecration pays no reference or use of the worldly system of taxing or payment of wages. It is about the sharing of wealth. Is this not exactly what God means when he says we shall "inherit his kingdom"?

When a servant of Christ goes on a mission, to preach the gospel to others, God's commandment not to take purse or scrip is to show the servant God's blessings and wisdom and have the servant practice the Law of Faith, which is sustained and supported by the Law of Consecration. This is the exact meaning of the words of Jesus Christ when he said,

Matt. 6:22-34
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

It is clear that when we have proper faith, to do God's work, God knows what our temporal needs are and as per his principles and laws, he supplies, sustains and blesses us. It is the same as a person who visits another at his place of residence, to receive warmth, food, water, and other needs, given freely during his stay. The same principle of help, service, kindness exists in the Law of Consecration. Another analogy can be extended in this way. A man helps his neighbour with much labor in the field. When the neighbor feeds this man with food and drink, is he receiving payment or sustenance? The same principle lives in those scriptures, even when some money is given since at times, money is required to sustain a person in a particular way, such as payment for services rendered to someone outside the Church who is not under the Law of Consecration. Therefore the money to the Bishop or a member of the Church was not for his/her personal gain for work done, but given to sustain that member in things that required money since the members of the Church still conducted business and transactions with the world. If there was no others outside the Church, then money would not be required.

Consider then what Farkas and Reed do not want you to learn from God, about God's Doctrine of Consecration, which speaks of God's economy. They want you to be as ignorant as they and instead want you to learn and accept the falsehoods they teach. Makes one wonder if Farkas and Reed do not care about God's kingdom and his doctrines that run it, especially the Doctrine of Consecration which is the sharing of wealth. They want to justify receiving money for their services and want you to believe God ordains it.

Consider the next Bible passages about how God views the use of money and the seeking of personal gain,

Acts 8:18-20
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

The simple principle of these verses is, we cannot buy things of God, we cannot sell things of God, we cannot obtain them as a personal gain (worldly style of wage). They are given as a blessing and gift, shared among us.

Next,

2 Kings 5:11-16
11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.
13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?
14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.
16 But he said, As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it; but he refused.

The prophet of God instructed Naaman on how to become clean by dipping himself into the water seven times. Naaman did it and became clean, then Naaman wanted to pay the prophet for his work. The prophet refused, because no payment is taken for the work of God, that God will care for his own faithful.

Let us now look at what the Book of Mormon call those who seek gain, increase of their welfare for services rendered,

2 Nephi 26: 29
He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

The name "priestcraft" are those for personal gain, to get paid for their services, else they do not serve others and most of all, seek not the welfare of Zion. A statement that says the welfare of Zion is first, payment for services is not included.

Then we have Peter the Apostle denouncing payment for services rendered,

1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Obviously, Farkas and Reed have failed to read and understand the scriptures properly and want to set themselves up as the light with their false ministries of cult seekers and seeking for praise of the world, having no interest in the economy of God and his Zion. ~ Amen!

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 11

2009-12-26T21:23:00.000-08:00

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.

The part that got twisted is under the subtitle of "Intelligence (spirit) was created". They said that the words, " man was created, Adam ... whom I created, Formeth the spirit of man within him" and "spirit shall return unto God who gave it" were to mean that God created our spirits and since they were created, we had a beginning and since we have a beginning, we cannot be eternal. It is that definition which Farkas and Reed used to claim that Mormon doctrines are contradictory and in error. Have we not already seen their very poor knowledge an flagrant misuse of God's word?

In truth, those words which Farkas and Reed have misused, made no reference to a "creation" of the spirit. The actual meaning of those words are,

man was created - refers to the human man of flesh, the one made from the dust. This includes Adam. The spirit was not formed from the dust, spirit is formed from spiritual material.
formeth the spirit of man within him - means to form, not to create. The English word "form" means to give shape to, to put together, to mold together like clay to create a form. This says that the spirit was "formed" like clay is formed and in that the word "create" has a different meaning and application. To mold, put together is an act to take substances or a substance that already exists and to mold it into a form, much like a sculpturer molds a clump of clay into bowl or statue. The sculpturer "creates" something.Obviously a sculpturer did not "create" the statue from nothing, he did so from something.
spirit shall return unto God who gave it means only that, to return from this location to the previous one. It makes no reference or meaning of creating or uncreating. This particular scripture, Ecclesiastes 12:7 confirms that the mortal body returns to dust, its original elements, and the eternal spirit returns to eternity where God resides, of course to exist eternally just like God.

To put this into perspective, When God created this earth and all things on it, he formed it in spirit first and then manifested its form from the materials of this mortal dimension of which he created, again from spiritual material. All things God does is spiritual first, temporal second (see DC 29:32 / 1 Corinthians 15:46). Therefore all things are made in spiritual form first, before they descend into mortality to take on a form here. Christians know that our mortal bodies house our spirits and when our mortal bodies die, our spirits return to God. The mortal bodies we inhabit are called "tabernacles". In the Bible, the word "tabernacles" was used to designate a housing for the spirit as found in the Bible scripture of, "Numbers 19:13", as follows,

Numbers 19:13
Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

Take note in Numbers 19:13, God clearly says that the soul shall be cut off. The word "soul" is believed by many to mean "spirit" and this reference to the soul says that it is considered as a separate thing from the mortal "tabernacle". To further show the true doctrines of God and to forgo the mindless twisting by Farkas and Reed, the doctrine that we house our spirits is also found in the following scripture by Peter the Apostle,

2 Peter 1:13-14
13 - Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
14 - Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

Peter said that he is in a mortal body to stir many up to the remembrance of God (a reference that clearly shows we came from spirit previously and do not remember). Mormon doctrine states that our spirits always existed, they shall never die like the mortal body or deteriorate into nonexistence or change form.

Another aspect to this confusion that Farkas and Reed try to impose is the confusion about "spirit" and "mortality". Spiritual matter always existed, the age of a spirit, when it was formed is considered as eternal, so our spiritual ages is quite old (using a mortal reference), but the mortal body is not eternal. Our spirits existed before our mortal bodies and our spirits will continue to exist forever, where our mortal bodies will return to the dust. It is not the problem of the Mormon Church that Farkas and Reed fail or refuse to understand its doctrines.

How many levels are there in heaven? - pg 57

This is another attempt by Farkas and Reed to impose their own views and beliefs upon the doctrines and scriptures of the Mormon Church on the topic of how many heavens exist. They attempt to use selected words from Mormon scriptures to cast a different meaning than what they truly mean, again fabricating a contradiction when there is none.

Farkas and Reed use D&C 76:70-107 to display the doctrine that there are three levels of heaven and one level of hell. The three levels are "Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial" for the heavens and "Hell" for hell. They claim that Mormon scripture says there is only one level using 1 Nephi 15:35-36. This excerpt alone that they provided in their book on page 57, is not contrary to D&C 76:70-107. The excerpt that Farkas and Reed provided is as follows,

And there is a place prepared, yea, even that awful hell of which I have spoken, and the devil is the preparator of it; wherefore the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God [celestial kingdom], or to be cast out because of that justice of which I have spoken. Wherefore, the wicked are rejected from the righteous, and also from that tree of life, whose fruit is most precious and most desirable above all other fruits; yea, and it is the greatest of all the gifts of God. (1 Nephi 15:35-36)

What Farkas and Reed are trying to do with these excerpts is to impose their personal interpretation, their own definition and fail to accept as to what Mormons define it. This is the forced imposition they make.

The concept, "To understanding what Mormons mean", has no bearing on whether you or I believe it. These are two different states of mind, "to understand" versus "to believe". To disbelieve has no bearing on whether you or I understand what Mormons mean by this or that. This is where Farkas and Reed fail to be unbiased. To acknowledge that "Mormons mean this word to be..." will not cause a contradiction when there is a joining statement of "I do not believe this doctrine".

But Farkas and Reed do not want to you understand, they want everyone to confuse understanding with disbelief. That is how they claim these ridiculous contradictions and errors exist.

In the context of the afterlife, their interpretation is that there are only two places, Heaven as with God and Hell as with Satan. What they refuse to understand is that the doctrine they follow called "Heaven or Hell doctrine" is not of the Bible and clearly not representative of an all wise, all knowing, graceful God. For example, in their doctrine of only Heaven or Hell, a good person who does no wrong on the earth, helps others, kind, gentle will go to hell if he/she refuses to accept Jesus Christ. This shows God to be autocratic, giving no fair consideration to what good exists in any man or woman, which is completely against the Bible and violates various passages as the following one,

Revelations. 20:12-13
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Why would God judge men and women according to their works when it would not matter at all in reference to the "Heaven or Hell Doctrine"? This Heaven or Hell doctrine says that unless a person accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior, they will go to hell. Such a doctrine does not fall in line with a God that will judge according to works. An autocratic god is one that acts in absolutes, having no concern for justice and fairness, meaning, that if you fail to accept him, he puts you to hell with no consideration of what good you are in your heart to suffer with Satan for all time. In other words, a god that has not prepared a place that fits the works and level of faith.

Let us move further with this.

An all around good person, good heart, but has denied Jesus Christ, should not go to hell, but instead go to a place that matches his true nature, being a good place, not a hellish place. It will not be the Kingdom of God which is the place of exaltation, but a good place none the less. This would show a God that loves us and is fair and just. Is this not true of these words from Jesus Christ as follows,

John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

The words of Jesus makes it clear that there are many places for us, not only the places of heaven and hell, otherwise he would have told us if the doctrine of many places or heavens was false. Instead he tells us of many places by which we can go and he will prepare a place for us. Does this sound like an autocratic doctrine as "Heaven or Hell"?

Farkas and Reed have imposed this false doctrine of "heaven or hell" onto the scriptures and by doing this, they created a false state of contradiction. Within the doctrines and scriptures held by the Mormon Church, there is no contradiction, but when Farkas and Reed impose their personal beliefs onto Mormon scriptures, then there is a contradiction, which is not with the scriptures, but between the beliefs of Farkas and Reed and the scriptures. It is Farkas and Reed that claim that a nonbeliever of Christ is damned and goes to hell. The scriptures in the Book of Mormon, or Doctrine of Covenants and Pearl of Great Price did not say it. The false interpretation and claim is with Farkas and Reed, not with Mormon doctrines and scriptures.

The true meaning of 1 Nephi 15:35-36 is in accordance to D&C 76:70-107, saying that when God casts out someone from his Kingdom, that person will end up in one of the "many mansions" (John 14:2) prepared for him/her. Where one person is placed depends on how God judges them in accordance to their works (Revelations 20:12-13). To understand what the word "damned" means in Mormon doctrine, attend the Bible Dictionary definition at the LDS scripture website - Bible dictionary (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/d/6), which says, in short, that damnation is the sending of a person to that place which is in accordance to his/her faith who have not been able to obtain the fullness of celestial exaltation.

Consider this next Biblical verse,

Matthew 23:14 - Christ warns the scribes and Pharisees of receiving a greater damnation

How can any person receive a greater damnation of there is only one place called hell and if damnation refers to hell? This clearly tells us there are many places, exactly what Jesus said about "many mansions".

Here is some commonsense advice.

To understand anyone, even Mormons and their doctrines and how they interpret the Bible, a person must accept their explanation as to what they believe. When we accept their definition as to what they believe, then we can address concerns. For example, some Christians believe God is formless, Mormons believe God has a form of a man. The beliefs are different, but each believe differently. The key is whether the belief is correct. Farkas and Reed would do much better to acknowledge what Mormons believe and address it from that standpoint in reference to doctrines they believe, making it clear as to their standpoint instead of trying to twist and change what Mormons believe calling it a contradiction, change or error.

What is sad is when a person or persons purposely misuse and abuse Mormon doctrine to impose a false wrong or error, shows to be wholly wrong and in error themselves.

What are the proper ingredients for the sacrament - pg 58

In this part, Farkas and Reed make the effort to claim that the Mormon Church is in contradiction because the Mormon church and its scriptures claim to use wine and bread for the sacrament and later direct its members to use water and bread instead. They refer to the Bible scriptures of Matthew 26:26-29 and Luke 22:17-19 as showing that wine and bread is used. Then refer to Book of Mormon scripture of Moroni 4:3, 5:2 as indicating wine and bread also. Then in Doctrine and Covenants D&C 27:2-4, they show the commandment from God that clarifies why water is used in place of wine.

Farkas and Reed have complained in ignorance. The meaning of the sacrament is not established alone by a temporal element as wine and bread, it is established by faith to sanctify those temporal elements as worthy for use. I speak of the example of works and faith together. Joseph Smith received the revelation from God (D&C 27:2-4) for good reason. It was to establish the doctrine and value of faith in the act of the sacrament. Farkas and Reed question as to why would God change his commandment after allowing Mormons to use wine. Well, this is where the lack of spiritual intelligence and lack of faith is shown in the minds of Farkas and Reed.

When Joseph Smith received the revelation about the sacrament, it was for various reasons, one of which is to overcome the sectarian notion that wine is the only thing to use. This is where the false sectarian doctrine that wine is the only thing acceptable, was shown by God as false to Joseph Smith. What God refers to in his revelation to Joseph Smith is the "spiritual meaning" of his word and doctrine about the sacrament (see John 6:63), in contrast to the false doctrines in the world, such as the one called "transubstantiation".

In Roman Catholic theology, "transubstantiation" (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις (metousiosis)) means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before.

Some Greek confessions use the term "transubstantiation" (in Greek, metousiosis), but most Orthodox Christian traditions play down the term itself, and the notions of "substance" and "accidents", while adhering to the holy mystery that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Other terms such as "trans-elementation" ("metastoicheiosis") and "re-ordination" ("metarrhythmisis") are more common among the Orthodox. Most or all Protestant Reformation churches do not accept an actual change.¹

As you see the problems that have occurred with the false doctrines and beliefs that have developed around the need to have only wine or that wine is the only thing used to represent the blood of Christ. In order for God to remove this pending problem and argument with his saints, to resolve it permanently within his Church, the revelation was given to Joseph Smith. Here is an explanation,

(referring to D&C 27:2-4) In these words our Lord bears witness to the simplicity of the Sacrament. it is not what we eat or drink that matters. But it is important that whatever we partake of - be it bread, wafers, cake, water or juice - that it be taken sincerely with an eye single to the Lord's glory. Furthermore, the Lord implies that whatever we partake if is symbolic. Bread does not change after being blessed unto the very body of Christ, nor does water become the very blood of the Savior.²

What God wanted to establish, which is clearly the reason for changing it to water, was to establish in the minds of his faithful the true principles that underlay the meaning and usage of the sacrament. What was explained by Sidney Sperry is correct. When looking at the Bible where wine was used by Christ, it was "symbolic" and not actual blood, because of the completely "new" doctrine of the blood sacrifice (Atonement) and subsequent sacrament of his blood, wine proved to be the easiest representation or symbol to aid the people in understanding this new doctrine that Jesus introduced in the New Testament times, especially when wine was used as common as water on the table. Now, centuries later, where the basic tenants of the Atonement is understood, wine is no longer needed and water can replace it.

The use of something in place of the real thing, refers to the power of proxy as seen in the Bible with Christ dying on the cross of our sins. One person can represent the other in this power of proxy, so as wine can represent the blood of Christ, therefore by that same principle and power, so can water. Especially since water came from the body of Christ, along with blood, when the body of Christ was pierced with a spear (John 19:34)

Yet there is more. Times have changed since the ancient times of the Bible or Book of Mormon. Many people today are allergic to wine, while others, for serious health reasons, cannot partake of wine. Therefore, for something to work for all, water is the safest. The important part is the blessing by the authorized priesthood, for without a valid priesthood member, the blessing cannot be done and the sacrament is worthless. The other half is the valid faith required by the partaker of the sacrament.

Footnotes

Wikipedia.org - URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Sperry Sidney, "Doctrine and Covenants Compendium", pg 126

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 10

2009-09-23T13:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Jesus Christ has that power and authority from the Father in heaven and can speak as if he is the Father. This is what it means when Jesus said that he and the Father are "one". He is "one" in power, glory, authority and will. What Jesus Christ says and does, is the same as if the Father was saying it and doing it. The same applies with the doctrine that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one (Mormon 7:7). The divine investiture of authority is not a new idea, neither is it specific to the Mormons as this next excerpt will show¹,

This principle of divine investiture of authority is used similarly on a lower level by angels who have a right to speak and act as Christ in fulfilling the duties of their ministry. Though the angel who gave the revelation to John on the isle of Patmos twice enjoined the beloved Apostle not to worship him, he nevertheless spoke as if he were Christ, stating: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." ³² In like manner, Stephen reported that the Lord spoke unto Moses out of the burning bush, declaring: "I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Yet the early Christian martyr continued his report by stating that the message was actually delivered to Moses "by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush." ³³ When Jehovah withdrew in person from leading rebellious Israel through the wilderness, He sent an angel to take His place and warned the Israelites: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him." ³⁴ Jehovah would speak to Israel by and through this angel, for the Lord continued: "But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries." ³⁵

Note, footnote references in the above excerpt are as follows:
32 - Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9, 13.
33 - Acts 7:31-32, 35
34 - Exodus 23:20-21
35 - Exodus 23:22

Take notice, that excerpt referred to passages within the Bible, where the principle of divine investiture of authority was exercised by an angel, where the angel spoke as if he was Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega. Since this is a fact of the Bible, why has Farkas and Reed not seen it? After all, this does confirm that the Mormon scripture is true and not misleading as Farkas and Reed want you to think.

It is the absence of this knowledge, as shown by Farkas and Reed, that makes their claims and words as false and not be trustworthy. If they knew of these facts, then, they have purposely misrepresented the scriptures of the Mormon church, denying the Bible at the same time, with clear intent to misled readers and spread rumours and false claims. Is this then the character of all Anti-Mormons, to be as ignorant or as deceitful?

Is Murder and/or killing forgivable? - pg 53

Farkas and Reed make the attempt here to claim that Mormon scriptures regarding murder or killing was confusing, as to whether it is forgivable or not. The simple answer is "No" it is not forgivable, but this is insufficient for proper clarification, because in certain circumstances, murder or killing is forgivable.

It has been clearly stated in Mormon scriptures that the killing of an innocent, is unforgivable.

D&C 132:19
And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

It is not unusual for the scriptures to state one thing, then clarify it elsewhere through another passage. Through out the Bible, it states that man shall not kill, else he has no place in the kingdom of God (see Numbers 35:30; 1 John 3:15; Revelations 21:8 ), but the Bible also states that a man must repent of his murders,

Revelations 9:20-21
20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

The Bible clearly shows the same contradiction that Farkas and Reed claim Mormon scriptures have. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill" and warns that people who kill or commit murder are condemned, yet the Bible also says that men must repent of their murders, among other things. Since I have shown in my reviews that the Bible carries the same or similar contradictions, I have also shown how to understand and resolve these apparent contradictions.

To understand when murder and killing are "unforgivable", please read this explanation by Daniel Ludlow,

The second most serious sin is to commit murder—that is, to willfully shed innocent blood. Concerning this sin, the Lord has said: "Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." (D&C 42:18.) Thus this is an unforgivable sin, which means that Jesus Christ cannot pay for (or "atone for" or "forgive") the penalty demanded by the broken law. This sin is a pardonable sin, however; that is, the sinner can eventually make full payment himself, and be received into a state of pardon. Apparently one reason this sin is unforgivable is that forgiveness is based upon repentance, and a murderer cannot fully repent of his sin for he cannot make restitution of the life he has taken.²

Exceptions do exist for some things and this is because God is all knowing and wise. Murder or killing is a sin, there is no doubt about it, but in some cases it is forgivable. Farkas and Reed quoted the Mormon scripture of Alma 24:10, to say that killing or murder is forgivable, but they failed to tell you why it was forgivable in that passage. Robert Millet explains Alma 24:10 thusly,

10. Forgiven ... our ... murders] Because of the false traditions of their fathers, before their conversion these Lamanites had taken life in unrighteous wars. Though such needless killing is a sin of the gravest magnitude, it is not the same as the willful and premeditated taking of life that, in the United States system of jurisprudence, is called first-degree murder; or that is spoken of in the scriptures as being "sin unto death" (1 John 5:16-17), meaning that its perpetrators cannot, even through repentance, obtain a glory greater than that of the telestial kingdom in the worlds to come. (See D&C 42:79; Revelation 22:15; also 3 Nephi 30:2.)³

This does not say that gaining forgiveness for some circumstances of murder or killing is easy to do. Since killing and murder is high on the most serious sin list, a person who can seek forgiveness will find that he/she will be repenting of it for a long time because it is not easy to gain forgiveness for this. Of course, there is no murder when a person acts in self-defence of himself or for his family, although he did kill, but in this case, it is a righteous kill, just as the laws of the land decree the same thing.

In the scriptures, a person will also find that there are many ways to commit murder and it is not just killing a human body, for a person can also murder against the light and knowledge of God, which in that case can obtain forgiveness, but it will not be easy,

In recounting his sinful past to his son Helaman, Alma said that he had "murdered" many people, and then he adds, "or rather led them away unto destruction." (Alma 36:14.) As Alma mentions later to his son Corianton, the murder of a human physical body is a grave sin. However, an even more serious sin is to murder the spiritual life of a person or, in other words, to purposely lead one away from the saving principles of the gospel. Concerning such people Alma says: ". . . whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness." (Alma 39:6.)⁴

Therefore, if the Book of Mormon, Doctrine of Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are true and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's true Church on this earth, then Farkas and Reed have a lot of repenting to do.

What did Joseph Smith Think before he prayed - pg 55

Using information from Joseph Smith History 1:10 and 1:18, Farkas and Reed claim that Joseph Smith was confused or contradictory in his thoughts before he prayed to God in the forest grove where The First Vision occurred. Farkas and Reed try to claim that on one hand, Joseph Smith wondered whether all churches could be wrong, if any one of the churches could be right and if so, how can he know it (Joseph Smith History 1:10). Then on the other hand, Joseph Smith apparently stated that he knew all churches were wrong.

The manner which Farkas and Reed present this information is misleading. Please read carefully these references from Joseph Smith History, because Farkas and Reed are twisting the words and fabricating the context of those words.

Reading these passages in proper context, the following excerpt from the Joseph Smith History 1:9-10 says the following,

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?

Joseph Smith explains his experience in the past tense, what he thought and felt. He felt it prudent to seek a sincere inquiry which led to the next series of passages from the Joseph Smith History 1:17-19,

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Remember, Joseph Smith wrote this account in the past tense, he is relating his experience after the fact, not during the fact. When he wrote the comment, "for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong", Joseph Smith was relating his state of mind that he had when the First Vision occurred, saying that he never thought that all the churches were wrong. He too thought, like anyone else in the world, that at least one of the worldy Christian churches must be right or acceptable to God. Little did Joseph Smith know that God was not happy with any of the worldly Christian churches. Therefore, when Joseph Smith wrote that account, he was speaking in hindsight to the experience with the First Vision. It is clear that Joseph had only one understanding when he entered the forest grove, that he did not know which church was true and did not even think that all were wrong as clearly related in Joseph Smith History (JSH) 1:9-10.

Yet, I believe there is another reason for this claim by Farkas and Reed. They viewed the First Vision of God the Father and God Jesus Christ as false. They believe that it did not happen. On that basis, to the belief of Farkas and Reed, Joseph Smith answered his own inquiry and by that they believe that his claims and thoughts became contradictory since he answered himself. In this way, Farkas and Reed claim that Joseph Smith was really confused and contradictory. I am sure that Farkas and Reed will claim that the Church of Jesus Christ is all wrong and was built on this contradiction and confusion by Joseph Smith.

The fact that Farkas and Reed disbelieve the authenticity of the First Vision really has no bearing on whether the First Vision was true or false, but in the minds of Farkas and Reed, that is another opportunity to discredit Mormons based solely on their disbelief, which is merely a personal opinion. Therefore based on their opinion, which clearly ignores proper reading and research, have judged Joseph Smith as wrong.

Was Joseph Smith to be killed? - pg 55

Farkas and Reed claim that Mormon scriptures are contradictory because it says at one point that God will protect Joseph Smith from harm and then in another part of the scriptures it lists Joseph Smith as martyred. It is getting tiresome with these foolish and idle comparisons by Farkas and Reed, but again they show their lack of knowledge of the scriptures.

In the Bible, no person could harm Jesus Christ while he was performing his duties for the Father in heaven and not until it was time, but even with Jesus, there was an end to his presence as this Bible scripture shows,

John 8:20
These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

Yet, even with Jesus, his life was not completely safe, as several times he escaped because of their fears or that he actually escaped their clutches.

Matthew 21:46
But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

John 10:39
Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

So why is it such an issue with Farkas and Reed that Joseph was protected until his hour was up? Many times, Joseph took action to protect himself, as Jesus did also, and if Joseph Smith was God's prophet, then God helped his safety. The fact of the matter is this. If we ignore the truth that Jesus was the Son of God and is our Saviour, he still escaped harm until his hour was up. If we ignore that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, he still escaped harm until his hour was up. This is not rocket science and whether or not someone believes Joseph Smith was God's prophet who was protected by God, the same results occurred as with Jesus Christ. To compare this to common place occurrences, how many people "escape" harm, but at sometime later, their hour came up? Can this simple fact of life escape Farkas and Reed that they have lost complete commonsense and sensibility?

How many times people believe, even non-Christians, that God protected them until their hour was up? How many times miracle cures occurred with cancer and other diseased latent people saving and extending their lives on this earth. If such things occur on this earth to thousands of ordinary non-religious people, how much more can it occur to a man who was God's prophet? Even if Joseph Smith was not God's prophet, then it is reasonable to expect another human being to receive the same blessings of safety and health as much as anyone else.

This attempt by Farkas and Reed is really small and insignificant.

Reading of Interest
1. Joseph Smith History - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/10-19#10

Footnotes

Andrus, Hyrum L., God, Man, and the Universe, Chapter 9 - "The Ministry of Christ as The Father and The Son", pg 231 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/25582 )
Ludlow, Daniel H., Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, "ALMA", pg. 222 - (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/21719 )
Millet, Robert L., McConkie, Joseph Fielding, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 3, "The Converted Lamanites Rejoice In Christ Alma 24:5-10", pg. 168
( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/22742 )
Ludlow, Daniel H., Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, "ALMA", pg. 218 - (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/21719 )

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 9

2009-09-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

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.

To be more detailed, I will address the Bible to show that it also teaches plural marriage as "For" and "Against"

For Polygamy (Plural Marriage)

Genesis 16: 1-11
1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee.
6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
7 And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
10 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

2 Chronicles. 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.

Isaiah 4:1
And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Against Polygamy

Deuteronomy. 17: 15-17
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

2 Samuel 12: 7-9
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

1 Kings 11: 1-4
1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, bas was the heart of David his father.

1 Timothy 3:2,12
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:6
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Why then do we see the Bible condone plural marriage and then prohibit it? Is this the same contradiction as with Mormon scriptures and beliefs?

Why does it appear that God approves of plural marriage, giving many wives to his prophets on one hand and then condemns it on another? Does this say that God is hypocritical?

Any person who reads the Bible and chooses to take these apparent contradictions as valid is not reading the scriptures properly. Any person who takes the scriptures and ignores half of what it says while taking the other half to claim their "half" view is God's doctrine is also not reading the scriptures properly. Too many Christians, who believe in only the Bible, take what they want from it while conveniently ignoring the rest or ignoring the rest to make some ridiculous "doctrine", while it supports contradiction directly or indirectly. This is where Farkas and Reed sits.

Farkas and Reed claim contradictions in Mormon scriptures and beliefs, yet conviently ignore similar or other contradictions in the Bible. The same contradiction, as Farkas and Reed claim, exists in the Bible for the practice of plural marriage. The Bible is the same source that Farkas and Reed hinge their personal ministries as they foolishly ignore any apparent Biblical contradiction as they judge Mormon doctrines. This shows hypocrisy and irresponsibility.
In order to understand and overcome this "apparent contradiction", a person must remember that not all things God commands are absolute and not all things said by prophets and God's servants transcend time to apply universally, rather some things in the scriptures are relative to the circumstances of that time. For example, God commanded his people to sacrifice first born animals as part of their repentance and worship, but that is no longer needed as Jesus Christ took that place for all time. This made the "commandment" to sacrifice animals as obsolete. Another is in the New Testament where women were suppose to remain silent (see 1 Corinthians 14:34-35), but would this direction from the early Church Leaders, in this case from Apostle Paul, be a direction for all modern day churches to follow and suppress speech for all women in the church?

The problem is taking parts of the scriptures out of context in which they were given, applying them at all times can be a grave error. A person must realize that administration of God's true Church will require changes to previous commandments or directions to facilitate order and proper spiritual direction as well as deal with problems that threatens faith and stability. Of course, this does not apply to every single passage in the scriptures. There are eternal principles and commandments that transcend time and apply at all times, such as "love thy neighbour". Now, having said this, on the note of this review, I have thus shown that there is always a need for proper research, especially into the reason for this contradiction about plural marriage (polygamy), to shed some good light unto the matter and to remove misunderstanding. I have done such research as follows,

Old Testament Polygyn

Abraham, who lived about 2000 BC, is the first righteous polygynist identified in the Old Testament. He had one wife, Sarah, and at least two concubines, Hagar and Keturah.

A word about concubinage. Concubines were not mistresses or prostitutes, they were lawful wives—usually captive slaves or foreigners—who had legitimacy but not full honor. Their children enjoyed no rights of inheritance. It was a case of social inferiors becoming part of a man's family.

Concubinage reflected the realities of the ancient world. It was a lesser law for a lesser time. In viewing those times the issue is not what was ideally right or wrong, fair or unfair, but what was workable. If concubinage was a relative evil, it was the lesser of evils; better a concubine than a woman alone, or a harlot. That the Lord justified his servants in having concubines—and he did—is no proof that he viewed the practice as more than a necessary, albeit unfortunate aspect of an imperfect order of things.¹

From that same book, something was said for God's commandment to the Nephites about polygamy,

The Nephites and Polygyny

Although the law of Moses permitted wives and concubines, the Lord forbade the practice for the house of Joseph in the Promised Land, in the Americas. This was probably in part because of its historic abuses, but also because the basis for such marriages did not exist in Lehi's colony.

The Nephites did not practice slavery, nor did they take female captives and make wives of some of them as had their Israelitish ancestors even in the days of Moses. As for the many war-produced widows found at times among the Nephites, the policy was to care for their temporal needs rather than to marry them (see Mosiah 21:10, 17; Moroni 9:16).²

What this says is that when God spoke against concubines and plural marriage, it was not condoned with the Nephites as it was with the Old Testament prophets, as Moses or Abraham. God, therefore, does not condone certain practices as an open policy. When reading on one hand, God speaking against plural marriage and on the other approving of it, refers to God applying his laws and commandments in accordance to his will. For what is good for you, as God directs, will not necessarily be good for me as God prohibits.

Plural Wives Not Wrong Per Se

In saying that "whoredoms are an abomination before me" (see Jacob 2:28), the Lord was not equating the principle of plural marriage with whoredoms or declaring that all such marriages—including those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—are abominable in his sight. He was denouncing the abuse of a sacred principle, not the principle itself.

But what is abominable to him in any form of marriage is when the relationship is motivated by lust, or when it robs one's wife of her personhood and reduces her to the level of a thing to be used, mistreated, manipulated, or whimsically abandoned. In that regard, some monogamous marriages among us are abominations.

When wives are neglected, subjected to physical or verbal abuse, to emotional trauma, or to humiliating and degrading conduct by their husbands, the spirit of chastity in them is violated. For chastity is more than a sexual matter, it is also a state of mind, heart, and spirit toward one's whole being. The very soul is at issue.³

For God to approve plural marriage requires a higher faith on our part as a necessity, in God's view, to institute the practice. Plural marriage is not something to play with or trifle with. To distinguish if there is sin on the matter of plural marriage requires proper and patient study, as this next excerpt will show,

Those who sought to "indulge themselves," as Jacob expressed it, in plural wives were not motivated by a caring love and concern for these women, but rather by pride and lust in their hardened hearts (see Jacob 1:15-16). For was there not a connection between the sin of pride in consequence of their material wealth and their "grosser crime" (see Jacob 2:22) of whoredoms? Not only could they afford wives and concubines, they reasoned, but their very status in society warranted them. Citing the conduct of David and Solomon, who were also wealthy and prominent, was designed to cloak their actions with moral approval.

But the consequences of all such infidelity were vividly described by Jacob: "Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them, and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds" (Jacob 2:35). How many hearts die today because of marital infidelity and insensitivity?⁴

and...

Thus, although Jacob denounced Nephite polygynists in the strongest terms, it is clear that he did not make an absolute statement on the subject for all times and all peoples. He knew that plurality of wives was a divine principle, hence the addendum in Jacob 2:30: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." What "things"? Jacob's teachings on monogamy. How else would the Lord raise up a more numerous people unto himself save it were by magnifying the monogamous principle of marriage into plurality of wives even as he had done with Abraham? (see AbrAbr 1:2; D&C 132:34). But it was not for the Nephites, or any later individual or group, to presume to expand the principle; the Lord would command. He alone would determine when conditions warranted its introduction and what its manner of implementation would be.⁵

Therefore, the contradiction that Farkas and Reed try to allude to on the matter of plural marriage (polygamy), does not exist. God has always decreed something as prohibitive with some and allowed with others. It is noticed within the Bible and Book of Mormon that the level and degree of faith is one of the main deciding factors as to what God provides, allows, condones or prohibits. Simply, better the faith, more blessings, lesser the faith, less blessings, more wickedness, more prohibitions.

It is important to know the following factors pertaining to plural marriage,

God must approve of the practice and only with those women God gives to the man
There must be no lust, pride, sin, mistreatment, abuse of women in any manner or form, else plural marriage for that man becomes a sin.
All others who have not been approved by God to have plural wives, are commanded to have just one wife.
Concubine, as it appears, is more an ancient practice than a modern day one. God would likely not approve of concubines in this day and age.

Of last note on this subject, when reading the word "concubine" in the scriptures, a person must remember that word applies to a time when things were different and the word "concubine" refers to a particular status of women. Bruce McConkie said it this way,

See CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, PLURAL MARRIAGE. In modern times a concubine is a woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife. But "from the beginning of creation," all down through the history of God's dealings with his people, including those with the house of Israel, concubines were legal wives married to their husbands in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. (D. & C. 132:1, 37-39, 65.)

Anciently they were considered to be secondary wives, that is, wives who did not have the same standing in the caste system then prevailing as did those wives who were not called concubines. There were no concubines connected with the practice of plural marriage in this dispensation, because the caste system which caused some wives to be so designated did not exist.⁶

Who Created Light? - pg 52

This issue here with Farkas and Reed, is the issue of "one God" versus "plural Gods". They claim a contradiction by way of Mormon scripture of Moses 2:3, that Mormons say that God (singular) created light versus Mormon scripture of Abraham 4:3,5 that claim the "Gods" (plural) created light.

There is no contradiction here at all.

This God versus Gods issue stems right back to the creed belief called the "Trinity" versus the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead. The Trinity creed is not in the Bible, but the word "Godhead" is - see Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9). The creed of the Trinity is simply said as, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are all in one, making one God, denying the distinction of three separate Gods, claiming that the "one God" is all three in one, or in other words, "one God working as three aspects, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost". The three that make one God, are in themselves, according to the Trinity, not distinct persons because the Trinity Doctrine denies the existence of three individual and separate Gods. Another way it is said is that within the one true God are three persons. Therefore the "one God" is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost all at the same time, with no separateness and no distinct personage.

Since the Trinity denies anything about each "person" being a God that is distinct from the other, claiming that God the Father is not a God by himself and Jesus Christ is not a God by himself and the Holy Ghost is not a God by himself. This makeup of the Trinity doctrine is a false doctrine and not of God and not in the Bible especially in the face of Biblical passages showing Jesus Christ, a very distinct person who lived on this earth in a physical mortal body who prayed to the Father and clearly said that he does the Father's will not his own will. Adding to that is the truth that Jesus was resurrected and reappeared to his apostles in a body of flesh and bone where they touched him and Jesus clearly said that he has a tangible body distinguishing himself from the nature of the Holy Ghost which is a spirit having no such body and clearly saying that he is to return to the Father in Heaven, obviously with a tangible body of flesh and bone.

Then the Bible passage that shows Jesus Christ, who returned to the Father as an exalted man and appears to the Apostle Steven, who saw both Jesus and the Father standing beside each other in a vision. All of these Bible examples deny and contradict the doctrine of the Trinity because those Bible passages describe a clear distinct and individual existence of Jesus Christ, as a separate and distinct being from the Father in heaven.

You can read more about what I have said previously about the Trinity here: ( http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/08/chapter-3-mormon-scriptures-compared_14.html ) and here ( http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/07/chapter-1-introduction-to-mormonism.html ).

As I have shown and said in my previous reviews, that God the Father and God Jesus Christ are distinct and separate beings. I have also said that the Bible clearly shows that Jesus Christ was the God Jehovah in the Old Testament who incarnated into a mortal body ( see http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/08/chapter-3-mormon-scriptures-compared_10.html and http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/08/chapter-3-mormon-scriptures-compared_07.html ). The Bible also shows this same God - Jehovah, as Jesus Christ, praying to "God the Father" (New Testament) and clearly saying that he (Jesus Christ) does not do his own will but does the will of the Father (John 5:30) we then clearly have a "God" - Jesus Christ submitting himself to another "God" who is the Father. This establishes a clear distinction of "two Gods".

Now when the world was created as said in the scriptures of Abraham, it says that the "Gods" (plural) created light. This shows that "God the Father" and "God Jesus Christ (Jehovah)" were the ones involved. The "light" that was made was the light of the sun as it was set apart from the night (darkness) (Abraham 4:1-5).

Now, consider this. If we take the Doctrine of the Trinity, as Farkas and Reed believe is God's doctrine, which says that God the Father and God Jesus Christ and God the Holy Ghost are in one, making the "One God", in other words, there are three persons in one God (see pg 26 of their book under "Trinity") or said another way, that God exists as three persons, this clearly speaks of a plural context and meaning.

Then, the word "God" as read in Genesis 1:1 - " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ", would have to be is that same (Triune) "God" as declared by the Trinity. In other words, the "Trinity God" doctrine must apply to all notations and mention of God in the Bible. To move this further, this says that since the Triune God declares "three persons" to make up one God, therefore, to make one God, it requires the same "plural" aspect (three persons) as would the Mormon doctrine of plural Gods (three persons), which is "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. This says that the singular word "God" has a plural makeup, whether you follow the Trinity or follow the Mormon Doctrine of the Godhead. By this there is no contradiction, because if Farkas and Reed denounce the idea of "Gods" (plural) versus God (singular with a plural makeup), they would be effectively denouncing their own doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, they cannot deny the "plural" basis and rearranging words will not change that fact.

Further study and research about God will reveal that the Old Testament scripture of Genesis 1;1, originated in Hebrew, where the singular word "God" in English is derived from the Hebrew word that is "plural".

[...] The plurality of ELOHIM is “gods”. The word elohim in its plurality does not designate one God, nor does it designate “persons” in one God, as many have claimed. In Hebrew (as well as some other languages), the Hebrew form of some words is used in what many call the “plural intensive”. This means that the plural form is used in a singular setting, and thus the word is used as though it were singular, but is given an intensified meaning. ELOHIM, when used in singular settings, takes on an intensified meaning such as what we might call the superior or superlative degrees. In the case of Yahweh, it is of course, the superlative. In the case of others, such as Moses (Exodus 7:1, is superior. (Moses was certainly not made a plurality of persons to Pharaoh.) When ELOHIM is rendered into the New Testament Greek, the singular KURIOS is usually used, except where ELOHIM is actually being used in the plural. For the singular compare Psalm 45:6,7 with Hebrews 1:8,9; for the plural compare with Psalm 82:6 with John 10:34. [...]⁷

The Hebrew root for the English word God, therefore, has a plural makeup and written in the singular, but still not loosing its plural base and the word "plural" means "more than one". This same information about the Hebrew root for God in Genesis 1:1 is also confirmed by "nonMormon sources" as follows, (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H430)

Transliteration	Pronunciation
'elohiym	el·o·hem'
Part of Speech	Root Word (Etymology)
masculine noun	plural of H433
Outline of Biblical Usage
(plural) rulers, judges divine ones angels gods (plural intensive - singular meaning) god, goddess godlike one works or special possessions of God the (true) God God

It is therefore not surprising, when truly understanding what the scriptures say that the word "God" or "Gods" are not really different. The word God in the Bible is a singular word to describe the plural and the word "Gods" in Mormon scripture is an English plural word to describe the plural. The end result is the same, we have a "plural" root to the word God in Genesis 1:1, and the plural reference in Abraham 4:3,5. This shows to contradict the claims by Farkas and Reed.

The use of the word God (meaning Gods) in the Old Testament Bible is by the Hebrew word that was not correctly translated and the second, in the Mormon scripture of Abraham was a translation by way of revelation.

Footnotes:

Tate, Charles D., Nyman, Monte S., Jacob through Words of Mormon: to Learn with Joy, Chapter 16, "Morality and Marriage in the Book of Mormon - Rodney Turner", pg 280-281 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/26782)
Ibid, pg 281-282
Ibid, pg 283-284
Ibid, pg 285
Ibid, pg 288-289
McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, "Concubines", pg 154 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/14819 )
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=230

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 8

2009-08-20T09:04:00.000-07:00

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?

Above, I have shown that Farkas and Reed claim that John 17:20 speaks of the protection of God's "word", which says,

John 17:20
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Farkas and Reed claim that if the word of God is lost, corrupted or altered, that intercessory prayer by Jesus Christ in John 17 becomes of no worth and no effect, also saying that God would not "let his disciples word be lost or diluted". To further their position and claims, they used the following Bible passages,

1 Peter 1:23-25
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

and...

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

(Their key word in those Bible passages is the word "word", which they believe to mean the written word)

Farkas and Reed believe the Bible as unstainable, unalterable and invincible against the hands of men, but this is a delusion in their part and shows they have not properly studied the Bible, neither its history, because the Bible itself holds warnings about others corrupting the word,

2 Corinthians 2:14-17
14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:2
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

It certainly appears that the Bible stands in disagreement with Farkas and Reed. The "written" word of God can be "tampered with". The importance for preservation of the written was such that God spoke against it, as I have already shown. This fact that the written word can become corrupted by the wrong hands was also held by J. Reuben Clark, in his book, "On the Way to Immortality and Eternal Life".

Now, scholars do not deny that the original texts of the Bible have been corrupted, though they do not agree in all cases on the portions that are corrupted nor in which of the variant texts is the corruption found, nor on the probable original text. But we are not concerned with these details tonight. We are interested only in the fact that there are corruptions and in how they came about.

Among the causes for corruption in the original texts, as listed by the distinguished scholars, Burgon and Miller of the Church of England, we may mention these: "inadvertency of the scribes," and later attempts to rectify them, but, as the authors observe: "A systematic and perpetual mutilation of the inspired Text must needs be the result of design, not of accident." These authors then list as accidental causes for corruption:

"Pure accident;"

Errors resulting from the omission or addition of identical or nearly identical letters in close proximity to one another;

Errors arising from the use of uncial "character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text;"

Errors from "itacism," that is, misspelled words and misplaced words, and from "liturgical influence," that is, "accommodating an ordinary copy, whether of the Gospels or of the Epistles, to the requirements of the Church."

Other causes of text corruption, listed as "chiefly intentional," are:

The "harmonistic influence," which resulted from an effort to bring the narrative of the four Gospels into harmony;

"Assimilation," or the improper transfer of the expressions of one Evangelist to the writings of another;

"Attraction," or "the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into a likeness of ending,—whether in respect of grammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously,—sometimes entirely to disappear;"

"Omission" of words and clauses, "the largest of all classes of corrupt variations from the genuine Text," the authors stating that "omissions are much in favour with a particular school of critics," and citing as an illustration the discarding, as spurious, by some critics of the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel, on what the authors regard as wholly insufficient evidence.

The authors add as other intentional causes of text corruption—transposition, substitution, and addition, stating, "All the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, and Addition," the authors further adding as to certain kinds of changes: "they were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the wrongness of what they did,—the mischievous consequences which might possibly ensue from their well-meant endeavours to improve the work of the HOLY GHOST."¹

The historic fact shows that the Bible has been corrupted and changed. One of the references J Reuben Clark used in their book was another book written by Burgon and Miller, entitled, "Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels". The title of that book clearly states that the written word of God was corrupted. I obtained a copy of that book and found the following,

In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New Testament Scriptures are wholly without a parallel in respect of their having been so frequently multiplied from the very first. They are by consequence contained at this day in an extravagantly large number of copies [probably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evangelistaries, and Apostolos, exceeding the number of four thousand]. There is nothing like this, or at all approaching to it. in the case of any profane writing that can be named. And the very necessity for multiplying copies, a necessity which has made itself felt in every age and in every clime, has perforce resulted in an immense number of variants. Words have been inevitably dropped, vowels have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or less competent : and the meaning of Scripture in countless places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence.²

Corruption to the gospels was much earlier than this, as Burgon and Williams said,

The Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty years after the Ascension. More careful examination seems to place them later rather than earlier. For myself, I should suggest that the three first were not published long before the year 70 A. D. at the earliest ; and that St. Matthew's Gospel was written at Pella during the siege of Jerusalem amidst Greek surroundings, and in face of the necessity caused by new conditions of life that Greek should become the ecclesiastical language. The Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their entirety of the stories constituting the Life of our Lord; and corruption must have come into existence, before the antidote was found in complete documents accepted and commissioned by the authorities in the Church.³

What this says is that corruption filtered its way into the gospel writings from outside influences. By this time (70 AD) the majority of the Apostles were gone, mostly by martyr persecution. There was no longer any supervision and the custodial-ship of the written word of God, which lay upon the shoulders of the Apostles and no one else, was also gone. In the absence of the apostles, the gospels were not placed into the hands of the general populace because the populace and all their philosophies were wicked and corrupt. This is why God warned us about these "philosophies" calling them the "doctrines of men" (see Matthew 15:9 / Mark 7:7 / Ephesians 4:14 / Colossians 2:22 ). The absence of the apostles left the gospels prone to corruption because no one was left to look after them to properly oversee and protect gospel writings. To properly oversee required true revelation between God and his servant (called a prophet or apostle), as Paul clearly admitted in his words found in Galatians 1:12,

Galatians 1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The "revelation of Jesus Christ" does "NOT" refer to the written word, it is the actual and real communication from God to his servant (apostle/prophet). Revelation speaks of the "word of God", as communicated by God to his prophet/apostle. It is also called "inspiration" and does not refer to the letter of the word as Paul and Timothy so graciously pointed out (see 2 Corinthians 3:6; 2 Timothy 3:16). Somehow many Christians, including Farkas and Reed, so blindly assumed that God protected his original written word against all the influences that occurred during and after the apostles, as with the Pagans, Gnostics, Greek philosophers, Government influences, political agendas, poor scribes, etc, thinking that they had none effect. This was obviously not true as Burgon and Miller have shown. It is very interesting to read Burgon and Miller's words to the following,

But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason because they were known to be the Word of God became a mark for the shafts of Satan from the beginning. They were by consequence as eagerly solicited by heretical teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by the orthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from foes therefore, they are known to have experienced injury, and that in the earliest age of all. Nothing of the kind can be predicated of any other ancient writings. This consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever sort.

For I request it may be observed that I have not said and I certainly do not mean that the Scriptures themselves have been permanently corrupted either by friend
or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and was contradicted by other error : besides that it sank eventually before a manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain manuscripts belonging to a few small groups particular copies of a Version individual Fathers or Doctors of the Church, these do, to the present.⁴

It is "incredible" to read such arrogance and ignorance on the part of Farkas and Reed, who succeeded, to little or no measure, any intelligent research and with such self-assurance born from their own blindness, accused Mormons of being wrong, when they have so greatly accomplished that wrong themselves. The fact that corruption to the gospels has occurred, gave rise to Joseph Smith to say that the Bible is the word of God so long as it is correctly interpreted or translated. Coupled with the Bible showing passages that pertain to others corrupting the teachings of the early Christian Church, all of this gives clear evidence that the "written word" of God was not so easily kept over the last centuries and proves that the word required his custodians of the "word", that being apostles, to exist.

In order for his (God's) word to remain safe on this earth for over 1800 years, required the presence of his servants, the apostles. If Farkas and Reed want to claim that the word of God remained safe all that time, must prove that the office of apostle remained alive and active all that time. This they cannot prove, because that office died with the last apostle, "John the Revelator". The only chance to keep the word of God safe after the last apostle left, was with the office of the Bishop, as arranged by the apostles in the early Christian Church. This would then say, that the ministry of Farkas and Reed and all other 34,0000 Christian ministries are false and not of God, because the only line of Bishops that exist from the early Christian Church is in the Catholic church. The same Catholic church that fought against the English print of the Bible, who refused to allow each person a copy of the Bible, who persecuted and killed thousands in the name of Christ and so on. Therefore, based on the line of authority that extends from the early Christian Church, that being the Bishops, the only interpretation of the Bible must come from them and no one else.

Then why are there so many other Christian denominations that are contrary to the Catholic church, holding so many different "interpretations" to the Bible, which includes Farkas and Reed? - This is the ludicrously of their logic and the self-delusion that they commit.

On page 50 of the book, "Mormonism Changes Contradictions and Errors", Farkas and Reed tried to use the Mormon belief as found in the words, "fulness of the everlasting gospel", as a claim that since Mormons believe this as a requirement for exaltation, that this also says that the word of God is everlasting and has therefore never been corrupted. They lead from that logic to say that the Bible must also be OK for those words to be true and since it is OK, we have no need for any other scriptures but that of the Bible, but this logic of theirs is false, because Farkas and Reed have failed to understand those words.

The phrase, "fulness of the everlasting gospel" refers to the power, blessings and glory of God's word and the "power, blessings and glory" exist in spiritual form. Access to these things must be by faith, obedience and humbleness, else there is no such things given. This says that no person on this earth possesses the power, blessing and glory of the word of God if he is faithless, disobedient and not humble. This says that any person can hold the Bible and claim these things, but in truth those things are not with them automatically. This makes the written word of God "dead" to them because they are also dead in their wickedness and sins. Therefore the "fulness of the everlasting gospel" does not exist with those people, even of they hold the Bible in their hands. Anything said or claimed by those people is as good as dead. Any idea that places these things of God into any persons hand that makes verbal claims, is false, because that would place God's power, blessings and glory into the hands of many mad-men who used the Bible to commit atrocities.

God does not preserve his word with just any person on this earth, he does it with a faithful servant, one whose faith is sure. There is far too much corruption in people and in their private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20) for God to entrust his word into their hands. This is why God raised his uncorrupted texts and manuscripts into spirit, to remain there until it is given into the hands of another faithful servant called a prophet. This is exactly what occurred with Joseph Smith where the golden plates were given to him by the angel Moroni.

When God's apostles were lost and killed, there was no person left to care for God's written word. As John Burgon and Edward Miller have clearly said, that Satan was after the word of God from the beginning. To think that without the right person to protect the word of God on the earth, that Satan would not get to it and corrupt it, is lunacy.

Therefore to protect his written word, God arranged for his prophet, in the Old Testament times, to leave Jerusalem and land on the Americas and through a genealogy of prophets, the word of God was recorded on metal plates, which withstood time, later to raise those plates into spirit to await their "restoration" through a latter-day Prophet of his choosing.

When God said that his word would not pass way, he spoke of his spiritual word, the spiritual power of his word, for that is where his word originates and empowers his written word here on this earth. The phrase "everlasting word" or "everlasting gospel" denotes a spiritual word and gospel that will live beyond this temporary (temporal) earth. Paul the Apostle said that all things that are not seen are eternal and all things that are seen are temporal (2 Corinthians 4:18). Paul spoke of the spiritual things that are not seen, these are the ones that are everlasting and eternal and all things that are seen, ( refers to things in this world) are temporal, which means "temporary".

Everlasting, in the context of the scriptures, refers to the spiritual word of God, the spiritual gospel of God, those things which are not seen. Everlasting is a word to describe the state of existance and in the scriptures, it refers to things that are eternal and exist forever.

Not one thing on this earth that is "temporal" in nature is everlasting, nothing. All temporal things are temporary, this includes the printed word in all books. When a person dies, he/she does not take the written word in the scriptures, neither the bindings and the book. All that is left behind, yet the Bible clearly said that Jesus preached to the spirits in spiritual prison (1 Peter 3:18-19), so since the written word (called the gospel or word here on this earth) cannot go into spirit, then what did Jesus use to preach?

Jesus spoke the word of God to the prisoners in spiritual prison. He spoke the everlasting word of God, that which lives beyond the physical written word on earth.

Without that spiritual source, the written word here would be worthless. The word, therefore refers to the spiritual word, the spiritual source, that is what remains everlasting, for all temporal things of this world passes away and for his word to remain untainted, requires proper preservation, by the right hands. Such did not happen with the written word in the Bible from the time of its first publication to today.

A simple way to see the corruption that is still abound with the Bible, go read the many "versions" of the Bible, where some deleted passages and others changing words in them. If you want to see the position of other Christians on the matter of Bible Inerrancy, simply go to this web page - http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran6.htm.

Footnotes

Clarke, J Reuben, On the Way to Immortality and Eternal Life, Chapter XXV, "OUR SCRIPTURES", pgs 202-204 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/17307)
Burgon, John William, B.D., Miller, Edward, M.A, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 1896, pg. 12
Ibid
Ibid - pgs. 12-13

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 7

2009-08-18T09:24:00.000-07:00

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".)

The next step they did to allege a contradiction to the vicarious ordinance scriptures was quote the following scriptures in their book as follows, 2 Nephi 9:38; Mosiah 16:5,11; Alma 34:31-35 (you can view these scriptures here, http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=2+ne+9%3A38%3B+mosiah+16%3A5%2C11%3B+alma+34%3A31-35&do=Search , then click on the name of the scripture to see it in full context). Farkas and Reed claim these scripture deny the vicarious ordinance as Baptism for the Dead, making it as unworkable or have no power since those who die in their sins, having not accepted Christ and not repented, are condemned and sent to the devil.

Would this be true, in how it was presented by Farkas and Reed? - The answer is No, it is not true, their presentation is misleading (which has become their habit).

IN the scriptures of " 2 Nephi 9:38; Mosiah 16:5,11; Alma 34:31-35 ", there is no contradiction to the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead. In those scriptures, God's prophet was speaking to those who were hearing the gospel preached, who were present to hear the word. The emphasis is on who was present hearing the gospel preached. Those words applied to them. If you read any of the scriptures in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenant or Pearl of Great Price, you are reading words preached to those who were present and received the word. That is the context which those words were given. Those persons who were "not" present, who did not have the opportunity, were the ones who therefore did not receive and did not hear the words preached.

To carry this concept further, if any person who reads these passages now, are reading the gospel, meaning the word is presented to them, they have received it, but again, those who have never heard these words, never heard the gospel and never had the fair chance to say "Yea" or "Nay" to it are not present and have not received the gospel! It is a simple concept.

Thus, Baptism for the Dead refers to those who died without the opportunity to receive the gospel, who have not heard it and had no fair opportunity to accept or reject it. Baptism for the Dead does not apply to those who had the opportunity, rejected it and chose to remain in their sins and hence, died in their sins. Maybe this following quote would provide further light on this matter,

But how much Joseph Smith said about the preaching to the dead needs to be stressed—for in no sense was proxy baptism ever cheapened into mechanical salvation without the faith and repentance of the one for whom baptism was done. Joseph Smith taught the fair opportunity to be baptized if a person lived when the true gospel and its authority was not on earth. But he also taught the fair opportunity to hear the gospel, whether on earth or in the spirit existence after death: "All who have not had an opportunity of hearing the gospel, and being administered to by an inspired man in the flesh, must have it hereafter, before they can be finally judged."¹

Another help to this is as follows,

Based on the eternal principle of vicarious service, the Lord has ordained baptism for the dead as the means whereby all his worthy children of all ages can become heirs of salvation in his kingdom. Baptism is the gate to the celestial kingdom, and except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot gain an inheritance in that heavenly world. (John 3:3-5.) Obviously, during the frequent periods of apostate darkness when the gospel light does not shine, and also in those geographical areas where legal administrators are not found, hosts of people live and die without ever entering in at the gate of baptism so as to be on the path leading to eternal life. For them a just God has ordained baptism for the dead, a vicarious-proxy labor. (D. & C. 124:28-36; 127; 128; 1 Cor. 15:29.)²

It is interesting to note, the above information was available to Farkas and Reed before they published this book of theirs. If they had only done the right research. Not only was it explained, scripture was listed to assist. Further, to show the fallacy of Farkas and Reed, is the following source, appropriately titled as, "Answers to Gospel Questions". This book by Joseph Fielding Smith, a past prophet of the Mormon Church, provided some of the common questions people had regarding the gospel that Mormon's teach. In this particular case, the question that was posed was,

Question: "I have been reading the Book of Mormon and I do not understand where you get authority for baptism for the dead as you Latter-day Saints practice it. If Alma 34:31-35 and 42:10-13 are of correct translation, where is your authority?"

Please note the scripture that was quoted, Alma 34:31-35, which is the exact same one that Farkas and Reed used to accuse Mormons were contradicting, so here is the clear and concise answer given by Joseph Fielding Smith

EVERY MAN IS GIVEN A CHANCE
This has nothing to do whatever with those who died without having an opportunity to hear the gospel. The Lord gives every man a chance of repentance and there is his justice. The millions who have died without hearing the name of Christ or having the privilege of receiving his gospel are to have that chance. Therefore, the Lord has revealed to us the work of salvation for the dead and this means that the dead who never had the opportunity to repent and to believe in Jesus Christ while they were living on this earth shall have the opportunity in the spirit world to receive it and the work will be done by proxy for them in the temples.

Now the Lord condemns those who have heard the gospel and reject it, and these are the people spoken of in Alma 34:31-35. This has reference only to those who have had the opportunity of hearing the truth and then reject it. Remember the Nephites at one time were all members of the Church. Amulek is speaking to those who have turned away from it. He is not speaking to the dead who never had an opportunity to hear. These people who had the warning and rebelled are left without excuse.³

What more could Farkas and Reed want? This response by Joseph F. Smith was in 1966, some 29 years before Farkas and Reed plugged out their book called "Mormonism, Contradictions Changes and Errors". This information was available to them, but they made no effort to seek it out, neither include it (if they knew of it), and to top it off, if you read D&C 138, (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138/33#33), you will find the explanation for Baptism for the Dead. In verse 32-33, it explains to whom baptism is performed, which is to the dead and it sets a rule in verse 58 that only the repentant of the dead are redeemed. This confirms that those who are not repentant and are dead, are not the ones who will receive this vicarious baptism by proxy.

Further explanation is written in D&C 128: 11-18, where it explains that baptism is the immersion into water in the similitude of the grave and coming up as a spiritual rebirth, a similitude to the resurrection. Explaining that baptism for the dead is necessary, in order that we be made perfect and they (the dead) cannot be made perfect without us because of this need for baptism. When reading this, with some proper logic, that in spirit, there is no water and since baptism is required (John 3:5). It was commanded by Jesus Christ, who established baptism on this earth as an absolute requirement through his baptism by John the Baptist. Hence, Mormons perform baptism for the dead here and God uses his grace and power from the law of proxy, (as Jesus Christ used it for us), for any worthy person who is dead and in spirit and they can receive the benefits of baptism by water through this "vicarious ordinance".

Since it was easy for me to resolve this contradiction, so would it be the same for anyone else, including Farkas and Reed. The conclusion to this part is that there is no contradiction to Mormon scripture and doctrine about Baptism for the Dead. The Mormon scriptures are correct, both for this vicarious ordinance and for those who are hard of heart, showing that this vicarious ordinance is not for the evil or wicked of heart and mind. I must also conclude that Farkas and Reed had no intentions to understand this doctrine and instead imposed their own personal biased beliefs.

What is the doctrine of Jesus Christ - pg 48

Farkas and Reed claim that the doctrine of Jesus Christ, as per Mormon beliefs, is more than just "faith, repentance and baptism". Their statement suggests that they believe that the only thing that the doctrine of Jesus Christ states, is just faith, repentance and baptism.

They say that this extraneous doctrine was shown in chapter 1 under "A Brief Summary of the Doctrine Taught by the Mormon Church". The glossary style list, according to them, proves there is more to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Then to create a contrast, they tried to claim there exists a contradiction to other Mormon scripture of "3 Nephi 11:31-33, 39-40" and "D&C 6:9" and "D&C 10:67-68". They quoted those scriptures, but only quoted the parts that show faith, repentance and baptism.

In their chapter 1, the glossary listed some of the things Mormons believed as, the Aaronic Priesthood, afterlife, Apostles, Celestial Kingdom, eternal progression, exaltation, God, Heaven, Hell, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, eternal marriage, Melchizedek Priesthood, plural marriage (polygamy), pre-existence, prophet, spirits, stake, temple, Godhead (or Trinity to other Christians), Virgin Birth, Word of Wisdom. This is what Farkas and Reed claimed as being the extraneous Mormon doctrine(s) that allegedly went beyond the doctrine of faith, repentance and baptism.

Is this true? Has Farkas and Reed showed you the truth or are they misleading you in order to get you to reject the teachings of the Mormon Church? Let us take a look

First, allow me to make a comparison. I have researched the Bible for those same "doctrines" that Farkas and Reed listed in their glossary and claimed are extraneous to the doctrine of faith, repentance and baptism. I complied a short list of Bible scriptures that show the same thing as Farkas and Reeds glossary list.

Aaronic Priesthood - Numbers 25 (Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood is everlasting) / Hebrews 7
Afterlife - John 3:5
Apostles - 1 Corinthians 12
Celestial Kingdom - 1 Corinthians 15
Eternal progression - John 6:54
Exaltation - Romans 8:17
God - The entire Bible
Heaven & Hell - The entire Bible
Jehovah - Old Testament / John 8:58 (which is also Jesus Christ)
Jesus Christ - The entire Bible
Eternal Marriage - 1 Peter 3
Melchizedek Priesthood - Hebrews 7 / Hebrews 3:1 (also called a high Priest) / Hebrews 5:10
Plural Marriage - Genesis 16 / Genesis 25 / Chronicles 13
Pre-existence (Pre-Mortal) - Job 38 / Revelations 12:9
Prophet (also Apostles) - The entire Bible
Spirit or spirits - The entire Bible
Stake - Isaiah 54:2
Temple - Old Testament / Acts 3 / Acts 5:42
Godhead - Romans 1:20 / Colossians 2:9
Virgin Birth - Birth of Christ
Word of Wisdom (health of the body) - Judges 13:4 / 1 Corinthians 3:17 / 1 Timothy 4:3

It is clear by these examples that the Bible contains far more doctrines and truths about being spiritual and a disciple of Christ than the basic doctrine of faith, repentance and baptism. The sad thing is that Farkas and Reed failed or refused to acknowledge these truths from the Bible, but wait there is more in the Bible,

Suffer in godly sorrow - 2 Corinthians 7:10
Tribulation works patience - Romans 5:3
Charity - 1 Corinthians 14:1, 16:14
Spiritual Gifts - 1 Corinthians 12:1
Visions - Matthew 17:9 / Acts 16:9
Heal the sick - Luke 9:2

As you see there is far more in the Bible than what Farkas and Reed admit and it is not just in Mormonism. Just because Farkas and Reed refuse or fail to abide in the Bible is no fault of anyone but their own and this gives no reason to judge and condemn anyone else.

What of those Mormon scripture passages, listed above, as quoted by Farkas and Reed that appear to claim it is only about faith, repentance and baptism? Let us look at those Mormon passages they used and see if there is "more" than just faith, repentance and baptism in them.

RE: 3 Nephi 11:31-33, 39-40

Baptism by Fire
3 Nephi 11:35
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

Become as a little Child
3 Nephi 11:37
And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

Obviously, there is more than faith, repentance and baptism in that scriptural chapter Farkas and Reed cut and pasted, parts they refused to acknowledge. Do the other scriptures they quoted (and "misused") contain more than what they were willing to show? Let us see,

RE: D&C 6:9

Mysteries of God revealed
D&C 6:11
And if thou wilt inquire, thou shalt know mysteries which are great and marvelous; therefore thou shalt exercise thy gift, that thou mayest find out mysteries, that thou mayest bring many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, convince them of the error of their ways.

Continuing Revelation
D&C 6:23
Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

Exaltation
D&C 6:37
Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen.

RE: D&C 10:67-68

Do not Fear - Exaltation
D&C 10:55
Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Become the Rock for God Against Evil
D&C 10:69
And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

The doctrine of Jesus Christ is also called the "gospel of Jesus Christ", as we see here,

Church of God must be built on the gospel of Jesus Christ
3 Nephi 27:8-13
8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;
10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.
11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.
12 For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you.
13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

When Farkas and Reed highlighted certain words in the scriptures they used (and misused), trying to claim that nothing more was declared or nothing more said beyond faith, repentance and baptism, they lied, because what I have shown you was clearly in front of their eyes as it was to mine. What they have also ignored, was the context which each passage fit into. This says that those scriptures they misused were about missionary work and about teaching the basics. It was about the preaching that was to go out to the world and the only thing that members of the Church were to do as missionaries, was preach only about faith, repentance and baptism, for anything else to new converts was not required to enter the Lord's Church.

Further, doctrine as listed above referred to more of the "meat" of the gospel (Doctrine) of Jesus Christ, which comes after one learns and enters into the basics of "faith, repentance and baptism". New converts to the gospel would likely not sustain anything more than the basics in the beginning. Lastly, when the prophets or the Lord speaks in this manner to his membership, it is also to remind them of the basics.

Footnotes

Anderson, Richard Lloyd, Understanding Paul, "Appendix C - Baptism for the Dead", pg. 410-411 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/31282 )
McConkie Bruce R., Mormon Doctrine, "Baptism for the Dead", pg 72 (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/14609)
Smith, Joseph Fielding, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, "Authority for Baptism for the Dead", pg 100- (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/619)

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 6

2009-08-14T09:06:00.000-07:00

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.

The following references used by Farkas and Reed in their book, page 45, are, "Abraham 4:1-2" (see on-line here- http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/4/1-2#1) and the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith - complied by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1976, p. 370", which are correct, but the last reference is insufficient as per the usual Farkas and Reed cut and paste, therefore it needs further quoting from the same source,

Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for John says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strongest doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation, Hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God—that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"

Mankind verily say that the Scriptures are with them. Search the Scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.

Scriptural Interpretation
Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.¹

Suffice to say, the leaders of the Mormon Church certainly pose a convincing argument that there are three Gods and when reading the Bible, I believe they are correct, but does the argument by Farkas and Reed hold its own water? - No it doesn't and I will show you.

Farkas and Reed continue under this subheading of "How many Gods are there" to claim a contrast, a contradiction in their minds by showing the introduction to the Book of Mormon and several Mormon scriptures as, "Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7, 3 Nephi 11:27, Mosiah 15:1-5". The abbreviated quotes are correct, but again some need to be expanded when showing "Mormon scripture" so the whole thought is relayed properly. The first to deal with is the quote from the Introduction of the Book of Mormon, last sentence to the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, Farkas and Reed place a footnote number 6 at the end of the word "God". I go to the footnote reference in their book, page 234 to read the following,

Most Mormons, and Mormon Church teaching manuals, say this really means three Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are "one God in purpose". This is their own interpretation as no Mormon scripture says this directly

This needs a comment or two. Farkas and Reed are acting hypocritically here and fail to understand the scripture of Romans 2:1 where it says that we are not to judge unrighteously least we shall be judge the same way. The doctrine and word "Trinity" does not exist in the Bible, nothing said "directly", yet the belief and practice they claim is the following,

Some think that because the word “trinity” (derived from the Latin word trinitas, meaning “threeness”) is not found in the Bible, the concept of a triune God cannot be right. However, even though the word “millennium,” meaning one thousand years, does not appear in Revelation 20, we use it to describe earth’s 1,000 year rest after Jesus’ return. A teaching is not any less true simply because an extra-biblical word is used to define what is clearly a biblical teaching. This goes for the trinity, second coming, investigative judgment, and a host of other concise terms for doctrines.²

(Note - the underline is mine for highlighting purposes)

In other words, the word and doctrine "Trinity" is not directly found in the Bible, but it is a word that is "extra-biblical" which relates to the concept that is derived from many Biblical scriptures. This is what Farkas and Reed have to believe simply because they defend it (see page 26 of their book and my response to it - http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/07/chapter-1-introduction-to-mormonism.html) and they are "Christians" according to their claims to their individual ministries.

Why then are they judging the Mormons for the same thing that they defend? It would be the right thing to do unto the Mormons as you would have done unto you (Matthew 7:12), which is to mean that since Farkas and Reed believe that the Mormon explanation of "oneness" as being three separate Gods working as one purpose and one mind is not directly said in Mormon scriptures, then it must be derived from the many scriptures that exist that Mormons use, just like other Christians claim that the Trinity doctrine is a combination of many scriptures in the Bible. Therefore, their comment to their footnote number 6 is a hypocritical and self-serving comment and should be rejected or ignored.

The concept and doctrine of the Godhead, three distinct Gods as one in purpose and mind, is a true doctrine. It is shown in the Bible as well as within Mormon scriptures. The simple basis to this is the fact that Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Ghost are each "a God", which many Christians believe, Trinity or not. The fact that Jesus prayed to the Father and declared the Father's "will" rules over his "will" confirming two separate and distinct personal wills; the fact that the apostle Stephen was given a vision by God to see the distinct personages of the Father and Son beside each other in heaven when Jesus has a distinct body of flesh and bone(see Acts 7:55-56) and Paul the Apostle speaking of Gods and lords many. All of this and more declares the doctrine that there are three distinct Gods who are separate from each other, yet together in one mind, one spirit, one purpose, which defines "oneness" and the meaning of "The Father and I are one".

Essentially, the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead of three distinct Gods as one is a correct doctrine and NOT contradictory as Farkas and Reed falsely claim.

Can the Father and/or Son dwell in your heart? - page 46

Here Farkas and Reed try to claim that Mormon doctrines are contradictory because Mormons say that the Father and Son (Jesus Christ) do not dwell in our hearts and on the other hand they do dwell in our hearts. They refer to the scripture of "D&C 130:3" as a No, they cannot dwell in our hearts, then use the scriptures of "Alma 34:36, John 14:23, Ephesians 3:17 and 2 Corinthians 13:5" as Yes they can.

Reading the scriptures properly and apply the principles therein rightly to other scriptures will bring a person to understand correctly which Farkas and Reed failed to do, but I will show you the correct understanding of both the Bible and Mormon scriptures,

Ephesians 3:17
That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

D&C 130:3
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

Alma 34:35-36
35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.
36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.

What can we determine by these scriptures together? (notice that I included another part of Alma 34, the part that was required to give proper context and the part that Farkas and Reed secretly excluded). What is noticed is that the dwelling is by the "Spirit of God" which can refer to the Holy Ghost, but mostly the light of God itself. In Alma 34, it clearly referred to the "Spirit of the Lord", which is Jesus Christ, whose "Spirit" is the Light of Christ, which is the same as the Spirit of God. When reading the scriptures properly one sees that the "Light of Christ" is spoken of (see Moroni 7:18-19, Alma 28: 14, D&C 88:7) and so is the "Spirit of Christ" (see Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11, Moroni 7:16, Moroni 10:17; D&C 20:37;), most importantly, the principle and concept of the "Spirit" is said here,

D&C 84:45
For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

When there is sincere and honest searching and research, the ideals and principles are readily found, as promised by James 1:5. The dwelling in the hearts of man and woman, refers to faith, as per Ephesians 3:17 above and by way of the "Spirit". The idea that God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ, as bodies of flesh and bone, cannot dwell in our hearts is the meaning of D&C 130:3 above.

Farkas and Reed care not about presenting Mormon doctrine, beliefs and scriptures properly. They have the intent to create contention, which is the spirit of the devil (3 Nephi 11:29).

The Father and the Son, as flesh and bone cannot dwell in our hearts. That is not possible, but by faith, the "Spirit" of the Father and the Son can dwell in our hearts, for that is what the scriptures, the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, say.

Footnotes

Smith, Joseph Fielding, Smith Joseph, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Section Six 1843-1844" pages 370-371 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/8549 )
(no name) "The Holy Trinity of God" - http://www.holy-trinity-of-god.com/

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 5

2009-08-13T14:01:00.000-07:00

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.

This cut and pasted passage was taken from Alma 31:15. Looking at this as Farkas and Reed presented it, can cause a person who is not knowledgeable of the scriptures to think that Mormons are contradictory in their teachings and doctrines, but this is the deception that Farkas and Reed perpetrated. Take a look at what Alma 31, really says, which requires the reading of the passages before and after verse 15 and from that see what those words truly said,

Alma 31:8-20
8 Now the Zoramites were dissenters from the Nephites; therefore they had had the word of God preached unto them.
9 But they had fallen into great errors, for they would not observe to keep the commandments of God, and his statutes, according to the law of Moses.
10 Neither would they observe the performances of the church, to continue in prayer and supplication to God daily, that they might not enter into temptation.
11 Yea, in fine, they did pervert the ways of the Lord in very many instances; therefore, for this cause, Alma and his brethren went into the land to preach the word unto them.
12 Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;
13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person.
14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:
15 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.
16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.
17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.
18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.
19 Now it came to pass that after Alma and his brethren and his sons had heard these prayers, they were astonished beyond all measure.
20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers.

It is very clear when reading, in full context, the passages in Alma 31. It was NOT Alma the prophet preaching those words as Mormon doctrine, it was Alma the prophet repeating what the apostates were saying to show what the apostate teaching taught. In verse 19 it is clear that Alma was astonished beyond all measure, in other words, appalled at the apostasy that had occurred by false and wrong teachings. It is obvious that the use of the word "spirit" was not in accordance to Mormon teaching, it was apostate teaching.

Yet, this is what Farkas and Reed claimed in their footnote 4 above. They claimed that it was not an apostate who said this, they claim it was Alma because he never corrected this teaching. In truth, Alma and his sons did preach the gospel to these people after this account, especially in the following passages from the book of Alma, but also in truth, scriptures do not always have God's prophet "correct" the apostates, instead the apostates suffer the results of their apostasy. The Bible is filled with such events.

What of the other scriptures Farkas and Reed listed, where they claimed the same teaching occurred? In Alma 18:2-5, Alma 18:26-28 and Alma 22:8-11, it speaks about a "Great Spirit" and Farkas and Reed are trying to claim that Alma the prophet was teaching this. Again Farkas and Reed failed to read the scriptures in proper context and failed to identify who said what and why, which is very important. Let's take a look at these scriptures in proper context.

First, we look at Alma 18

Alma 18:1-5
1 And it came to pass that king Lamoni caused that his servants should stand forth and testify to all the things which they had seen concerning the matter.
2 And when they had all testified to the things which they had seen, and he had learned of the faithfulness of Ammon in preserving his flocks, and also of his great power in contending against those who sought to slay him, he was astonished exceedingly, and said: Surely, this is more than a man. Behold, is not this the Great Spirit who doth send such great punishments upon this people, because of their murders?
3 And they answered the king, and said: Whether he be the Great Spirit or a man, we know not; but this much we do know, that he cannot be slain by the enemies of the king; neither can they scatter the king’s flocks when he is with us, because of his expertness and great strength; therefore, we know that he is a friend to the king. And now, O king, we do not believe that a man has such great power, for we know he cannot be slain.
4 And now, when the king heard these words, he said unto them: Now I know that it is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives, that I might not slay you as I did your brethren. Now this is the Great Spirit of whom our fathers have spoken.
5 Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants;

Here in Alma 18, it is clear that King Lamoni was speaking to Alma's son, Ammon, relating his own belief about God. In verse 5, where it said "this was the tradition of Lamoni", verifies what kind of beliefs were addressed. That tradition was the belief of King Lamoni, who believed that God was a "Great Spirit" and he spoke in that manner to the Mormon prophet. This was not the teaching of the Mormon scriptures, but was the Mormon scriptures relating the incorrect beliefs of another person. This is no different than the Bible where such interchanges were many, for example the encounter in 1 Kings 18, where Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal against their false worships. Are we now going to say that the Bible taught false sacrifices and worships in the Old Testament or did it show us what others were doing?

Let us further review Alma 18:26-28, but again take it within the proper context of what was said,

Alma 18:18
Now when the king had heard these words, he marveled again, for he beheld that Ammon could discern his thoughts; but notwithstanding this, king Lamoni did open his mouth, and said unto him: Who art thou? Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?

Here King Lamoni thought that the prophet Ammon was that "Great Spirit" and this shows the limited knowledge and understanding that King Lamoni had about God. When the king asked Ammon if he was that "Great Spirit", Ammon said the following,

Alma 18:19-35
19 Ammon answered and said unto him: I am not.
20 And the king said: How knowest thou the thoughts of my heart? Thou mayest speak boldly, and tell me concerning these things; and also tell me by what power ye slew and smote off the arms of my brethren that scattered my flocks—
21 And now, if thou wilt tell me concerning these things, whatsoever thou desirest I will give unto thee; and if it were needed, I would guard thee with my armies; but I know that thou art more powerful than all they; nevertheless, whatsoever thou desirest of me I will grant it unto thee.
22 Now Ammon being wise, yet harmless, he said unto Lamoni: Wilt thou hearken unto my words, if I tell thee by what power I do these things? And this is the thing that I desire of thee.
23 And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I will believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.
24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?
25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.
26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
27 And he said, Yea.
28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?
29 And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.
30 And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.
31 And king Lamoni said: Is it above the earth?
32 And Ammon said: Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning.
33 And king Lamoni said: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God?
34 Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;
35 And a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge, and also power according to my faith and desires which are in God.

It is clear, when reading the scriptures properly, that the proper context is given. Ammon told the king he was not the "Great Spirit" the king thought he was, but Ammon confirmed he was filled with the "Holy Spirit" that teaches things of God (verse 34), and the portion of that Spirit dwells in Ammon to give him knowledge. The use of the word "Spirit" here still refers to the Holy Spirit, which is the Holy Ghost, which does not have a body of flesh and bone. Ammon also clarifies for the king that the "Great Spirit" in which the king believes, is God the Saviour who created all things on the earth and in heaven (see verse 28). Jehovah in the Old Testament was Jesus Christ, who had not incarnated into mortality at that time. Which means that Jehovah had not yet received his exalted body of flesh and bone. The exalted body for Jesus Christ occurred in the New Testament where it said that Jesus had a body of flesh and bone after his resurrection from mortal death.

The last reference used by Farkas and Reed was Alma 22:8-11, claiming that it was also here that Alma taught that God was a spirit with no body of flesh and bone. So far Farkas and Reed are batting zero, let us see if they strike completely out.

Alma 22:4-11
4 And Aaron said unto the king: Behold, the Spirit of the Lord has called him another way; he has gone to the land of Ishmael, to teach the people of Lamoni.
5 Now the king said unto them: What is this that ye have said concerning the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, this is the thing which doth trouble me.
6 And also, what is this that Ammon said—If ye will repent ye shall be saved, and if ye will not repent, ye shall be cast off at the last day?
7 And Aaron answered him and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And the king said: I know that the Amalekites say that there is a God, and I have granted unto them that they should build sanctuaries, that they may assemble themselves together to worship him. And if now thou sayest there is a God, behold I will believe.
8 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God.
9 And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?
10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this?
11 And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words.

The story of King Lamoni continued. Here in Alma 22, Ammon, who previously spoke to the king, had left and was elsewhere preaching the word of God, hence the example of God's prophet correcting the apostate masses. Then, in came Aaron, who was also a prophet under Alma, spoke with the king who was needing clarification of what Ammon had taught him. Aaron refers to the Lord's spirit by saying "Spirit of the Lord", which refers to the Holy Ghost. The king was still referring to God as the "Great Spirit", it was not Ammon, Aaron or Alma who said this. Aaron spoke to the king in the manner that he, the king, would understand, since the king's ability to comprehend is limited as he has shown. This use of the word "Great Spirit" is not to be misunderstood, because God the Father is still spiritual, even though he has a body of flesh and bones. In addition, a person must realize which God does Aaron refer. Ammon clarified that in Alma 18. It is the same God that Ammon spoke of, which was Jehovah who created the earth and was in the heavens. This is the Saviour, the Lord God and these Alma passages set the time between 90 - 77 BC (a reference at the bottom right corner of the page where Alma 22 starts in the Book of Mormon). These dates were before Jehovah (Jesus Christ) incarnated into mortality. At this time, as I have said above, Jesus did not have a body of flesh and bone, he was a spirit, one that has a spiritual body only. Jesus did not get a body of flesh and bone until after his mortal death and resurrection (New Testament).

Therefore, what was found here with Farkas and Reed, was a gross misuse of the words in the Book of Mormon. It also showed they have a very poor understanding of the nature of God the Father and God the Saviour in the Old Testament and the New Testament and have NOT made an honest attempt to understand the Mormon scriptures. In short this was a malicious act on their part and I have proven, with the proper context, the correct use of the word "spirit" within the Book of Mormon, but unfortunately, this was not the end of the poor work by Farkas and Reed.

Farkas and Reed continue under this subheading about the Father and his body, trying to use words to convey another meaning than what Mormon doctrine states. This is seen in their version of the words found in "Lecture Fifth of Faith 5:2 pg 53" (Lectures of Faith). Here the part they quoted was,

"They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle"

Farkas and Reed highlighted the words "a personage of spirit", and it was their attempt to these words to impose a different meaning. They wanted people to believe about a different nature of the spirit as their proof and verification that God the Father is a spirit, which has no form or body, but what does the word "personage" really mean?

Personage
(n.) A notable or distinguished person; a conspicuous or peculiar character; as, an illustrious personage; a comely personage of stature tall.
(n.) Character assumed or represented.
(n.) Form, appearance, or belongings of a person; the external appearance, stature, figure, air, and the like, of a person. ¹

A personage is a person, a form, external appearance, stature etc. Apply this to the word "spirit" and God the Father is a "spiritual form of a person", simply put, he is a spiritual person, a distinct person at that. This does not negate the Mormon doctrine that God the Father as a body of flesh and bones which denotes an exalted man. God the Father, with his body is still a "personage of spirit". Another fact is that Jesus Christ is with the Father and Jesus has a body of flesh and bone, as the Bible says (see Luke 24:39).

Another point to make, in the Fifth Lecture on Faith, as quoted by Farkas and Reed above, Joseph Smith said that God the Father is a "personage of spirit, glory and power". This says that all glory, power and spirit is in the person called God the Father, which denotes "fulness". Similar as saying that God the Father is the perfect personification of spirit glory and power. This obviously means more than Jesus who is quoted as being a personage of tabernacle, because of the flesh, he is the Son. It takes a bit to understand, but a person can acheive understanding of this.

The next example that Farkas and Reed use to promote their gospel (their own doctrine or interpretation), is found on page 44 of their book. The excerpt from the Bible passage of John 4:24, where it says that God is a spirit. They then provided an excerpt from John 4:26 from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, where it says, (in contrast to "God is a spirit") "...God promised his Spirit." The meaning appears to be different, but why is this?

Why is it that the doctrine of a material God became lost? The following rationale and misinterpretations of scriptures evolved over time.

On several occasions the scriptures refer to an "invisible" God (Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27). Some assume that these scriptures mean God cannot be seen by anyone, and therefore he must lack any element of materiality. What these scriptures mean is that God cannot be seen by the natural or carnal man.54 This principle was taught many years before in the Old Testament. Daniel had a glorious vision in the presence of others, but recorded: "I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision" (Daniel 10:7). Why were the others blind to the heavenly manifestation? Because they were not on the same spiritual wavelength as Daniel. The book of Hebrews discloses that Moses was on that spiritual wavelength, because he "by faith . . . endured, as seeing him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27). This is consistent with the promise of the Lord to Aaron and Miriam, that "the similitude of the Lord shall he [Moses] behold" (Numbers 12:8). Obviously if God had a "similitude," he had an image or form that could be seen. In other words, God was invisible or hidden to the natural man, but not to spiritual men such as Abraham and Jacob and Moses and Stephen, who declared with solemnity that they had seen the living God.²

(and...)

Joseph Smith observed that John 4:24 is one of the mistranslations of the Bible.65 Accordingly, he corrected this scripture to read in conformity with its original language: "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit" (JST John 4:26). This translation makes sense when the foregoing scripture is read in context. The woman of Samaria had asked the Savior where one should worship (on Mt. Gerizem where the Samaritans worshiped or in Jerusalem where the Jews worshiped). In response, the Savior emphasized that the place of worship was not the issue; what mattered more was the manner of worship, and we should worship "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23). In other words, as Joseph Smith's translation makes plain, the question was not about the nature of God, but where we should worship him. Referring to John 4:24, Elder Bruce R. McConkie added: "What marvels of mischief one mistranslated phrase has done! Jesus never, never, never said, 'God is a Spirit,' but rather that God had promised his Spirit unto those who worshiped him in Spirit and in truth.³

It is not surprising that people do not realize the errors that exist in the Bible and how mistranslations occur. The Bible itself is not perfect and many mistranslations of its contents have occurred over the centuries due to the philosophies of men. The English translation and usage of the Bible passage, John 4:24, where it was written as "God is a spirit", is not a consensus among Christians and the manner in which it was written remains in dispute.

Some critics of the Latter-day Saints have argued that belief in an anthropomorphic Deity represents a departure not merely from the Nicene conception of God but from the biblical teaching as well, since John 4:24 teaches very clearly that "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." But the Latter-day Saints do not dispute this passage at all, unless it is interpreted as limiting God to being merely a spirit. For even trinitarians must interpret John 4:24 in a way that allows for the corporeality of the resurrected Christ. Two of the most fundamental teachings of the New Testament are that Christ is genuinely God and that he is at the same time genuinely corporeal, both in his incarnation and in his bodily resurrection. Since the trinitarian God must include the person of the Son-who is a physically resurrected being-the statement "God is a Spirit" cannot be understood, even from a Nicene perspective, as limiting God in all contexts to noncorporeality.

Actually John 4:24 should be translated "God is Spirit" rather than "God is a Spirit," for there is no indefinite article (a, an) in the Greek language, and it is always a matter of subjective judgment as to when the translator should add one. The consensus among biblical scholars is that there should not be an indefinite article at John 4:24. C. H. Dodd insists that "to translate [John 4:24] 'God is a Spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning", According to Raymond E. Brown the passage at John 4:24 is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" (1 John iv 8). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16)

Just as God is not limited to being light and nothing else by 1 Jn. 1:5, or to being love and nothing else by 1 Jn. 4:8, so he is not limited to being spirit and nothing else by John 4:24 -unless one assumes with the Greeks that spirit and matter are mutually exclusive, opposing categories. That God is spirit does not limit him to being a spirit anymore than his being worshipped in spirit (John 4:24) requires worshippers to first jettison their physical bodies.⁴

Farkas and Reed really do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging scriptures, showing them to be lacking in spiritual and historical knowledge about the Bible. IF they knew the problems that exist with the Bible and the ongoing issues many Bible scholars have, their position with the scriptures would surely change.

Their last attempt, under this subheading of God the Father having a body of flesh and bone, is the use of the following Mormon scripture,

Mosiah 15:1-5
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, asuffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

The 5th verse above refers to the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit of God, which is the will of God the Father, the light of God, not following the will of the flesh. Against this, Farkas and Reed use the word "Spirit" to claim that the Father has no body. Farkas and Reed have misread or misused Mormon scripture. Allow me to show you by the Bible.

Romans 8:1, 4-5,9
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (means flesh subjugated to the Spirit).
...
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do amino the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
...
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

In this Bible scripture, are we going to deny that Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bone when the Bible says he does, just because we read "Spirit of Christ"? Reading out of context and twisting the meaning and application of a word or words is not a good thing to do which is altering the word of God and that is against the Bible, isn't it? Yet many Christians do this without a second thought.

The last attempt is the use of the following words they claim are from D&C 93:21, placed on the bottom of page 44 of their book. It says,

"Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth"

Farkas and Reed again attempt to show that the word "Spirit" creates a contradiction in Mormon doctrine and is contrary to the doctrine that the Father in heaven has a body of flesh and bone, but again, this is a misuse of these words and an intentional misdirection to cause readers to think the way they want them to think. On first read, without any research, it appears that there is a contradiction. So allow me to correct their "errors".

First, they referenced that passage as D&C 93:21, which is incorrect. That passage is actually D&C 93:23, and I will include verse 21-23 as follows,

D&C 93:21-23
21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;
22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.
23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

- you can view this online here: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/21#21

(Note: They referenced the passage as "May 1833, D&C 93:21", be aware that this does not refer to the Book of Commandments 1833, they are referring to the date of the revelation, which was May 1833.)

Both online and in the book, "Doctrine and Covenants", the word "Spirit" (verse 23) is marked with a footnote letter "a". In the footnote, it is given as "TG Man, a Spirit Child of Heavenly Father; Spirit Creation". This provides the meaning and usage of the word "Spirit" in verse 23. Farkas and Reed use this word to push the accusation that God the Father is spirit and not flesh and bone. They have failed miserably to read the Doctrine and Covenants properly and learn what Mormons mean by this passage and use of the word "Spirit".

The true meaning, according to the Doctrine and Covenants is this. The word "Spirit" is addressing Jesus Christ when he was only in "spirit form", which was in the beginning of the formation of the world, which he was with the Father in Heaven. This word "Spirit" was not addressing the Father in heaven and thus did not contradict the doctrine that the Father has a body of flesh and bone.

Footnotes

The Online Plain Text English Dictionary: ( http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Personage)
Callister, Tad R., The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration, pg 121 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/131799)
Ibid - pg 124
Robinson, Stephen E., Are Mormons Christians? ( 1991) "The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God", pg 79-80 (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/20001)

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 4

2009-08-10T14:06:00.000-07:00

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)].

The Mormon Church said in the Gospel Principles handbook, "We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father" (1986 edition) or "We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation" (1997 edition- which says that same thing), the Church means exactly that, that men and women can become as gods like Heavenly Father. When the scriptures (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants) say that we can inherit the Kingdom of God, that is what it means,

Matt. 25: 34
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

3 Ne. 11: 33
And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Rom. 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

This concept is simple. In order to join the inheritance in the celestial kingdom of God, to be "joint-heirs" with Christ, it means that each person, as a son and daugther of God, must also become "celestial", else the celestial inheritance cannot occur. The celestial state is an eternal everlasting state of existance. This is why Jesus said,

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

This scripture, John 10:34, is a well debated Bible passage. Bible only believers claim that these words of Jesus Christ was only to mean that Jesus was speaking about his divinity by making reference to an Old Testament passage, Psalm 82:6-7 which said,

Psalm 82:6-7
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Generally, other Christians say that the word "gods" in Psalm 82:6-7 only refers to judges who were given quasi-authority to judge others, and the term was used as a means to address the unjust judges and their wicked actions, also claiming that verse 7 proves that we are not as "gods' but merely men (mortals only). Yet, other Christians claim is that the context which Jesus spoke in John 10:34, was to monotheistic Jews and to make attempts to use this verse in a pantheistic or polytheistic twist is improper.

Both views are incorrect because they ignore many of the other Bible passages.

The use of verse 7 in Psalm 82, does not proclaim we are only mortals and does not deny any god-like nature, nor limit the meaning and application to a status of judge. Verse 7 distinctly addresses the results of wickedness, saying that since we are as gods (verse 6), we can easily loose that by becoming wicked and that would cause us to die like men (verse 7). The words "children of the most high" coincide with Bible passages that we are sons and daugthers of God (see Rom. 8:16-17 above and John 1:12; 17:29; Acts 17:29; 2 Corinthians 6:18; 1 John 3:1-2 ) .
The fact that the judge status is in the similitude of God's power, is a testament to what we will be like if we (anyone, human judge or not) succeed to the kingdom of God, then "we shall be as gods". This is the "spiritual context" of those passages. With the spiritual application of these terms, the Bible passages give a different meaning than what other Christians think and claim.

The "spiritual context" is not a Mormon concept, it is Biblical. Jesus Christ established his words as being in a spiritual context when he said,

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

In John 6 when Jesus was challenged by others who questioned his words when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to have God in them. Jesus explained that what he speaks are spiritual words, not words of the world and therefore what he teaches and states is from a spiritual context, having a spiritual meaning and application. Yet many Christians fail to understand in that proper context, instead they view the Bible in the context of men, the worldly, not in the context of the spirit, being spiritual. This was confirmed by Paul the Apostle as follows,

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

When applying a spiritual context to John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6-7, we have the following.

In John 10, Jesus was speaking to the Jews and telling them that he was the Son of God and he was one with the Father (equal), that though he was before them in mortal form, he is still the Son of God and one with God the Father. The Jews viewed this as blasphemy because Jesus made himself as God and Jesus replied that the law (Old Testament) says they are also gods. The spiritual context is what Jesus was telling the Jews, that they were as gods themselves because they came from God as sons and daughters of God. This ties in so many other Bible scriptures which I show again, but in detail.

2 Cor. 6: 16-18
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Acts 17:28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

I will explain this concept again, since it can be a hard one to understand.

The concept of becoming as gods begins with the acceptance and realization that to be in God's kingdom with God, to see him face to face, requires we be exalted, to be "like him", yet even though we are exalted to live in the Kingdom of God, God the Father is still our God and remains as such, just as Jesus Christ is God and has God the Father as his God. To read that in the Bible, please go to Revelations 21:22-27 and Revelations 22:1-5 (both from the King James Bible).

The acceptance that mankind has the potential and gift of becoming as gods, to stand with the Father in heaven over his creations, as his true sons and daughters, is a grand gift that surely fits when we are told in the Bible that we can inherit all things God has. Unfortunately, many Christians fail to grasp that grand scale of grace and love from our Father in heaven and would rather diminish themselves and their potential for such a grand inheritance. Do not forget, God the Father sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us so we can be given that grandest of grand gifts called "exaltation".

Despite these Bibical facts, Farkas and Reed continued, using references from Mormon works as, "Achieving a Celestial Marriage, 1976, 1992, pg 132"; "Search the Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, 1986, p 152" and "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, pg 345.

(Please note, at the time of this review, their reference, "Achieving a Celestial Marriage, 1976, 1992, pg 132" is not readily available on the Internet, and it is an out of print book. Therefore, I cannot make comment regarding this entry from this out of print book, so please be aware that quotes from this book, made by Farkas and Reed, can be incorrect or presented incorrectly.)

The part that people have real trouble with is that God the Father also had a God the Father and so on. This is essentially what Farkas and Reed are saying when they quoted from the Mormon book titled, "Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood, Personal Study Guide, 1984, pg 152". When Farkas and Reed included this reference, they did not tell you that this quote in the Book, "Search these Commandments" was referenced from another book marked as, "Doctrines of Savalation 2:47" (chapter entitled, "Exaltation Joint-Heirs with Jesus Christ").
Going to the book "Doctrines of Salvation, volume 2, pg 47" that quote of the Father in heaven having himself a Father was shown to have been taken from another source and referenced as "Smith, op. cit., pp. 345-346, 370, 373". The abbreviations of "op. cit.," is latin, short for "opus citatum" which means "the work cited". Of course, what work was cited, I do not know, but suffice to say that since I understood what exaltation means and knowing that God does not do anything that is not true and not previously done, the concept of him being once a man and having a God the Father is believable, albeit a hard one to understand. Not all of God's word and doctrines are easy to understand and it takes time to grasp. This is why Paul said that the "natural man" cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14), so proper study, patience and prayer for enlightenment from the Holy Ghost on the matter will overcome the "natural man" limitation.

Still, what value was this information?

It says that unless Farkas and Reed have inside information, a clear understanding of what Mormon doctrine says and how to understand it, their use of the reference from "Search These Commandments" cannot be used and their use of it improper. So what do we do? We carry on to the next reference used by Farkas and Reed, which is marked as from the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, pg. 345".

To quote from this book justly, we must quote sufficiently and Farkas and Reed did not do that. Here is a proper quote from book "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 345",

God an Exalted Man

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.¹

On page 42 of their book, they refereed to several scriptures from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible. It was interesting that they included the Bible along side with the Mormon scriptures. This, to me, says they have given credence to the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants as equally valued with the Bible, which is what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also do.

What do these scriptural references mean in their book?

Farkas and Reed are trying to claim that since God the Father is everlasting, eternal, with no other God beside him, with no beginning or end, same yesterday and today, God in the scriptures is therefore contrary to the Mormon doctrines that God was once a man, able to suffer mortal death.

All this shows is that Farkas and Reed have not be able to resolve their "perceived" contradiction and instead they dubbed it as "Mormon error". A "perceived" contradiction occurs for most people reading the Bible, such as the same kind of difficulty people have with the four gospels, "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John". There the alleged contradictions are between the accounts of Jesus Christ. Some believe these contradictions exist while many others believe there are no contradictions. Therefore, in general, alleged contradictions are first with how the person perceives them rather than with the word of God and this is why no person is to change, add, modify or remove scripture without the authority and guidance from God.

The scriptures Farkas and Reed used speak of God as everlasting, eternal and no other God beside him. When reading these passages, especially Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6,8,24, the "God" that is spoken of in those passages refers to Jesus Christ, the Saviour, when he was Jehovah in the Old Testament.

The phrase "no other God beside me" did not exclude the existance of God the Father, since Jesus prayed to him in the New Testament. Since there was no exclusion of God the Father, then what did it mean when there was no God beside him? That phrase meant that there is no other "Saviour", there is only one. In the Old Testament, Jehovah was speaking, who was the creator of the world, saying there was only one God that created the world, that was Jehovah. God the Father did not create the world, he had his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ (Jehovah), do it. So when Jesus (Jehovah) was foreordained to create the worlds, there was no other who was foreordained to do it, there was only one to do the job for the Father in heaven.

If at any time that the scripture refers to God the Father, that there was only one, then that also meant there was only one God the Father who created our spirits, no other. This creates a distinction of who God the Father was and who was God the Saviour, just as there is only one God the Holy Ghost, there is no other. This is what establishes the basis for determining false gods, saviors and holy spirits.

Yet, this is not all in understanding the meaning and application of the words "eternal, everlasting etc".

The Spirit of God is eternal, everlasting and so are our spirits. When our physical body dies, our spirit returns to God (Eccl. 12: 7). This says that our spirit cannot die, it is everlasting. Since this is true, so is the Spirit of God, even if he was a man one time long ago, his spirit was also everlasting. The scriptural passages of God's eternal nature speaks of the spiritual nature and what he is now and when those words were given to his prophets to write. God the Father, when he was once a man, was not God above us, therefore, he did not speak those words then. It was not until he became an exalted man that he became the eternal God we now know.

Next, the words eternal and everlasting, no beginning and no end, speaks of the exalted state. Once in that state, a person has no beginning and no end meaning that he is an eternal round.

D&C 35:1
Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever.

Think about this in terms of Jesus Christ.

He was God the Jehovah in the Old Testament and was described as being "eternal" and "everlasting" (see Genesis 21:33 and Deuteronomy 33:27 as examples). Jesus (Jehovah) incarnated into a mortal body becoming "mortal" and "died" on the cross. Then his spirit returned to the Father in heaven, became exalted to be at the right hand of God, which is "eternal and everlasting" - again ( see Acts 2:32-33), to sit at the right hand of God.

If we take the view of Farkas and Reed as presented in their Chapter 3 of their book, in accordance to their thinking (and contrary to the Bible), Jesus (Jehovah) could never be mortal and could not have been God incarnate, could never die as a man in the flesh to act as our Savior,...because he was already "eternal and everlasting". Do you see the contradiction Farkas and Reed created with the Bible? How they have effectivelly denounced the Bible and Jesus Christ, but of course they will not show you that.

Interesting how problems with their logic pop-up when applied to Bible passages. Test it by the Bible say many Christians and I have, Farkas and Reed have taught and preached another gospel.

To recap this. I have proven here that Jesus was Jehovah who was eternal and everlasting with no beginning and no end, yet this eternal man incarnated into a mortal body, was mortally killed (means having a beginning and an end) and returned to the Celestial Kingdom, became God again to become again "everlasting" - again having no beginning and no end.

In other words, Jesus returned to the eternal state as an "exalted man" because he came through mortality and through faith and endurance, just as we are to do the same, he set the example and path, where he mortally died, regained his body in the form of flesh and bone and became exalted man of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Jesus Christ was a God who was once a man like us, who mortally died and became exalted into godhood. This would be impossible unless Jesus had a God the Father and would be impossible if such a process did not exist, but Jesus proved it exists and he lived it. Although, Farkas and Reed do not want you to know this, because it is their ministry to do so.

The Bible says it, I have shown it, but Farkas and Reed deny it because they have denied the very doctrine that Mormons show is also from the Bible.

Farkas and Reed are focused only on judging other religions and calling them cults. In short, Farkas and Reed have not shown a contradiction in Mormon thinking and doctrine, they have shown error and contradiction in their thinking and their doctrines. They do not abide in the doctrines in the Bible because they do not know them.

Footnotes

-Smith, Joseph Fielding, Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-1844, pg 345 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/8549?highlight=1 )

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 3

2009-08-07T13:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Let us see that these words really mean. In scripture, the words "fulness", "grace to grace" and "beginning" are tagged with footnote references. These references are as follows:

"Fulness" - Bible reference of Philip 2:8 (6-9) and Hebrews 5:8 (8-9). The Bible passage of Philip 2:6-9 says that Jesus was fashioned as a mortal man, humbling himself and became obedient unto death. Hebrews says that though Jesus was the Son, he learned obedience by the things he suffered. AND...since Jesus was in the form of God made himself equal with God the Father as shown in the Bible (Philip 2:6).

That was the meaning of the word "fulness" in D&C 93:12, in the context that Jesus did not receive the fulness at first, because he had to traverse mortality in faith, obedience, humbleness and suffering. To gain the fulness required by the Father in heaven, Jesus had to suffer mortality and transcend it. This is in fact the fulness that all men who enter the kingdom of God will also obtain. Therefore, if Farkas and Reed claim that this mortal process makes Jesus as not a God, then they have believed not the Bible, but believed their own personal doctrines which has nothing to do with what Mormons say or believe.
"grace to grace" - Bible referenced to Luke 2:52, which says that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, in favour with God (meaning the Father in heaven) and with man. Therefore, to continue from grace to grace, as the Bible says, is to gain and increase in wisdom and stature under God the Father and the "grace to grace" is that process.
"beginning" - Bible referenced to the Topical Guide (TG) "Jesus Christ, foreordained". This lead to the Bible reference of 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Revelations 13:8. The Bible scripture of 1 Peter 1:19-20 says that Jesus was "foreordained" before the foundation of the world. The word "beginning" refers to the time when God the Father ordained Jesus Christ as the Saviour before the creation of the world, which is the beginning. The Bible scripture of Revelations 13:8 refers to Jesus as the assigned lamb for the slaughter (sacrifice) since the foundation of the world, which is "since the beginning of the world".

Jesus was still God in accordance to D&C 93. Farkas and Reed did not read the scripture properly and failed (or refused) to understand what was said, but the trait of refusing to understand is a common trait of people who contend with different religious faiths.

As you hopefully see, I have shown the words which Farkas and Reed took issue with also exist in the Bible, or the Bible provides similar words or phrases that explain these meanings.

Farkas and Reed try to make further claims in this part of their Chapter three. They attempted to show that Mormon teachings are contrary to itself by using Moses 1:6. This scripture says that Mormons teach Jesus is God, but in accordance to Farkas and Reed, they say that Jesus is not God, but only the Saviour and only begotten of God. To clarify this, here is Moses 1:6,

Moses 1:6
And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

In this scripture, God the Father is speaking to Moses. This scripture says there is only one God that is the Father of all spirits and there is no other such God beside him, but Farkas and Reed try to claim that since God said the words "no God beside me", this discounted the Savior as God. They then try to claim that Mormons do not teach that the Savior is not God, that Mormons teach that the Savior is God, yet Mormons contradict themselves about Jesus being a God when they claim that Jesus was the first born using the reference of D&C 93:21.

Farkas and Reed are spewing out smoke and certainly trying to create confusion and contention, which is their ministerial practice. The Mormon scripture of D&C 93:21 speaks of Jesus Christ as being the "first born". This reference is not unique to Mormons. The Bible speaks of the same thing regarding Jesus Christ. When reading D&C 93:21, there are footnote references to the a couple of the words in that passage. One of the words that was referenced was "firstborn". Allow me to show you.

D&C 93: 21
21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the ^abeginning with
the Father, and am the ^bFirstborn ;

The footnote reference for "Firstborn", when clicked takes you to a page showing the references. These references are listed as "TG Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship and TG Jesus Christ, Firstborn". Clicking the last one as "TG Jesus Christ, Firstborn" a list of scriptures appear showing the Bible references to "Firstborn" and shows as the following ( URL: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/39 ),

Ps. 89:27 I will make him my firstborn.
Isa. 41:4 I the Lord, the first.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word.
Rom. 8:29 his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many.
Col. 1:15 the image of the invisible God, the firstborn.
Col. 1: 18 he is . . . the firstborn from the dead.
Heb. 1:6 he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world.
Heb. 12:23 (D&C 76: 54, 94; D&C 77: 11; D&C 78: 21; D&C 88: 5) To the general
assembly and church of the firstborn.
Rev. 1:11 (Rev. 22: 13; 3 Ne. 9: 18; D&C 38: 1; D&C 107: 19) I am Alpha and
Omega, the first and the last.
Rev. 3:14 the Amen . . . the beginning of the creation of God.
3 Ne. 20:26 The Father having raised me up unto you first.
D&C 93:21 I was . . . with the Father, and am the Firstborn.
D&C 110:4 I am the first and the last.
Moses 2:26 mine Only Begotten which was with me from the beginning.

(You can click the Bible references to read them). How is this then understood when the words "no God beside me" appears? It is understood this way.

The Saviour (Jesus/Jehovah) is God and there is no such "God the Saviour" beside him. (see Isaiah 44:6,8 / 45:21). In Hosea 13:4 (KJV), it clearly says that Jesus is also a God and Saviour, yet there is "no Saviour beside him". Please read the words properly. These passages in the Bible clearly say that there is no other saviors, there is only one. This applies to God the Father as well, there is no other "God the Father" (father of our spirits). It does not apply when we have "God the Savior" (or said God Jesus Christ) and God the Father.

If we apply the thinking and claim from Farkas and Reed we find that the Bible will contradict itself when it shows God saying that there are "no other God's beside me" at the same time showing there is a Father in heaven who is God and at the same time saying Jesus Christ the Saviour is God, while showing these two Gods are separate and distinct from each other.

Another way of saying this is there is only one God the Saviour and only one God the Father, yet each are distinct and separate from each other, just as the Bible shows.

Trouble occurs when reading the scriptures of the Mormon Church because of the "misapplication of words". It is this misapplication of the scriptures that many Bible only believers, including Farkas and Reed, fail to understand. The likes of the faulty thinking of Farkas and Reed is what causes them and others to teach faulty doctrines, which fail, when tested and compared to what the Bible truly says.

To help you further with this, the scripture that establishes Jesus as the Lord God, the single Saviour and "no other Saviour exists" is seen in Exodus 8:8-10. What establishes the Father as a God separate from Jesus (the incarnate God Jehovah), is when Jesus Christ prayed to the Father and declared he does the Father's will, not his own (Matthew 5:30), which tells us that God Jehovah has a God who rules above him in authority and right.

The concept of "one God the Father" and "one God the Savior" was spoken by Paul the Apostle in 1 Cor. 8:5-6, where it says,

1 Cor 8:5-6
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Paul confirms two Gods, one God the Father and the second, Lord Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 1:2) and the apostle Steven called upon God, that being Lord Jesus Christ, to receive him as he was stoned to death (see Acts 7:59), which by the way confirms that God Jesus was standing beside the right hand of God the Father (see Acts 7:55)

Farkas and Reed then make the reference to Mormon beliefs which says that the God in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ under the name of Jehovah. The Mormon belief is correct, the God named Jehovah in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ and this is proven by the Bible. Jesus himself confirmed this where he told the Pharisees that he was with Abraham, their father. The Pharisees could not believe this because Jesus was not yet 50 years old (saying he is physically far too young). When Jesus confirmed he was the God named Jehovah, by saying "before Abraham I am, the Pharisees disbelieved him and wanted to stone Christ.

John 8: 56-58
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

In verse 58, the phrase "I am" used here in Greek is identical with the Septuagint usage in Ex. 3:14 which identifies Jehovah, the "great I AM".

Then, again in the Bible, Paul the Apostle also confirmed that Jesus Christ was Jehovah.

1 Cor 10:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

In verse 4, Paul referred to the "rock" as the foundation of Moses, that being God Jehovah. Lastly the Bible chapter, John 1, declares that the word was Jesus Christ and the "Word" was in the beginning, and this "Word" being Jehovah/Jesus Christ was the one who made the earth and all things on it. As to Mormon scripture that confirms the same thing,

D&C 39: 1
Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ—

D&C 110:1-4
1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.
3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

It appears that to Farkas and Reed, by their comment on page 41 of their book, disbelieve that Jehovah - Jesus Christ was the one who formed the world saying,

"Who formed the earth and the world? A footnote on Psalm 90:2 in the Mormon edition of the Bible refers to D&C 38:1, which refers to Jesus Christ."

To complete the twist and fabricate a falsehood, it appears in accordance to the tone that Farkas and Reed take in their book, that they subtlety allege, in that statement of theirs, the Bible Mormons use is a "Mormon Bible" and therefore by such a reference, must be false or corrupted.

If I am correct in viewing their words that way, I then find it rather unusual for them to claim this, as trying to allege a fault or error in the Bible that Mormons use which suggests to the readers that it was not a real Bible or was altered by Mormons or that the "Mormon Bible" cannot be trusted. The problem they created with this kind of subtle comment is that others will think in the same manner, which is to mislead people.

Thus, for the sake of establishing truth and to ensure that this kind of reference remains the fault of Farkas and Reed and no one else, let us look at other "editions" of the Bible versions for Psalm 90:2. The "Mormon edition" of the King James Bible says,

Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Just so others can check this out for themselves, I went to Biblegateway.com, a "non-Mormon" website which has copies of most Bible versions accessible online. Checking Psalm 90:2 on this "non-Mormon" Bible site, the non-Mormon edition of the King James Bible says,

Psalm 90:2 (King James Version - KJV)
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2090:2&version=9 )

The Psalm verse shows exactly the same. This proves the Mormon copy of the King James is the regular King James everyone has. As to the references noted in the "Mormon edition", changes nothing.

Let us go further with this comparison in other Bible versions as found on Biblegateway.com (as a note, this Bible verse is Moses praying to God).

Psalm 90:2 (New International Version - NIV)
Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2090:2;&version=31; )

Let us check two more Bible versions,

Psalm 90:2 ( Young's Literal Translation - YLT)
Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou [art] God.
( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2090:2;&version=15; )

Psalm 90:2 (New Message Version - NM)
God, it seems you've been our home forever; long before the mountains were born, Long before you brought earth itself to birth, from "once upon a time" to "kingdom come"—you are God.

( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2090:2;&version=65)

I clearly see that these other "non-Mormon" versions of the Bible say the same thing. The "Mormon edition" of the Bible is not in error or corrupted by Mormons.

In short, Mormon scriptures, as for example the Doctrine and Covenant passages are not separate from the Bible passages, they are scripturally co-equal with the same principles as shown in the Bible and these principles are easily seen...so long as the Bible is correctly interpreted.

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 2

2009-08-06T17:35:00.000-07:00

What Words are Used in Baptism - pg 38

This seems trivial to me, but I suppose to people as Farkas and Reed, they will try find even the smallest fault possible and if they cannot find even the smallest, they will fabricate it. In this small part of their Chapter 3, Farkas and Reed try to claim that two different words used to exercise the authority of baptism must be an error in Mormon doctrine, beliefs and practices. This is of course, not true, but let us look at this and see for ourselves. The following are two scriptural passages they picked out in their attempt to prove error,

D&C 20:73
The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

3 Ne. 11: 25
Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

The words Farkas and Reed claim are in contradiction to each other are the words "commissioned" in D&C 20:73, and the word "authority" in 3 Nephi 11:25. Specifically, these words that are used by the person when he baptizes another. Since Farkas and Reed want to think that to be "word perfect" when exercising the ordinance of baptism in the Mormon Church, means no other word can be used, else, to them, the ordinance is repeated because anything less than word perfect is error to Mormons.

Before I comment to their idiocy, lets take a look at what the word, "commissioned" means,

Meaning of "Commissioned"
From Merridiam Webster Dictionary Site

Inflected Form(s): commis·sioned; commis·sion·ing

This is from the word "Commission", that meaning is:

1 a: a formal written warrant granting the power to perform various acts or duties b: a certificate conferring military rank and authority ; also : the rank and authority so conferred

2: an authorization or command to act in a prescribed manner or to perform prescribed acts : charge

3 a: authority to act for, in behalf of, or in place of another b: a task or matter entrusted to one as an agent for another

4 a: a group of persons directed to perform some duty b: a government agency having administrative, legislative, or judicial powers c: a city council having legislative and executive functions

5: an act of committing something

6: a fee paid to an agent or employee for transacting a piece of business or performing a service ; especially : a percentage of the money received from a total paid to the agent responsible for the business

7: an act of entrusting or giving authority

(see at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commission )

The word commission, used in the Book of Mormon in D&C 20:73 means the same thing as "having authority" in 3 Nephi 11:25. Just because the word "commissioned" is specified by Joseph Smith, creates no contradiction to the word "authority" used by the prophet Nephi.

Also note, that in D&C 20:73, Joseph Smith gives a specific direction to use the word "commissioned" . This is a word used for all priesthood members who are acting under Church authority given By God through Joseph Smith. It is an appropriate word.

In 3 Nephi 11:25, the direction given was from God directly to his prophet Nephi and it was Nephi who was to baptize. Thus God was speaking directly to his prophet who was to carry out his instruction. God chose to use the word "authority", as this word easily and simply clarifies to the people with Nephi that a person "must" have authority to baptize, else there is no baptism. In one way this confirms the falsehoods created by other Christian churches who claim authority from God, but have no authority, all they have are their beliefs and that does not constitute authority.

Next, simple logic says that it is the prerogative of God to make specifications to his ordinances in how they are carried out. Since the word "commissioned" is in the Doctrine and Covenants, it means that it was God's direction to use that word. As to the prophet Nephi, it is the "prerogative" of God to use the word authority. In the Bible there is the same thing, God using different words to apply to the same thing.

Just because Farkas and Reed want to marginalize Mormons, the Mormon Church and Mormon doctrine, does not mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not of God and not under God's direction and "prerogatives".

The purpose of making things as "word perfect" (as Farkas and Reed claim), is to ensure that the right words are used and nothing required is left out since "human error" and "human desire", as personal preferences, can easily lead to improper things being said causing a baptism to spiritually fail also. Do not forget, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is across the world with thousands of tabernacles and millions of people. To think that no error can occur when exercising the ordinance of baptism is foolish. Therefore to ensure that God's requirements are fulfilled across the board, the direction was given to use certain words. It is a simple concept, the requirement to abide in a template ensures God's requirements are met.

Farkas and Reed are trying to fabricate error by imposing it. To me, in this case, this attempt by them to call this an error or contradiction tells me that they do not believe and do not want to abide in God's will and directions. They would rather abide in their own will on spiritual matters concerning God's requirements for salvation. In other words, make it the way they want it to be, which explains why they chose to create or join a contentious, self-righteous ministry.

So be it.

The Mormon Church clearly states in the Articles of Faith number 11, that all people have the right to worship God according to their own conscience (see Articles of Faith). The only thing for them is to determine if they are truly abiding in God's will, else they risk being condemned. After all the Bible clearly says it (see Matthew 7:13-24; Luke 13:23-28).

As another note, does the Bible carry the same thing, these words "commissioned and authority" to mean the same thing? Yes it does,

Acts 26: 12
Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

How Do We Receive the Remission of Sins - pg 38

It is becoming apparent that Farkas and Reed have no clue of what they are talking about. This next part of the review found nothing different with their works. Incompetence seems to prevail in their thinking. Farkas and Reed are trying to create issue where there is none. Under this topic of what we do to receive the remission of Sins, they begin by quoting Mormon scripture,

D&C 20: 37
And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

The key issue Farkas and Reed present here with this Mormon scripture is the claim that Mormon doctrine contradicts itself with two types of requirements for the remission of sins. Saying that on one hand the remission of sins is by the receiving of the Spirit of Christ and the other is by baptism by water.

The commandment in D&C 20:37 provides two reasons. One reason pertains to setting the requirements of age for baptism, the age that a person must be able to repent and give witness to the Church of repentance, and...

Fit Candidates for Baptism—The prime object of baptism being admission to the Church with remission of sins, and this coming only through faith in God and true repentance before Him, it naturally follows that baptism can in justice be required of those only who are capable of exercising faith and of working repentance. 14 In a revelation on Church government given through Joseph the Prophet, April, 1830, the Lord specifically states the conditions under which persons may be received into the Church through baptism: "All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church."
These conditions exclude all who have not arrived at the age of discretion and accountability; and by direct commandment the Lord has forbidden the Church to receive any who have not attained to such age. By revelation the Lord had designated eight years as the age at which children may be properly baptized into the Church; and parents are required to prepare their children for the ordinances of the Church by teaching them the doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Failure in this requirement is accounted by the Lord as a sin resting upon the heads of the parents¹

The second reason is when a person has truly received in his heart that acknowledgement they accept Jesus is the Christ (received the Spirit of Christ),

We can know when a person is ready for baptism. The Lord gave us the measure by which we would know when a person is ready to be baptized. In the twentieth section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the thirty-seventh verse, the Lord says this: "And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church."
Now, you read that again and again and impress that upon your missionaries. You must not only teach them to know by rote or by listening. You can teach them the lessons, but the matter of conversion depends on the individual and how much he has been inspired to reach out to those spiritual depths to receive in his heart that witness to know. Only then is he a convert and ready now. (73-18)²

Are these spiritual principles unique to Mormonism? Nay, they are not. Read this Bible passage:

Acts 19: 4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

This passage clearly states that people must believe in Jesus Christ in order to be received into baptism of repentance (remission of sins). To "believe on him" is the part that is to "receive the Spirit of Christ", making it a requirement for baptism for the remission of sins. If a person does not receive (believe and accept) Christ, then he is not of him and has not truly repented, which is exactly what Paul said in,

Rom. 8: 9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

That requirement is what makes a person truly repentant or not. Failure to receive the Spirit of Christ (believing and accepting Christ), denys any remission of sins. Now, Mormon scripture also explained this very simple principle of baptism and the remission of sins in these passages,

Moro. 6: 1-3
1 And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.
2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken bheart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.
3 And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.

Passage 3 above, clearly says that none were received unto baptism unless they took upon them the name of Christ, which is the acceptance of Christ, to serve him, which is to recieve the Spirit of Christ for the remission of sins, since it is only by Christ that baptism by water works. Also note, that this passage, which gives an explanation of D&C 20:37 is the same passage Farkas and Reed denounced above in regards to when baptism takes place. It is clear by this example that Farkas and Reed have show their failure to understand Mormon scripture, misused it, misapplied it and also showed the same failure in understanding the same doctrine said in the Bible.

Farkas and Reed must be trying to twist God's doctrine regarding the remission of sins or that they are truly ignorant of the requirements for the remission of sins, which the Bible explained.

Footnote

Talmage, James E., Articles of Faith, CHAPTER 6, "BAPTISM" , pg 113 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/10295 )
Lee, Harold B., Teachings of Harold B. Lee, "Chapter Three -Principles of the Gospel", pg 95 ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/8240 )

Chapter 3 - Mormon Scriptures Compared - Part 1

2009-08-05T13:19:00.000-07:00

"In what area of the world did Adam Live? -pg 37"

This first part of chapter 3 of "Mormonism, Changes Contradictions and Errors", Farkas and Reed presented scripture from the Pearl of Great Price, the Bible and the Doctrine of Covenants, attempting to claim that Mormon scripture and doctrine is contradictory because it claims that Adam lived in two different locations, that being the Near East and the other near Independance Missouri.

Is this true? On the face of things, without doing any research, it appears that Mormons have contradictory beliefs, revelation and doctrines, but research proved a different account.

Farkas and Reed seem to be assuming that people will believe their view that an ancient event as the Garden of Eden existed in the location of the "near East" (or middle east), but it became apparent that they failed to research anything that pertains to Bible history. If they had conducted some research into the claims about where the Garden of Eden existed, they would surely find that no one can confirm the location of Eden. This poses some serious problems with the belief that Eden existed in the area of the world now called the "near East"(middle east). Allow me to show you.

According to the Biblical account and in the Book of Moses account, the Garden of Eden had a river that extended from out of it and parted into four river heads. Of these four rivers, the first was named Pison which encompassed the land named Havilah, the second named Gihon which encompassed the land named Ethiopia, the third river was named Hiddekel which ran toward the eastern part of Assyria and the fourth river was named Euphrates.

It would appear that the scriptures have accurately described a location of the "near East", but in truth, this scriptural account does not confirm the location of the Garden of Eden. In both the Bible scripture and the Book of Moses, not one word indicates that these rivers existed in the eastern part of the world, let alone any specific part of the world. All that was provided by these scriptures were rivers that God named.

According to tradition, the Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba is supposed to have borne. However, the first kingdom for which there is documentary evidence is that of Aksum (Axum), a kingdom which probably emerged in the 2d cent. A.D., thus making Ethiopia the oldest independent country in Africa and one of the most ancient in the world. ¹

Ethiopia is a name of one of the places mentioned in the scriptural account. This reference confirms that Ethiopia, as it existed on this mortal earth, began in 10 century BC, which is 1000 BC. This is well after the Garden and Eden and well after the flood with Noah where all things on the earth were destroyed. This means that the location of Ethiopia as it stood in 1000 BC and as of today, is not the same location of the Ethiopia that existed in the time of Adam before the great flood with Noah. The scriptural account refers to a location that existed centuries before.

A careful reading of the account in Genesis and also of the one in the Book of Moses makes it clear that one ‘river went out of Eden’ and it had ‘four heads.’ In other words, four rivers flowed together, making one. It is very evident that since the river that ran through Ethiopia (Nile) and the Euphrates River are hundreds of miles apart, they could never have been joined together. Therefore, the geography of the western part of Persia or the Mesopotamia Valley fails to fit the description given in the scriptures.²

Further research finds that the four rivers mentioned in the scriptures do not meet up in the Middle East or near East and that not all of these rivers exist. There is a lot of theories about the location of these four rivers, but scholars cannot find or determine the true location of the Garden of Eden, especially when these four rivers, as they are named, are not found as coming together into a head. This says that the location of the Garden of Eden, as the world sees it, remains unknown and unfounded,

The clues that might lead to a discovery are few. The account says that the garden was "eastward" in Eden. What is east or west in such a story depends on the place of the author at the time of writing, since no fixed point is mentioned. It is a fair assumption that the word "eastward" has quite another meaning, so far unknown, than the usual one of direction.

Another clue, which at first promised more, is the statement that . . . a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison . . . which compasseth the whole land of Havilah . . . the name of the second river is Gihon . . . that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel which goeth toward the east Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. (Gen. 2:10-14)

Despite the apparently specific descriptions given, this clue has not led to the location of the Garden of Eden. Careful scholars have not been able to identify any of the four rivers with certainty. None of the rivers mentioned fits into the lands now known. Since the historically well-known names of Euphrates, Assyria, and Ethiopia do not fit into the use of them in the Garden of Eden story, it is more than probable that they are ancient names variously applied in later times. Clearly, these rivers and countries belong to early ages of the world's history, and do not apply to present-day terminology.

The river which watered the Garden of Eden "went out of Eden," probably out of the country of Eden, not necessarily out of the Garden of Eden. The following statement, that it was parted into "four heads," may refer to a condition at the headwaters area, not within the garden. ³

John Widstoe, I believe, is correct. The names of the rivers apply to a time before current world history, a time where events and names existed before the great flood. Some time after the flood, mankind took the Biblical names and assigned them to locations of their own choosing. All lands and people, except Noah and his family, were destroyed in the great flood, if you abide in the Bible account. This means the locations of Havilah, Ethiopia and Assyria have changed from where it existed after the great flood.

This says that any claim that the Garden of Eden first existed in the near East, as Farkas and Reed alleged, is a false and unqualified statement and cannot be rightfully asserted that Eden was in the "near East". Just because Farkas and Reed choose to claim that Eden existed in the near East, is merely a supposition of their own and has no place in any review of Mormon doctrines and scripture. What then, can we do about understanding what the scriptural locations mean both in the Bible and Book of Moses? The answer is to properly read the scriptures and if Farkas and Reed had done that, they would find the following,

D&C 29:31-32
31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—
32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work-

(also see 1 Cor 15:44-46)

These scriptures say that God begins his work in spirit, in the spiritual realms first. When applied to the scriptural account of the Garden of Eden, it says that the location was "spiritual" and that is where Adam and Eve first lived. The rivers were therefore also spiritual, or in spirit and did not exist in this mortal world. Everything about Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden existed in a spiritual place. Is there an earthly equilavent to these spiritual places? - the answer is No, and without revelation to confirm such things there is no earthly known place.

To further prove that what I say is true, consider the following. Adam and Eve were cast out of the spiritual Garden of Eden and God blocked access to the garden in this manner,

Genesis 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Moses 4:31
So I drove out the man, and I placed at the east of the Garden of Eden, cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life.

To this day, there exists on this earth, no such thing as a "cherubim" or a flaming sword. The meaning of "cherubim" is plural to "cherub" and is a spiritual thing, not an earthly thing.⁴

Eden, therefore, did not exist on the mortal earth, but on a spiritual earth before Adam and Eve were cast out to become mortal. When they were cast out, they spiritually died, which means to descend to the mortal earth to live out their mortal days. With these spiritual truths factored into the equation of the location of Eden, it shows that Eden was always spiritual not temporal or mortal and its location cannot be equated to locations on the earth by mortal worldly means. Therefore, short of direct revelation from God, the location of an earthly equalivalent for the Garden of Eden is not known.

By placing the scriptures into perspective, the ones that Farkas and Reed used to claim contradictions, that being Moses 3:10, 13, 15 and Genesis 2:8, 10, 14; versus D&C 116:1, D&C 107:53, D&C 117:8, 11, and D&C 72:8, we then have the "spiritual location" of the four rivers and we have the revelation through Joseph Smith of where the Garden was located on the earth. In addition, do not forget, when Noah was riding the flood for 40 days, he could easily have traveled the distance from North America to the area of the near East before he found dry land.

What then of Adam and Eve when they were on the mortal earth? Where did they live? Again, short of any revelation, no one in the world knows for sure because this was long before the great flood with Noah. My thinking is not unique because on the Internet I have found a Bible only believer account that denotes the same line of thought as to the earthly location of Adam and Eve before the great flood.

After the flood the earth was completely different than the earth before. There were widespread global differences. These would include changes in the climate, composition of the atmosphere, hydrologic cycle, geologic features, cosmic radiation reaching the earth, ozone concentration, ultra violet light, background radiation, genetics, diet, and a host of other subtle and/or profound chemical and physiological changes.⁵

It is clear, but maybe not to Farkas and Reed, that the location of the Garden of Eden or of Adam and Eve is not possible to determine without revelation from God and Farkas and Reed are surely not prophets. If a person rejects the revelation through Joseph Smith that the Garden of Eden existed in North America, they have nothing beyond that to prove otherwise. This confirms that there is no contradiction with Mormon doctrine and scriptures.

When is a man baptized -pg 38?

Farkas and Reed have made another error here, twisting the meaning of the scriptures to create a false error or contradiction. They claim the contradiction exists in reference to the time of when a man is baptized, according to Mormon scriptures. They claim that Mormon scriptures claim it is before he receives the priesthood and then Mormon scriptures claim it is after. To help correct this error of theirs (Farkas and Reed), here is the explanation.

Moroni 6:1-4
1. And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were
baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they
were worthy of it.
2. Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken
heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented
of all their sins.
3. And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of
Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.
4. And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and
cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people
of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be
remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right
way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits
of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

The words, "were baptized", refers to the past tense, not present tense, when reading the context of the Moroni chapter. Taking this in context of other scriptures, the past tense refers to taking baptism prior to membership in the Church, but to make a further point, if baptism occurred after joining the Church, then Church leaders will make the correction with those so they can be rightly baptized.

This very thing occurred in the Bible, members of the Church were not rightly baptized, yet were members of the early Christian Church. The apostles had to be re-baptize them again. See: Acts 19:3-5 (KJV), which is confirmed by,

Romans 6:3-4
3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

(Please note, there is an error, among many others, in the book, "Mormonism, Changes Contradictions and Errors", on page 38, where it made a reference to "Moroni 6:34" . There is no such scripture passage of "Moroni 6:34", they must be referring to "Moroni 6:3")

Footnotes

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0858046.html
Peterson, H. Donl., PEARL OF GREAT PRICE: A HISTORY AND COMMENTARY, Moses 3, pg 134-135
Widstoe, John A., EVIDENCES AND RECONCILIATIONS, Chapter 4, "Where Was the Garden of Eden?", pg 394-395
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionaries/dict_meaning.php?source=1&wid=T0000791
Mendez, Arnold C., Sr., "WHY did people live longer BEFORE Noah's Flood than they did after it?" - ( http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-did-man-live-longer-before-flood-of-noah-than-after-it.html )

Chapter 2 - The Basis For Evaluating Scripture Comparisons (Part 2)

2009-07-14T14:33:00.000-07:00

What do Mormon Scriptures Say - pg 33

This part of chapter two of "Mormonism, Changes Contradictions and Errors", appears to be a prelude to a more detailed attempt by Farkas and Reed in Chapter 6 of their book, to display their belief that the Mormon Church and it's leaders made errors with the Mormon scriptures and had to make changes. Those changes they believe, is a basis for their claim that Joseph Smith erred or lied when he said that "there is no error in the revelations", which he (Joseph Smith) have taught.

Since Farkas and Reed devoted an entire chapter (16 pages) to changes made between the Book of Commandments to the Doctrine of Covenants, I will make only sufficient comment here, to this chapter two, to establish my basis of my review of their works.

What do Mormon Scriptures say? - I have always found it interesting how other Christians have condemned Joseph Smith and the standard works of the Mormon Church whilst ignoring or being completely ignorant of the history of the Bible, the same book they tote and hail against the Mormon Church.

A short quote needs to be given here about the making of the Bible,

Recalling the history of the Bible, we find that it is composed of a collection of sixty-six books or volumes of scripture. At the Council of Carthage, 397 A. D., these sixty-six books were held to be sacred, and inspired by God himself, whilst many others were held to be Apocryphal, doubtful or spurious, and were in consequence rejected by the bishops at that council. All the original manuscripts of both the accepted and rejected books are lost or destroyed. We are therefore compelled to rely upon copies made by scribes from the original manuscripts prior to their loss or destruction. This work being done by hand, prior to the discovery of the art of printing, the mistakes of the transcriber—oftentimes merely a copyist and not a linguist—whether intentional or otherwise, were perpetuated and added to in the subsequent copies. By comparing the copies one with another it has been possible to build up certain texts, which have been accepted by Bible students as fairly accurate transcripts of that which the original manuscripts must have contained. All critical translators accept the following as being the most ancient and reliable copies yet discovered:
1. The Vatican, or Codex "B." This copy is now at Rome, in the custody of the Western or Latin-Roman Church.
2. The Sinaitic, or Codex "Alept." This copy is now at St. Petersburg, in the custody of the Eastern or Greek-Russian Church.
3. The Alexandrian, or Codex "A." This copy is now at the British Museum, London. It is a treasure of the English or Anglican and Protestant Churches.¹

Does the word “fairly accurate” confirm that the words within the Bible are inspired? Is that how we are to accept the Bible and believe it is from God because it is fairly accurate? This is not the end of facts about the Bible.

Paul the apostle spoke of the inherent problem with mortal men in 1 Cor 2:14 , where he said that the natural men (all mortal men) cannot receive the things (revelation, instruction, teachings) from the Spirit of God (Holy Ghost), for they are foolishness to them and neither can man know them because they are spiritually discerned. Paul addressed the inherent ineptness of mortality, its limitation that all men, who still seem to think, that they can know the word of God on their own mortal efforts and intelligence.

How does this apply to the Bible?

This says that error in translation and copying is a human trait and is impossible to avoid. The New Testament, therefore, is the “best approximation” based on many comparisons between many documents (by the limited power of mortal man) and without the original documents. In addition, since the original documents were lost or destroyed, a question remains, what other doctrines were lost as well? This is not an unusual concern, as Tad R. Callister said,

Clement of Rome (A.D. 30-100) cited “scriptures” not currently located in our Bible. When these come forth, will some reject them because we have a Bible and there can be no more of the word of God?²

These concerns do not end. Between the first printed Bible to the ones today, how many changes occurred? Does Farkas and Reed know this?

To give an idea of what changes have occurred, even between the many Bible versions (that so many other Christians follow), at av1611.org, Terry Watkins provided a list of changes numbered at 300 to the King James Bible. When adding the changes between each Bible version, raises the count higher.³

This means that Bible versions are not the same between them, showing additions to the scriptures or removals of or from scripture. Apparently, when perusing the Internet, one can see that that others have claimed “New King James Version” as a counterfeit of the old, because of many changes made to scriptural passages. Whether this latter claim is true is beside the point. The fact remains that the Bible is under the same question and scrutiny that Farkas and Reed try to impose upon the Book of Mormon, Doctrine of Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. The difference is that God revealed to his prophet (revelation) what was scripture (God's word) now held by the Mormon Church. Whereas Christiandom declares the Bible as God's word based on the best approximation between copies of texts and manuscripts.

Whether confirmed by God or not, historically speaking, there were many thousands of errors in text and changes between six different King James Bible editions over the centuries.

Everybody has heard of the "Vinegar Bible" ( "the most sumptuous of all Oxford Bibles" printed by J. Baskett, Oxford, 1717, in 1 vol., imperial fol.; also called " a Baskett-full of printer s errors"), -which has "vinegar" for "vineyard" in the heading of the column containing the parable of the vineyard (Luke xx.). The worst error is in the "Wicked Bible," printed by Robert Barker and John Bill, London, 1G31, 8vo, which omits, perhaps from sheer deviltry of the printer, the "not" in the seventh commandment (Exod. xx. 14). The printer was fined 300 by Archbishop Laud for changing the prohibition of adultery into a command, and the money was used for the purchase of a font of Greek type for the Oxford University.⁴

Further from this book that author said,

A committee of the American Bible Society, in examining six different editions of the Authorized Version, discovered nearly 24,000 variations in the text and punctuation.⁵

(Note: Philip Schaff, D.D. was the President of the American Committee on Revision in 1883)

Reading the Bible, a person will find that Paul the apostle referred to another epistle to the Corinthians that does not exist in the Bible (see 1 Cor 5:9), it is missing. In Jude 1:14-15, Jude referred to prophecies of Enoch and these prophecies are not in the Bible, they are also missing, this in addition to the other "Lost Books of the Bible" or "missing scriptures",

The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).⁶

Why are these books or scripture missing? Is it not true that many other Christians claim that the “Bible” is the complete word of God and we need no more, yet history and the Bible itself proclaims prophecies and words of God that are missing and lost?

How then, can someone deal with the included errancies that exist within the Bible and still hold it as the word of God? Has Farkas and Reed provided clear inspired answers to this dilemma?

The prophet Joseph Smith gave the inspired (correct) and right answer, which is why the Mormon Church holds the Bible as the word of God. That inspired instruction and principle is, "The Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly".⁷

When faced with these facts, the same facts that Farkas and Reed do not tell you, shows that they have no grounds to attack any perceived or real changes within the standard works of the Mormon Church, but this still leaves a question in people's minds about those changes between the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants.

A person needs to understand two basic requirements. One, a person must accept that God continues to provide revelation. Two, a person must accept the possibility that Joseph Smith received revelation from God. Without these two basic requirements, a person cannot resolve any concerns about the doctrines and scriptures held by the Mormon Church.

Revelations from God to his prophet assigns to that man great responsibility, one that requires that man to ensure that God's word is not lost in changes in circumstance or in human error. The fact that changes did occur between the Book of Commandments and the newer editions of the Doctrine and Covenants is a testament to the nature of revelation, the methods, manner, purpose God uses to speak to his prophet and people. The reasons behind the changes are explained here,

A prophet is not just amanuensis. He may change the wording of revelations in order to keep pace with his own increased understanding of the Lord's will, the changing circumstances of the times, the needs of his people and so on.

We should notice also the fact that Joseph Smith was authorized by the promptings of the Holy Spirit to change the revelations as he felt necessary. In a special conference of the Church held in Hiram, Portage County Ohio, November 8, 1831, it was “resolved that Brother Joseph Smith, Jun., correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations and commandments and also the fulness of the scriptures. The Prophet accordingly changes certain revelations as prompted by the Holy Spirit and made corrections, additions, and omissions if the sentence structure was improved and if the changes made for clarity of thought.⁸

Essentially, God gave authority and right to Joseph Smith to make changes as needed, but somehow the statement that Joseph Smith said, "there is no error in the revelations" remains as a point of issue giving one the impression that Joseph Smith may have lied when he had to correct errors in the revelations he published.

Many corrections were to grammatical and spelling errors, while additions were made to clarify a principle, idea or thought, of course, all by approval by God.

Another point about revelation refers to allusions,

If, when the Lord gives a revelation to a man, that man happens to have the language of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, etc) or of world literature, as an asset, then the language of the revelation many contain allusions to it.⁹

This says that God uses what abilities and skills the man (prophet) has to give revelation to mankind and from those distinct set of characteristics that man has, allusions may appear in the dictation of God's words. It is also, not uncommon, for God to choose prophets at different times and both speak in the same manner, or that each speak quite different from each other. Isaiah and Malachi are poles apart in matters of style and diction, yet God has spoken through both of them.¹⁰

With these distinct characteristics (even when corrected later), textual changes to previous recordings will exist, but no change to the content or meaning of the revelation occurred, hence the statement that "there is no error in the revelations". Here is an example,

Book of Commandments	Doctrine and Covenants
And the Lord said unto me, John, my beloved, what desires thou?	And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.

Is this not the same claim made by advocates of different Bible versions?

Another important point.

The only authority that exists that can add, alter, modify, remove scripture or revelation is God himself. No man, by himself, has that authority or right and no man can self-assign it. This says that God, through his mouthpiece, called a prophet, can add, alter, modify or remove revelation or scripture at will. This returns to the two requirements needed to understand the changes to printed revelations within the Mormon Church. If a person denies or rejects that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then no matter what anyone says, that person will label Smith as a fraud based only on his/her disbelief and lack of faith. Since mainstream Christians are at odds with each other, where their Bible doctrines between them are contradictory and different, where they each tote their own ideas of what the Bible says while holding Bible versions that are not the same, it is then ridiculous to accept claims from mainstream Christians that Mormons are false. Another way to say it is this, their personal disbeliefs based in contradictory doctrines is not a basis by which to judge the Mormon Church as true or false. This leads to the next appropriate statement for this chapter review,

Apostates and non-members of the Church have complained of these changes, but we may assume that they know little of the true nature of revelation.¹¹

Chapter 2 - Conclusion
Farkas and Reed are trying to claim that historic changes between editions of the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants, or any other scriptural books held by the Mormon Church are faulty and not of God because of changes and alleged errors, or that these changes and alleged errors are proof that God did not speak to Joseph Smith and that makes Mormon scriptures as false.

Is what they claim reasonable?

Farkas and Reed failed to take into account the exact same historic condition of the Bible. The difference between Bible history and the history of Mormon scriptures is the presence and involvement of a prophet. Changes to Biblical scripture never involved a prophet of God to supervise and monitor changes and those changes were never by God's approval. Bible changes, additions and omissions are, therefore, man made. Changes within the scriptural books of the Mormon Church had God's approval and was supervised by God's prophet, but whether or not someone believes God spoke to Joseph Smith, the fact remains that Bible changes were never approved and never willed by God. The Bible was changed by men and the world.

This brings me to relate another obvious fact that Farkas and Reed do not realize. When they attack Mormon scripture, claiming it is false because of errors and changes, to say that it is not of God because these errors and changes exist, then they are also attacking and saying the same thing about the Bible, because it is the product of the same type of errors and changes.

Somehow, these errors and changes of the Bible, being man-made, meets the approval of Farkas and Reed, and being man made is not in line with gospel principles in the Bible.

Footnotes:

Clift, Frederic, A. B., M. D., Improvement Era 1907, Vol. XI. NOVEMBER, 1907. No. 1,, "LOST SCRIPTURES".
Callister, Tad R., The Inevitable Apostasy and The Promised Restoration, pg 87
Watkins, Terry, Bible Version Comparisons - http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Schaff, Philip. A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, 1883, pg 324-325
Ibid – pg. 325
Bible Dictionary, pgs 725-726 ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/l/40 )
Smith, Joseph, History of the Church, Vol 4, pp. 535-541
Sperry, Sidney B., Doctrine and Covenants Compendium, 1960, pg 39.
Ibid, pg. 35
Ibid, pg. 36
Ibid, pg. 40

Chapter 2 - The Basis For Evaluating Scripture Comparisons (Part 1)

2009-07-08T08:56:00.000-07:00

See page 31

In this chapter, the authors want to convey their basis for evaluating Mormon beliefs and doctrines. They begin with excerpts from past leaders of the Mormon Church who offered challenges to people to convince them of their errors, to compare their religion with others and that people should expose Joseph Smith if he was a deceiver. Also claiming that the Mormon leaders said there should be errors. This chapter and this book by Farkas and Reed is their acceptance of that challenge, but why does Farkas and Reed need to do this at all?

The only reason I can see they could claim, in the absence of any explanation thus far, is to justify their works against Mormons, but the only thing I see happening is that Farkas and Reed are opportunists. Let us see if I am correct.

In this chapter, they focused on past writings or talks from Mormon leaders and members. Their excerpts of these talks, on the face of it, appear legitimate, but Jesus taught never to judge by appearances. Further research and comparison showed these excerpts are actually crafted cuts, snippets of words, molded to suit the agenda and goals of Farkas and Reed to write this book.

These crafted quotes required investigation to find out why Mormon leaders said those words, what was their intent and the context of their words. On page 31 of their second chapter, the first quote was taken from Orson Pratt, from his periodical entitled “The Seer”, written in 1853, but before I continue regarding this quote, I have to make a comment about how these sources are used.

The majority of people investigating the Mormon Church would not possess copies of such writings as “The Seer” and today, people will likely rely on the Internet to gain access to a legitimate copy, if they are Internet-Savvy. It may be impossible for an average person, new to religion, to locate an accessible copy of the full document, in its full context. It took time for me to locate one and I know the web.

This certainly would give Farkas and Reed an opportunity to say what they want, giving the appearance of legitimacy, but sadly for them, diligence helped me find a copy on-line. I now provide to all who attend here, that same access to complete copies of “The Seer”, written by Orson Pratt. So long as the links remain active, people can use the following links,

1.The Seer, 1853 to 1854, published in Washington DC
(link – right click and “save link as” to download – total about 37 megabytes): http://www.archive.org/download/OrsonPratt/TheSeer.pdf

2.The Seer, 1853 - 1854 all publications
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=3655

Now to continue.

Here is the quote from Orson Pratt, as presented by Farkas and Reed on pg 31 of their book,

...convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God....”

Farkas and Reed used their edited version of Pratt's words to convey their view that Mormon leaders are inviting people to seek out Mormon errors and convince Mormons of those errors, even by logic, also claiming that this is the extent of that challenge by Mormon leaders. This is the part Farkas and Reed chose to focus on when they read Orson Pratt's publication, but Orson Pratt did not convey that message.Here is what Orson Pratt said, (the part Farkas and Reed used is italicized)

If the people of this country have generally formed different conclusions from us upon this subject; and if they have embraced religions which are mere congenial to their minds than the religion of the Saints, we say to them that they are welcome to their own religious views ; the laws should not interfere with the exercise of their religious rights. If we can not convince you by reason nor by the word of God, that your religion is wrong, we will not persecute you, but will sustain you in the privileges, guaranteed in the great Charter of American Liberty : we ask from you the same generosity—protect us in the exercise of our religious rights—convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds. Come, then, let us reason together, and try to discover the true light upon all subjects, connected with our temporal or eternal happiness ; and if we disagree, in our judgments, let us impute it to the weakness and imperfections of our fallen natures, and let us pity each other, and endeavor with patience and meekness to reclaim from error, and save the immortal soul from an endless death.¹

What did Orson Pratt say that is different than what Farkas and Reed are claiming? Mr. Pratt clearly said that Mormons will sustain the rights of others to believe what they choose to believe (and this next part is important), so long as others do the same for the Mormons! This is what Farkas and Pratt conveniently edited out. Orson Pratt never gave the message or provide an open, “free for all” door for relentless attacks on Mormon beliefs and doctrines. Pratt clearly asked for respect of Mormon beliefs and detractors as Farkas and Reed are not showing that respect.

What else did Orson Pratt say?

Orson Pratt clearly said (please ensure you read this carefully), to “come and reason together”. This is a direct statement of purpose, to reason together. This is supported by the scriptures (see Isa 1:18; D&C 50:10 ). Orson Pratt was following the examples in the scriptures. How can Farkas and Reed do this with their book? The answer is they cannot and are not.

Then Orson Pratt clearly said,

"... if we disagree, in our judgments, let us impute it to the weakness and imperfections of our fallen natures, and let us pity each other, and endeavor with patience and meekness to reclaim from error..."

All of this changes the entire context surrounding the words of Orson Pratt when he said, “convince us of our errors of doctrine”. The words of Orson Pratt are not so inviting to the works and attempts by Farkas and Reed, because no such discussion, as described by Orson Pratt, can take place with the works of Farkas and Pratt and others like them. The conditions set out by Orson Pratt were removed by crafted cuts and pastes. Crafted to suit the intentions of Farkas and Reed and their intent thus far has been to mislead and all effort by them has nothing to do with finding truth.

When people purposely manipulate the words of others to suit personal goals, the intentions and works prove to be malicious. Farkas and Reed are manufacturing fault and creating a false image.

There is another important point to make here. Did Farkas and Reed properly investigate the words spoken by past leaders of the Mormon Church to ensure that what they said was accepted as practiced? I ask this because, people are mortals, prone to error and at times the words spoken by a leader (anywhere for that matter) can be in error. Is it then right to judge a whole people based on the errors of one person or condemn a religious faith by the same measure?

Orson Pratt wrote and said things, in relation to Mormon doctrine and beliefs, that was determined, by the General Authorities of the Church, as incorrect and contrary to current doctrines and practices within the Mormon Church. It is not unusual for past apostles and members to suffer discipline by God and his Church, but this also makes a prime opportunity for many Anti-Mormons to be opportunists, spinning those errors into all kinds of claims. Unfortunately, Orson Pratt suffered this same fate with his writings in The Seer,

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work--the Seer--together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: "But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."²

Orson Pratt concurred with his fellow apostles and accepted their decision. This made the periodical short lived.

Now for the next excerpt from Brigham Young. This is what Farkas and Reed presented,

"I say to the whole world, receive the truth, no matter who presents it to you. Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it and see if it will stand the test."

Let us read those words within the full context,

My testimony is the positive. I know that there are such cities as London, Paris and New York from my own experience or from that of others; I know that the sun shines, I know that I exist and have a being, and I testify that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ lives and that he is the Savior of the world. Have you been to heaven and learned to the contrary? I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that he had many revelations. Who can disprove this testimony? Any one may dispute it, but there is no one in the world who can disprove it. I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself, and know these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived but the Spirit of God cannot be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit, the whole man is filled with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and he knows that which is beyond the power of man to controvert. What I know concerning government I have received from the heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and the praise. Men talk about what has been accomplished under my direction and attribute it to my wisdom and ability; but it is all by the power of God, and by intelligence received from him. I say to the whole world, receive the truth, no matter who presents it to you. Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it and see if it will stand the test.³

The context that Farkas and Reed tried to present is different from what Brigham Young had said. Brigham Young stated that he received revelations, he was inspired by God through the Spirit of God and his accomplishments where guided by God's power and intelligence. This establishes the context of his next words where he proclaims to the world to receive truth when given it, to take up the Bible and test the religion of the Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The context is one of the Spirit, revelation, inspiration and the spiritual word of God.

This test by the Bible, was already addressed in my review of the Preface of this book ( see - http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/06/preface.html ). This test, as I said, is a spiritual one, to prove, even by the Bible, that the scriptures within the standard works of the Mormon Church are not of God. A person, therefore, requires the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to do it, but the Holy Ghost does not get involved in any contentious debates or attacks on any person or group, so Farkas and Reed are left out in the cold with their hopes of God's help on this one. This means they cannot take up the challenge, since they cannot fulfill the conditions which Brigham Young had set.

The concept is simple, taking the passages from the Bible, Paul the Apostle proved how this test can be done. To “test the spirit” of something we need to understand the spiritual principles in the word of God (see John 6:63 / 1 Cor 2:14 / 2 Cor 3:6). These passages basically say, that the words God speaks are always spiritual, not temporal, God's word must be spiritually discerned, to compare spiritual with spiritual and any attempt to compare by the letter of the word achieves nothing but an end toward death or nothingness.

That is the test Brigham Young spoke about. Can Farkas and Reed make such a spiritual test? - I do not think so. Therefore, when Brigham Young said to the world to receive the truth, no matter who presents it, is said in the context of truth received from God, by revelation or inspiration, which is spiritually discerning and comparing. The challenge to take up the Bible is again within the same context of revelation and inspiration and who can disprove this?

Has Farkas and Reed obtained truth from God, by revelation directly to them to take up this challenge? - the answer is No, at least from what I read thus far, they are not able.

The next excerpt used by Farkas and Reed is a repeat from their Preface – page 14, words of Joseph Fielding Smith from his book, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, 1:188. In fact they used the exact same quote. I already addressed their use of that quote on my review of their preface. Please read my address of that quote here - http://christiantruth-bookreview-1.blogspot.com/2009/06/preface.html

Next, on page 32 of their book, they quoted the words of Elder Carlos E. Asay of the Presidency of the Seventy, October 1981 General Conference. The quote was presented by Farkas and Reed as follows,

1. Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith killers are to be shunned.... 4. Do not contend or debate over points of doctrine.... 6. Do not be swayed or diverted from the mission of the Church. There are those who would draw you off course and cause you to waste time and energies....

(Note the bold text done by Farkas and Reed)

Let us look further into these words from Elder Carlos E. Asay. When I located the written document of Carlos E. Asay's talk, I found the following,

Two months ago we received a tender letter from a bishop. He informed us that he had been involved in an excommunication of a recent convert. The new convert had fallen under the influence of a very dedicated apostate who was successful in destroying the convert’s testimony. It seems that, to discredit Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, the apostate cited changes made in Church publications over the years.

The approach used by the apostate is common among those who are more interested in shadows than in light. Their logic, if followed, would have them burning the New Testament because Luke’s account of the gospel is not exactly like Matthew’s or because the book of Acts reports two differing versions of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus. (See Acts 9:1–9 and Acts 22:4–11.) Belief in modern prophets and continuous revelation is absent in the lives of many apostates. They would pin their hopes for salvation upon things other than those related to living prophets and living faith.

The questions follow: How do we respond to such malicious and evil designs? Do we strike back? Allow me to suggest a course of action—one which is in harmony with the teachings of the Savior, and one which, if followed, will be in harmony with the wise counsel of prophets past and present:

1. Avoid those who would tear down your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit. True messengers of God are builders—not destroyers. We send our missionaries into the world to teach and to assist people in receiving truth line upon line until the fulness of the gospel is received. (See D&C 98:112.) As one new convert testified: “My previous church provided me the chapter on mortality. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added two more chapters pertaining to the premortal and postmortal existences.”⁴

Farkas and Reed edited Asay's words, narrowing them to the point that Asay's words conveys the intentions of Farkas and Reed. Their intention was to claim that the original invitation by early Mormon leaders to reveal errors of Mormon beliefs, to test those beliefs by the Bible, was withdrawn. The editing and narrowing of Asay's words, caused the appearance that Asay apparently spoke against or contradicted the challenges made by Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, and Joseph Fielding Smith.

When reading the words of Carlos E. Asay, he never said any such thing. There was no contradiction, no withdrawal of that challenge and Carlos E. Asay certainly did not speak on that matter. Farkas and Reed purposely misused Asay's words.

The talk given by Carlos E. Asay was to address the spiritual problems faced by members who are corrupted or spiritually harmed by self-serving apostates. To address the evil methods of those who wanted to destroy someone's faith and belief in the Mormon Church. The talk was titled, “Opposition to the Work of God”. This had nothing to do with any invitation to a “heart to heart”, “reasoning with each other”, sincere intelligent honest discussion. What Carlos E. Asay said is supported by the Bible, where it warns against these vicious faith slayers (see Eph. 6:11–18 / Philip. 1: 16 / 1 Tim. 6: 20 / Titus 3: 9 – to name few passages).

Is Farkas and Reed now disrespecting the choices of Mormons to avoid and shun contentious and malicious encounters? Is Farkas and Reed also selectively ignoring Bibical scriptures on this matter of evil faith slayers, suggesting that Mormons are not allowed to abide in the Bible because they are Mormons or is that edited out in their minds also?

To address other misused parts of Asay's words, Carlos E Asay said,

4. Do not contend or debate over points of doctrine. The Master warned that “the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) We are inconsistent if we resort to Satanic tactics in attempting to achieve righteous ends. Such inconsistency results only in frustration, loss of the Spirit, and ultimate defeat. Remember, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege.” (Eleventh Article of Faith.)

5. Search the scriptures. Few of us would go astray or lose our way if we regarded the scriptures as our personal guide or compass. (See Alma 37:44.) The iron rod is the word of God, and if held to, we will not fall.

6. Do not be swayed or diverted from the mission of the Church. There are those who would draw you off course and cause you to waste time and energies. Satan used a diversion ploy when he tempted Christ in the wilderness. The Savior’s decisive response, “Get thee hence, Satan” (Matt. 4:10), is a proper example for all of us.⁵

Farkas and Reed are trying to mislead with their carefully edited quotes, making claims something was done, said or exists within the Mormon Church when it does not! What is most insulting from Farkas and Reed is that they treat Mormons and people in general, as naive, thinking that crafted excerpts with the intent to discredit or create a (false) impression, would not come across as malicious and unethical, let alone dishonest.

Quote editing by Farkas and Reed shows they are trying to impose a false wrong, which is a standard Anti-Mormon tactic. It does cause confusion and does mislead. In this case, this false fault is blaming the Mormon Church for acting contrary to Acts 17:1-2, 17; Acts 19:8-9, claiming that the Mormon Church is wrong for not accepting debates and counter challenges, but on the other hand, are Farkas and Reed saying that they are like those evil faith slayers as described by Carlos E. Asay and claiming that Mormons are wrong for closing the door against such evils?

Makes one wonder.

This is not all that Farkas and Reed have erred on. They have also misused the Biblical scriptures they quoted, Acts 17 & 19. In those scriptures, Paul the Apostle was performing missionary work for the Lord, preaching to others the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of salvation and those apostles belonged to the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Where is this preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ in Farkas and Reed's book, or even this chapter?

In addition, Paul the apostle was not seeking out cults and causing debates and contention with others, as Farkas and Reed are obviously doing in their book. The “contending” and debates that occurred in Acts 17 & 19, were counter arguments presented by the Jews in those synagogues against the “preaching of the gospel” by Paul and Silas.

This is the big difference between what Paul and Silas were doing in the Bible versus what Farkas and Reed are doing in their book. Farkas and Reed are not preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are not missionaries for God, they are two misled and confused men who have not resolved their personal issues against churches, thinking that contending against cults is Bible based. In truth, they have sorely abused and misused the Bible.

As to the openness of the Mormon Church, I will tell you that they are still open to sincere inquires, but certainly not to contentious attacks, debates and likewise. I agree with the position of the Mormon Church. I experienced contentious moots whose only purpose is to battle, create confusion, make verbal attacks, encourage endless debates and essentially waste a lot of time. It is what Satan does to distract, mislead, create confusion and draw good people away from good gospel works.

To help those see what I mean about the openness of the Mormon Church, here are some links to read about how they invite,

V. Dallas Merrell, “Will You? Implementing the Mission of the Church,” Ensign, Oct 2001, 50

M. Russell Ballard, “Creating a Gospel-Sharing Home,” Liahona, May 2006, 84–87

Dallin H. Oaks, “The Role of Members in Conversion,” Ensign, Mar 2003, 52–58

In addition to show their openness, the Mormon Church has currently (as to the date of this writing), arranged online access to their missionaries for people who wish to ask questions about the Mormon Church. To attend that web page to “Ask Missionaries Online”, here is the link: http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/ask-a-question/chat-live-7-00am-10-30pm-mt

So far, in this chapter, the basis which Farkas and Reed use for evaluating scripture comparisons is, by my comparison, very poor. If Farkas and Reed or others like them prefer to conduct themselves in such a deceitful and manipulative manner, I would quickly end any such discussions myself.

Footnotes

Pratt, Orson, The Seer, Vol 1, No.1, January 1853 - “Celestial Marriage: A Revelation on the Patriarchal Order of Matrimony or Plurity of Wives, Given to Joseph Smith, the Seer, in Nauvoo, July 12th, 1843.
B.H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.2, 294
Young, President Brigham, Journal of Discourses, 1874, Vol 16, pg 46
Asay, Elder Carlos E., "Opposition to the Work of God," Ensign, Nov 1981, 67
Ibid

Chapter 1 - Introduction to Mormonism (Part 3)

2009-07-06T14:41:00.000-07:00

Authoritative Publications - pg 28

The following are errors made by Farkas and Reed in this part of Chapter one. Quote from Farkas and Reed - Page 29

"...the Mormon scriptures, the standard works, while sometimes described as the only source of doctrine, in many cases do not clearly present many of the unique Mormon teachings; in fact, there are instances where they teach just the opposite. For example the Book of Mormon says nothing about the vicarious work for the dead carried on in Mormon temples."

Correction
The standard works for the Mormon Church are the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham and the Bible, it is not just the Book of Mormon, but how their statement reads, is as if they have separated the Book of Mormon from the rest of the standard works of the Mormon Church and tried to claim something does not exist within it, in particular the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead. The Doctrine of Baptism for the Dead is not a “Mormon Doctrine”, the Mormon Church did not create this doctrine. This doctrine was taught and practiced by the early Christian Church as found in the New Testament. To find this historic fact requires a person to research the history of Christian theology. I see that Farkas and Reed have not done this, because if they had, they would know they cannot charge the Mormons with false doctrine or claim that this doctrine does not exist in the “standard works”. In theological history, for example,

The author of The Sheperd of Hermas (A.D. 90-150) bore witness that the apostles were baptized on behalf of the dead, and then, after their own mortal deaths, they preached the gospel to those spirits for whom they had performed the proxy baptism.¹

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 160-200) knew the Shepard of Hermas taught the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead and accepted its correctness as Church doctrine.² With these examples from history, it is at least reasonable to believe that the early Christian Church did practice and preach the Doctrine of Baptism for the Dead.

In addition to any Biblical reference, to see the doctrine of "Baptism for the Dead" (D&C 124: 29 / D&C 127: 5/ D&C 128: 1/ D&C 138: 33), a person must know and understand the basic doctrines of Baptism ( 2 Ne. 9: 23-24 / 2 Ne. 31/ 2 Ne. 31: 17 /3 Ne. 11: 20-40 / Mosiah 18: 12-16 / Mosiah 21: 33/ Moro. 8: 10) as these are not inseparable. Baptism for the Dead comes from the doctrine of Baptism, for without the latter, the former cannot exist.

To understand God’s doctrine, a person must take into account the many scriptures throughout the many books of scripture (all standard works) in order to understand the doctrines revealed therein. For example, a person must read the Old Testament in how God had his people perform animal sacrifices in order to gain some understanding of the atonement. As well, the God "Jehovah" in the Old Testament was not explained as being Jesus Christ until the New Testament (see John 8:58 ).

To see these scriptural truths requires patience and faith, but the laziness of many Anti-Mormons, who make ridiculous claims against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, show to have no faith. As to other claims by Farkas and Reed that certain doctrines, taught by the Mormon Church, are not found in the Standard works, they simply have to work at it instead of spending their time chasing ghosts. Farkas and Reed need to properly search the scriptures. Searching the scriptures requires “spiritual discernment” (1 Cor 2:14) and the principle of “rightly dividing the word” ( 2 Tim 2:15).

The latter Biblical principle speaks of "setting forth the word without perversion or distortion", and the importance of remaining humble (James 1:5-7) to get the right answers and to see the doctrines. Farkas and Reed indicated that they could not see how Mormons have the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead when the Book of Mormon states that salvation is only in this life. To help Farkas and Reed find the necessary scriptures for the doctrines they claim do not exist and to assist them to overcome their perceived contradictions within the standard works, I will provide some scriptural references here.Baptism for the Dead vs Salvation attained in this life only

Alma 34:31-34 , DC 76:108-112 - Salvation in this life only
D&C 137:7-8 , D&C 138:10-22 - Those who died without the opportunity for salvation through the atonement
Salvation is in this life only, which includes baptism by immersion as requisite for salvation. Baptism can only occur on this mortal plane and without baptism, no salvation can occur. This gives rise to the need for baptism for the dead, for those who died in mortality, who had no opportunity to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the gospel of salvation. These people who, leaving their mortal tabernacle, are given the opportunity in spirit to accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, baptism by water is still required, but that baptism cannot occur in spirit, God then would have his faithful act as proxies for those who are in spirit, performing baptisms here on earth. The doctrine of proxy and its power was shown and proven by Jesus Christ in his atonement for all of us. This shows how the Doctrine of Salvation, Baptism and Proxy flow together to serve those in spirit, who had no opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ while in mortality.

This is not given to those who had the opportunity in mortality and rejected it. Also note, that a person in spirit still retains his free will to chose, therefore even though a person in mortality performs proxy baptism, the person in spirit can still refuse it. That person in spirit will lose the blessings afforded for accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the person who did the work of proxy baptism is blessed.

The basic premise is this, there are people who did not have the opportunity here on earth to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and partake of the doctrines therein for salvation. Can Farkas and Reed prove there are no people, on this earth since the early Christian Church who did not have that opportunity? In addition, I will make a statement that will surely annoy Farkas and Reed and many other Anti-Mormons or cult seeking worshippers.

The full gospel of Jesus Christ did not exist on this earth after the fall of the early Christian Church and before the advent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This void or absence, which was the apostasy or sometimes called the "Dark Ages", means that the doctrines of salvation practiced by the early Christian Church were lost or corrupted. With the lack of a full gospel and most of all, without the authority from God to administer and maintain his doctrines and Church, no person and no church on this earth was able to provide salvation to any person. Therefore, since the early Christian Church fell into apostasy, there are millions of Christians who have not had the "right opportunity" to accept the full gospel of Jesus Christ. Partial or part of the gospel is not enough and not sufficient to afford any person the "right opportunity".

This means the Lord's true Church, with the fullness of the gospel, has the task to provide Baptisms for the Dead, for those who had no opportunity to accept and exercise the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the importance of the Biblical scripture where Jesus preached to the spirits in prison ( D&C 138: 8, 28 / Isa. 61: 1 / 1 Pet. 3: 19 ).

Eternal Progression of Man
To understand this doctrine, a person must be able to see what God requires for man to become eternal. A basis tenant of all Christians is that we can enter into God's kingdom to be with him. To enter God's kingdom as person must become “eternal” like God. Therefore progression of man must take an “eternal” nature and direction and man requires the correct doctrine to do so.

Alma 12: 31 - speaks of the first step to eternal progression of man; reference is Adam and Eve, partaking of the tree of knowledge to know good and evil who became as the Gods. (Bibical cross-reference is: Gen 2:16-17). Man cannot progress unless he is able to know good and evil.
Alma 34:16 - proper faith unto repentance important to gain eternal progression (eternal plan of redemption).
3 Ne. 15: 9 - Jesus Christ is the law and the Light by which eternal life (also means eternal progression) is attainable.
D&C 88: 13 - The light is in all things that gives life and eternal life, which is also the law by which things are governed, even the power of God. (This knowledge and acceptance of it, is part of the "eternal increase" for man).
D&C 130:18-19 - refers to the increase of knowledge necessary as part of eternal progression
D&C 131: 6 - refers to the principles of salvation unto eternal progression, as one is not without the other. This speaks of the lack of salvation in ignorance. Eternal progression includes the ability to know and live the required eternal laws, because eternal progression exists in the Celestial Kingdom only.
D&C 131:2, 132:15-20 - refers to becoming as Gods through the Holy Priesthood and Eternal Marriage

God was once a man
This is where the Bible comes in, as it is part of the "Standard works". Joseph Smith stated that he can prove this by the Bible and I believe I know how he did. The Book of Mormon was not intended to replace the Bible, even though the Book of Mormon was toted as the most correct book.

If you remember that God made man in his image and God's will for us and plan works from eternal laws which God the Father abides, therefore the plan of salvation for us is directly from God's eternal laws and principles, the same principles and laws that makes God what he is.

John 8:57-58- Jesus was the God Jehovah in the Old Testament, confirming Jesus as being in Spirit and a God.
John 1:1-14 /Heb 1:2- Jehovah (Jesus Christ) made the earth, signifying he is a God.
John 1:14 / Matt 1:23 - Spirit of Jesus Christ came from heaven, born into mortal flesh, which is God descending into the flesh. He became a mortal man (birth of Christ) to become the Son of God (the Son because of the flesh - Mosiah 15:2-3).
Jesus grew and increased in knowledge and experience.
John 5:30 - Jesus Christ clearly said that he can do nothing but the will of the Father
Luke 24:39 / 1 Cor. 15: 4 - was crucified, died, rose (resurrected), returned to the father and gained an exalted body of flesh and bone to stand beside the Father in heaven.
John 5:19 / John 8:28 - Such is the example set by Jesus to show the "progression" required to become as a "god", that this progression was determined by the Father in heaven and cannot be done unless the Father himself also did the same.
Since the Father in heaven did the same thing himself, this made him as once a man, and became an exalted man.
Matt 5:48 - To become as perfect as our Father in heaven would be impossible unless the Father also did the same.

One problem that many other Christians have is the lack of belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, as a distinct and separate God from the Father. One source of their problem came from their doctrine of the Trinity.

Other Doctrinal Sources
There are other sources which the scriptures direct us to seek, sources that Farkas and Reed have not told you.

We are to listen to the Spirit teach us and also listen to the teachings of the prophets – 1 Cor 2:13 / Mosiah 2:17 / Mosiah 18:19 / Alma 18:34 / Alma 22:1, 4 / Alma 32:12 / Alma 37:35 / Alma 36:3 / D&C 90:15.

Mysteries of God Given, (but may be restricted as to what is revealed to any person)
Eph. 3: 3-4, 9 / 1 Ne. 10: 19 / Alma 12: 9-11/ Alma 26: 22 / Alma 40: 3 / D&C 6: 7, 11/ D&C 10: 64 / D&C 28: 7 / D&C 42: 61, 65 / D&C 43: 13 / D&C 64: 5 / D&C 76: 7, 114 One thing to note, when the early apostles were alive and running the early Christian Church, none of the scriptures we now call the "Bible" existed. The scriptures we take for granted as the Bible came from "lectures" and "writings" of the apostles and of course, the many teachings and parables from Jesus Christ. Is this not, therefore, the "Epistles" (writings and lectures) of our spiritual leaders also called the "word of God"?

Those same leaders that God assigned to lead us in his Church? Therefore, the same applies here, that even though there is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, there exists also the teachings of the prophets and apostles. As it was in the early Christian Church, so it is today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Also, please note, that the Christian Creeds did not come from the assigned leaders of God. They came from the leaders assigned by men. As much as there were some truths, many things they said were not true, but all of them had no authority from God to teach and preach his doctrines. This means that the doctrines toted by the Christian philosophers and theologians in the early centuries after Christ, did not make scripture.

Footnotes

Callister, Tad R., The Inevitable Apostasy and The Promised Restoration, Chapter 15, pg 237.
Ibid, pg 238.

Chapter 1 - Introduction to Mormonism (Part 2)

2009-07-05T18:03:00.000-07:00

Brief Summary of the Doctrine Taught by the Mormon Church - pg 21

In this part of the first chapter, Farkas and Reed tried to provide a short glossary of words or terms they say exist within the doctrines taught by the Mormon church. Some of the words or terms are correct, but some do not exist within the doctrines of the Mormon Church, some others are poorly explained and a few are quoted with false notions and beliefs from Farkas and Reed.

Let me begin with the corrections to their glossary on page 22.

Adam-God
This is a false notion or belief on the part of Farkas and Reed, Mormons are aware of this debate and issue and any new member of the Mormon Church will come to hear about it in time. This term was not created by the Mormon Church, but by those who debated the words of Brigham Young. Adam-God is not part of the doctrines of the Mormon Church, it is not taught by the Church and the Mormon Church instructs its membership to not teach it and cannot be counted as "Mormon doctrine". Until it is canonized and confirmed as revelation for the Church, it is merely theology.

As God promised the faithful, that his mysteries will be opened to them in accordance to their faith. This says that God does teach things to individuals for their individual salvation, to further a person's eternal life, but things that are not to be given widely to everyone (Matt 13:11, 2 Pet 1:2, D&C 76:7-10). The problem with many, as with Farkas and Reed, is that they disbelieve God would do such things, like speak to us individually.

The problem is that the words of Brigham Young were never clarified in the face of doctrinal issues on the matter and Brigham Young did not make the effort to clarify it, likely because it caused so much upset, so he set it aside himself. This kind of upset within the Church of Christ is not new. Such upsets with new concepts occurred in the New Testament, such as problems within the early Christian Church between Paul and church members over the issue of circumcisions (See Galatians 5 & 6). The issue was between the concept that circumcision of the heart, through faith in Christ is all that was needed versus the Doctrine of Circumcision taught by the Jews.

A good explanation on the position of the Mormon Church is as follows by BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson,

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly. ¹

To read an excellent article debunking the false claims regarding "Adam-God", please read here: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-jf_smith.htm

President Spencer Kimball addressed this issue of the Adam-God Theory,

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.²

It is also important to note,

It is certain that neither Brigham Young nor any of his successors ever considered the Adam-God theory to be an official or unofficial doctrine of the Church. It was never presented in priesthood councils, nor did Brigham Young declare that it was a direct revelation from God. There is also no evidence that general authorities of the Church ever supported actions taken against anyone who disbelieved the Adam-God theory.³

The fact that prophets and writers of scared scriptures differed in views about the nature of God and his works, such as found in the Bible (see chart http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm ).

A good statement that applies here was said by Stephan Gibson,

"The fact that Brigham Young believed that God did something which is difficult to harmonize with the beliefs of former or succeeding prophets presents a problem only for those whose expectations for prophets bear little relationship to the Biblical profile of a prophet."⁴

God (same substance)

The concept that God the Father and God Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all of the same substance is not specifically a Mormon concept. (Farkas and Reed also used the word "nature" to signify the "same nature") Again Farkas and Reed fail to clearly explain how they have arrived at the conclusion that God, angels, people and devils are all of the same nature or substance. A person who knows little or nothing of the doctrines held by Mormons will be lost and confused by statements made by Farkas and Reed. The part that is most inadequate is their non-referenced explanation of how devils are at different stages of progression to Godhood.

Mormon doctrine is quite clear about the Nature of God, angels, man and devils, along with who progresses and who doesn't. The "same substance or nature", I believe was taken from the doctrine that God created all of our spirits, including the spirit of Jesus Christ and Lucifer (later called Satan). Before Satan fell, he was within God's presence and glory as the "Son of the Morning".

Yet, this "same substance" concept is quite older than Mormons. The ancient Christian writer, Augustine wrote,

"The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made." Not simply "all things;" but only all things that were made, that is; the whole creature. From which it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom all things were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and all that is not creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then He is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by Him; but "all things were made by Him," therefore He is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so He is not only God, but also very God. And the same John most expressly affirms this in his epistle: "For we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."⁵

This concept was taken further by Irenaeus of Lyon, who stated that all things that came from the God the Father, are of the same substance,

If each of them was produced, after the manner of men, actually and according to its own generation, then either those thus generated by the Father will be of the same substance with Him, and similar to their Author; or if they appear dissimilar, then it must of necessity be acknowledged that they are [formed of some different substance. Now, if the beings generated by the Father be similar to their Author, then those who have been produced must remain for ever impossible, even as is He who produced them; but if, on the other hand, they are of a different substance, which is capable of passion, then whence came this dissimilar substance to find a place within the incorruptible Pleroma? Further, too, according to this principle, each one of them must be understood as being completely separated from every other, even as men are not mixed with nor united the one to the other, but each having a distinct shape of his own, and a definite sphere of action, while each one of them, too, is formed of a particular size—qualities characteristic of a body, and not of a spirit. Let them therefore no longer speak of the Pleroma as being spiritual, or of themselves as "spiritual," if indeed their Aeons sit feasting with the Father, just as if they were men, and He Himself is of such a configuration as those reveal Him to be who were produced by Him.⁶

The idea of "same substance" also existed in the Nicene Council and Creed,

It was to still the commotion which arose in the church through the violent discussions of these several theories, that the Emperor Constantine assembled the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325. In that council the theories of Arius were condemned, and the orthodox creed stated thus,—"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, (that is) of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; begotten not made; of the same substance of the Father, by whom all things were made, that are in the heaven, and that are in the Earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and was incarnate, and became man; suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the Heavens and will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say there was a time when He (the Son) was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made out of nothing or affirm that he was of any other substance or essence, or that the Son of God was created, and mutable or changeable, the Catholic Church doth pronounce accursed."⁷

The thought or idea that other spiritual beings are similar in nature of substance is also not new or unique and certainly NOT a "Mormon" invention,

It would seem that there is an irascible and a concupiscible appetite in the angels. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that in the demons there is "unreasonable fury and wild concupiscence." But demons are of the same nature as angels; for sin has not altered their nature. Therefore there is an irascible and a concupiscible appetite in the angels.⁸

So I would ask, why is it that Farkas and Reed claim that "Within Mormonism, Gods angels, people and devils all have the same nature or substance...", to say that Mormons have a unique doctrines to themselves, when this same concept existed with the early Christian Fathers, which is long before "Mormonism" started?

I believe Farkas and Reed are very poor scholars, even amateur scholars at that.

Hell

Farkas and Reed have misunderstood and poorly stated the Doctrine of Resurrection. They misunderstand what happens to "nonbelievers" and apostates, falsely claiming that they end up in hell when rejecting "Mormonism".

What they are referring to is D&C 88, where it said that those who cannot abide in the law of the Celestial Kingdom, must abide in the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom. The spiritual logic continues, that those who cannot abide in the laws within the Terrestrial will abide in the Telestial and the Telestial are those who are murders, liars, deceivers, whoremongers and all others who have rejected Jesus Christ. The place of Satan is reserved for the Sons of Perdition, those who went against the Holy Ghost and against the Son of God (see D&C 76). The logic fits.

In addition, what Mormon Doctrine teaches is that there are two uses for the word "Hell". One is the reference to "Spirit Prison" and the second to Hell where Satan resides. This dual usage is caused by the fault of translators of old texts into the original English version of the Bible. The word "hell" was used instead of the word "Hades",

In the Septuagint (the ancient translation of the Old Testament into Greek), the Greek term "ᾅδης" (Hades) is used to translate the Hebrew term "שׁאול" (Sheol) in, for example, Isaiah 38:18).^[1] This use refers the term hades to the abode of the dead in general, rather than the abode of the wicked. Thus too, in New Testament Greek, the Hebrew phrase "לא־תעזב נפשׁי לשׁאול" (you will not abandon my soul to Sheol) in Psalm 16:10 is quoted in Acts 2:27 as "οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδου" (you will not abandon my soul to Hades).⁹

This error in the Bible has mislead many other Christians to believing that there is only one "hell" in the scriptures and subsequently led many to adopt false or wrong beliefs about it, which caused them to completely disbelieve or ignore the place called "Hades". This temporary abode (Hades) is not the place with Satan, but a temporary spiritual place that has two parts, Spirit Prison and Paradise. These two places are best described in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (see Luke 16: 14-15, 19-31). Spirit Prison are for those who die in sin and Paradise is for those who die saved from sin, the unrighteous and righteous, respectively.

The resurrection, where it raises the dead is in two parts, the first to be with Christ (Rev 20: 5-6, Alma 40: 15-17) in the second coming and the second at the day of final judgment.

The statement made by Farkas and Reed regarding those who work against Mormonism are the ones who go to hell; is ridiculous. If that were true, then Farkas and Reed are doomed to reside with Satan in hell, but since they infer that it is not true, I will concur that it isn't true, what they believe. There is no such thing as being cast to hell with Satan for being against Mormons, as much as sometimes the wish for this to be true because of how Anti-Mormons behave.

There is no such thing as "Mormonism", it is a slang name attached to the Latter-day Saints by Farkas and Reed and others like them. The "Mormons" do not worship "Mormonism" nor do they worship the prophet Mormon, all of that is a fallacy. The doctrine within D&C 88 and 76, are supported by the Bible. Mormons worship God the Father and God Jesus Christ as in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is actually the gospel of the Father (John 5:30, John 8:28).

Ponder all of this for a few moments.

The standard doctrine of Christiandom states that those who do not believe in God and Jesus Christ go to hell with Satan. To them, there is nothing in-between the Kingdom of God (Celestial kingdom) and Hell (Satan). Therefore, those who are "unbelievers" go to hell to burn in the lake of fire. To this orthodox doctrine of Christiandom, the same that Farkas and Reed worships and defends, says that really good hearted people, who have done no wrong, but disbelieve in God or churches, go to hell, including their children. This doctrine that Farkas and Reed are protecting, by calling the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints as "Mormonism", is hypocritical on their part because the standard belief of Christians (other than Mormons) works against the doctrine of an all wise, intelligent, graceful, loving God, but Farkas and Reed do not want to reveal that.

An all wise and knowing God, who is full of love and mercy and wisdom, would prepare many "mansions" to accommodate the many levels of faith and works. Would that not be a fair application of God's justice and laws, which keeps many from entering hell with Satan, reserving Hell for the absolute worst?

Jesus Christ

Farkas and Reed wrongly state that Jesus and Satan were procreated, as would a child be in this world. The Mormon Church does not teach this, so why would Farkas and Reed claim the Mormons teach that our spirits are procreated? Could it be that Farkas and Reed do not understand Mormon Doctrines and inject their own ignorance into the matter?

Mormon doctrine states that the "spirit" (yours, ours, Jesus or Satan's) cannot be pro-created like humans are procreated. Our spirits were formed from spiritual matter, which is formed intelligence. Such matter always existed and cannot be destroyed or created. Spirit matter is far more fine and pure and cannot be seen with mortal eyes and carnal mind. The body of a spirit versus a body of a mortal are similar, in that both are in the same shape and form.

As to the brotherhood of Satan and Jesus, well that is shown in the Bible. In the Bible, Satan was first Lucifer, the "Son of the Morning", was with God as was Jesus. Lucifer was an angel that rebelled and was cast out, falling into eternal darkness to become Satan (see Isaiah 14:12, Revelation 8:10-11)

This clearly says that Lucifer was a spirit who was with the Father, as was Jesus Christ before Lucifer was cast out. The casting out into eternal darkness was the Father's judgment against him, making Lucifer into Satan as the result, which is the affect of God's judgment. Just as God the Father judged Adam and Eve for their transgression and the effect of the judgment made them "mortal".

Marriage

This is correct, except the marriage in the temple does not guarrentee entrance into the Celestial kingdom. Maintaining obedience and faith is still and major requirement. So a couple can loose their celestial marriage in the temple by disobedience and loose the sealing of their family to them.

Salvation

There is no such thing as "works of Mormonism". The works required are scripturally (includes Bibically) based and just because Farkas and Reed disbelieve in such ordinances and authorities revealed in the New Testament, does not make such works as false or something they want to name- "Mormonism". It is Christ based. The error here is labeling the works as "Mormonism".

Satan

He is correctly states that Satan cannot progress, but prior under the heading of "God" he states that devils progress. This is obviously a contradiction in their thinking and the result of contentious beliefs.

Spirits

There is no such thing as "non-material" The correct statement about the Doctrine is "spiritual material", which is finer and purer and cannot be seen with moral eyes. (see D&C 131:7). The fact that Farkas and Reed purposely stated the word "non-material" shows their inability to understand the beliefs and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. This caused a falsehood in their thinking when they impose how they want to believe Mormon doctrines. A claim that "Mormons" believe spiritual things are "non-material" is false. Mormons never believed spiritual things are "non-material". It clearly states it in,

D&C 131: 7
There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

Trinity

This word is not used in the doctrines held by the Mormon church. The leaders of the Mormon church related the doctrine of the Godhead and the nature of God to the Trinity in an attempt to create a common ground for understanding. The word "Trinity" does not exist in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, neither does it exist in the Bible.

Farkas and Reed claim Mormons misunderstand the Doctrine of the Trinity, when in fact it is they who misunderstand the "Christian" position on that same doctrine. The truth to the matter of the Trinity Doctrine is this.

Farkas and Reed believe the Trinity Doctrine states that three persons are in one God. In other mainstream Christian beliefs, the Trinity is "one God in three persons", which is distinctly different. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity).

When Farkas and Reed claim "Christians believe", who are they referring to? There are over 34,000 Christian denominations (see http://www.intervarsity.org/ism/article/1768). The beliefs in the Trinity vary between groups or sects (see http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm).

For Farkas and Reed to claim a single Trinity Doctrine within the domain of Christiandom is false. One would think that the originators of the Trinity Doctrine, the Early Catholic Church (Council of Nicea) would be the authority of what is the Trinity Doctrine. But as history has shown, this varied doctrine was never ratified and remains "altered" at the whims of any Christian group or sect.

If Farkas and Reed claim that these other Christian sects do not understand the Trinity Doctrine, then they are merely arguing against other Christians, because none have any authority in God's word, including them. Therefore, Farkas and Reed are the ones who sorely misunderstand, whereas the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have not misunderstood.

Virgin Birth

What Farkas and Reed stated in their book is pure ignorance on their part and relating that same ignornace in their book under the guise that Mormon's believe this, amounts to purposeful deceitfulness. They claim that Mormon doctrine about the Virgin birth states that God the Father literally had sexual relations, as mortals do, with the virgin Mary. Farkas and Reed, with all the other disbelievers, did twist the words of Mormon leaders. I say twist, because despite abundant information available that clarifies Mormon beliefs, they continue to perpetuate ignorance their own ignorance as Mormonism.

On the Internet, there is an excellant site that provides many explanations to misconceptions and attacks against Latter-day Saint doctrines. In reference to the Virgin birth, it is explained this way,

"If Jesus is truly the Son of God the Father, then what part did the Holy Ghost play in his miraculous conception? The Father used the power of the Holy Ghost as an agent, or enabler, so that a virgin could give birth to his Son. The specifics arebeyond our knowledge and possibly our comprehension."¹⁰

The famed book entitled, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie said this about the virgin birth,

Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.¹¹

The logic of this is in line with the reality of "miracles", as the ones performed by Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago. The principle is that these miracles were performed in line with "natural laws", yet mankind still cannot comprehend how those miracles were performed, such as healing the sick, rasing the dead, changing water into wine, etc.

Simply, Latter-day Saints believe in the Virgin birth, believing that Mary was a Virgin before and remained one after the birth of Jesus Christ. There was no mortal sexual intercourse with Mary, as that would negate her virgin state. Conception was performed through the power of the Holy Ghost by the Father in heaven. Mormon doctrine and beliefs are also clear that the Holy Ghost never fathered Jesus Christ. With the miraculous power of the Father in heaven to affect to cause anything, why is that so hard to accept?

The Biblical scripture is clear of how God the Father "overshadowed" Mary through the Holy Ghost,

Luke 1:35-37
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her bold age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible

The "Mormon" scripture says the same,

Alma 7: 10
And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at bJerusalem which is the cland of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

What is insulting to the intelligence of the general Mormon membership is the claim by Farkas and Reed that "many Mormons are unaware of this teaching" (see their book, "Mormonism, Changes, Contradictions and Errors", Notes, pg 233, Chapter 1, item 3).

Mormons are far more aware than what Farkas and Reed want to believe and accept. It is they who are unaware of the severe fault in their views and beliefs about Mormon doctrines and beliefs and it is they how perpetuate their own ignorance by blaming it as "Mormonism".

Footnotes:

Robinson, Stephen E., Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993, 18–21 ) - "Adam-God"; http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God
Kimball, Spencer, Church News,Oct. 9, 1976
Gibson, Stephen R., One-Minute Answers, "Is God Adam?" ( http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm )
Ibid
Augustine, ON THE TRINITY, Chapter 6, "That the Son Is Very God, of the Same Substance with the Father..." ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/102496?highlight=1 )
Irenaeus of Lyon, AGAINST HERESIES, Chapter 17, ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/93018?highlight=2 )
Dyer, Alvin R., MEANING OF TRUTH, Chapter 12, The Quandary About God ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/34244?highlight=2 )
Aquinas, Thomas., SUMMA THEOLOGICA, PART 1, "The Will of the Angels" ( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/104282?highlight=1 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades_in_Christianity
Walsh, W. John., "Was Mary a Virgin" ( http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/virgin_mary.htm )
McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, "Virgin Birth", pg. 822

Chapter 1 - Introduction to Mormonism (Part 1)

2009-06-30T21:52:00.000-07:00

A Brief History of Mormonism - pg 17

The first chapter of the book, titled, "Introduction to Mormonism", is not an introduction to Mormonism; it is an introduction to "criticism of Mormonism".

It began with a chronological historical account of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. The authors, Farkas and Reed were quick to use the word "allegedly" when relating some historical accounts of spiritual visions or visitations, but when it came to legal events that happened to Joseph Smith, the word "allege" was missing.

I found this as most irresponsible, especially when these authors made comments on historical events that bore a serious lack of references or completely ignored important references. Historical entries have sources and these authors failed to reveal the source which they used to make their historical entries. Without the required references, people would not be able to judge for themselves the events that Joseph Smith endured which seems to force them to accept the personal opinions of Farkas and Reed.

In order to determine for myself the truth of these events, I had to do a lot of work tracking down these articles and information on these historic events, to determine what did occur and what the accurate facts were and provide the real truth here.

I could simply make comments of how poorly Farkas and Reed researched Mormon history, from how it appears from their writing, but since these authors failed to provide accurate information and many readers would not know where to look for the true accounting, I thought I would provide a summary of it here, with references. This is why this review of chapter one appears in several parts.

My review will follow the order set out in this chapter. I will post here the needed corrections and additions to their chronological order of historic events, with some comments of my own.

1826

Court records of Chenango County, State of New York, People v. Joseph Smith The Glass Looker, March 20, 1826."

The word "alleged" needs to be added here. Farkas and Reed claim the existence of court records for this legal event, but in truth there is no clear record of such a case. The records I refer to are of the trial, testimonies, charges and judges or justice's decision. There are no such records. What exists are claims made by certain men, in the 1800's, that are unsubstantiated. One has to remember that Joseph Smith was under heavy persecution since his First Vision in 1820 and this court case on Chenango County "allegedly" occurred in 1826.

Apparently, a claim was made by Reverend Wesley P. Walters of the United Presbyterian church in Marissa, Illinois, said he found records in the basement of the sheriff's office in Norwich, New York that prove Joseph Smith was under trial. This still remains unsubstantiated as to their authenticity because the original records were not available for review and confirmation.¹

Since no court records exist, with only unsubstantiated claims, there is no confirmation about this event. What does exist are historical statements that seem to indicate that this 1826 trial did occur and the result was that Joseph Smith was discharged or found not guilty.²

As to the accusation of "money digging", that shows to be an accusation born of discontented people who did not like Joseph Smith. Research has gone into this matter and it was addressed rightly. The accusation of "money digging", in this case of Chenango County, is false.

The alleged court record does not state Stowell had him arrested; it does not state Joseph Smith showed his stone. Such are the misquotations of prejudiced writers.³

A person can view the reason Joseph Smith gave for this affair at Chenango County and his "alleged" money digging. Go to: http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1 (verse 56).

1827

Joseph Smith is led to a buried set of gold plates by the angel Moroni. The plates are written in reformed Egyptian. Critics have tried to claim there was no such written language. In fact the truth of the matter is that reformed Egyptian is considered as existing. You can view an article on this at: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Reformed_Egyptian.htm

1834

The Mormon Church changed its name to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". You can read the official reason for this change at LDS.org: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5b15d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

1835

Book of Commandments is updated and changes made. For an article on these changes, you can attend this page: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/scripture/doctrine_covenants.html

1838- Kirtland - Far West History

The account listed as "1838 - JS leaves Kirtland and goes to Far West Missouri, fleeing the wrath of the law and disgruntled members" is a false account of the events that occurred, especially the reasons for Joseph Smith moving to Far West.

The term "disgruntled members" poorly describes what occurred within the church at Kirtland. What did occur were some members disagreed with decisions made by church leaders and from their disagreements; they became a disorderly group⁴. Such is not a good spiritual state, no matter the disagreement, as it breeds contention and as the Bible teaches, contention is from Satan.

Disagreements between members and the leadership say nothing about the character of Joseph Smith or the truth of the Mormon Church, but it does show the inability of people who believe that religious and spiritual matters should be led by personal opinion. This is the same serious fault that fell the early Christian Church and rose many false Christian churches there after.

In addition, some Kirtland non-Mormons were against the leaders of the Mormon Church. They were resentful at the increase of poor Mormon residents among other personal reasons. This apparently led to "political rivalries accompanied by threats and some mob violence."⁵

The legal inference made by the authors, Farkas and Reed, claiming that Joseph Smith fled the wrath of the law, was a very careless entry. What these authors are likely referring to, which they have failed to specify, was the matter of the Kirtland Safety Society (a lending institution). It was an attempt made by Mormon Church leaders to develop mercantile and banking interests in Kirtland. This institution suffered a rack of problems and losses, which led to lawsuits against individual church leaders who sponsored it.⁶ Any financial obligations that Joseph Smith had, (i.e. debts), ensured that his obligations were settled.⁷

The truth about the Joseph Smith’s move from Kirtland to Far West was not about any lawsuits or debts or disgruntled members. It was about violence against the Mormons. Non-Mormons pressured for the removal of the Mormons which occurred at the same time of internal dissension in the church. In January 1838, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and other church leaders left Kirtland because of threats to their lives by non-Mormons and most of the membership followed.⁸ History shows that the Mormons were threatened and attacked by mobs in many different locations. The Mormons were plagued by violence against them, which shows the onslaught of Satan's work against the church and against God. Therefore, physical safety was the reason, else, I believe, that Joseph Smith would have likely kept his station in Kirtland, especially since many Mormons were elected to local government offices during their time there and the Kirkland temple existed there.⁹

Therefore, Joseph Smith did not flee the "wrath of the law"; it was the wrath of evil mobs. Today, such actions by mob like people would meet retributive force by local authorities because such violent mob action, today, is considered immoral and illegal. Interesting how Farkas and Reed never made an account for that, instead Farkas and Reed relate to Mormon history with Anti-Mormon rhetoric.

1838 - Hauns Hill Massacre.

If there is an example of the cruelty, evil and downright barbarism of unchristian-like Anti-Mormons, this is one of them. The account of this massacre shows how evil, pride, selfishness and self-centeredness can lead people into some of the vilest acts. This is an example of the threats and injustice that Mormons suffered. To many hypocritical Anti-Mormons, they considered this violence as justified but if they suffered it, how quickly they would scream injustice. These are good examples of what hatred, religious intolerance and personal bias causes. It is a form of pure evil. To read more about this, here are two links

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/hauns_eom.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre

1838 to 1839

This account of conflict between Mormons and non-Mormons was poorly explained by Farkas and Reed. To correct their entry here is an excerpt that provides a better idea of what occurred.

During this time (1836-38), the citizens of Clay County undertook action to relocate the Mormons in some unsettled parts of Missouri. By 1836 the Latter-day Saints had moved to an area known as Caldwell County, and within two years over 4,900 Saints had settled there. However, they knew little rest, for during the summer and fall of 1838 mobs once more came against them.

The Missourians felt threatened by the continual influx of Mormons and saw, in the presence of their new neighbors, a threat to their society. LDS religious customs, which united Church members socially, economically, and politically, irritated the Missourians. These differences made the mobbers more vindictive, and the violence escalated into the so-called "Mormon War," which culminated in the expulsion of the Saints from the state.¹⁰

(Other links you can view are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre , or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Mormon_War )

1842 to 1844

Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders were accused of practicing polygamy while publicly denying it.

The fact of the matter is that the revelation on the principles of plural marriage was received before 1844, but was not practiced by the general membership of the Mormon Church. The accusation that Mormon leaders were lying, I believe, is false. Many problems occurred in the Mormon Church and Joseph Smith knew of the difficulties the principle of plural marriage presented. This excerpt will explain what I mean,

Because of the cultural difficulties, plurality was taught in a confidential way. Joseph knew that its introduction in Nauvoo would invite severe criticism of the Church and possibly jeopardize the safety of the leaders and the community of Nauvoo believers itself.

Based on rumors, several individuals envisioned and sometimes practiced alternative non-monogamous marriages quite different from that revealed by Joseph. Of these, John C. Bennett, mayor of Nauvoo, chose to distort the teaching for his own advantage.

Capitalizing on rumors and the lack of understanding among the Saints, Bennett presented a counter doctrine he called "spiritual wifery". Along with several close confidants, he sought to have illicit sexual relationships with women by telling them that they were married "spiritually," even if they had never been married legally. Bennett and his followers claimed authority from Church leaders, including Joseph Smith.

This scandal not only resulted in the excommunication of Bennett and others involved but also made the introduction of the plural marriage revelation much harder. Several Saints became disillusioned as a result, and Bennett began touring the country "exposing the evils of Nauvoo".¹¹

The point of the accusations against the leaders of the Mormon Church was that they had an illegal practice, where in truth, it was not illegal for two reasons. Polygamy was not illegal in the USA until 1862¹². This made the actions of Mormon leaders legal. Secondly, morally speaking, plural marriage was approved of God, the very being who confirms what is moral and what is not. This fact exists in the Bible (some examples - Gen. 16: 1-11; Gen. 25: 1; Gen. 29: 28; Gen. 30: 4, 9, 26).

Since God approved of it and God operates on eternal principles, the act of plural marriage is also an eternal principle. Therefore, morally and legally, Joseph Smith and others were not wrong when they denied the practice of something illegal or immoral. The revelation(s) from God that Joseph Smith received pertaining to plural marriage occurred prior to 1862. The part that many reject is that Joseph Smith received it from God. Who said the "world" has the right to judge such a thing? After all, it was the "world" that judged Jesus Christ as false and crucified him. The difficulty with God’s doctrines is not new to his Church because his early Christian Church suffered the same thing. Paul’s epistles are a testament to that. Joseph Smith was no exception to this suffering,

Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.

He knew the voice of God-he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward-to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and pre-possessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world; but God had given the commandment [The Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 69-70 (Salt Lake City, 1884)]

Even so, Snow and other confidants agreed that Joseph Smith proceeded in Nauvoo only after an angel declared that he must or his calling would be given to another (Bachman, pp. 74-75). After this, Joseph Smith told Brigham Young that he was determined to press ahead though it would cost him his life, for "it is the work of God, and He has revealed this principle, and it is not my business to control or dictate it" (Brigham Young Discourse, Oct. 8, 1866, Church Archives)¹³

Orson Pratt also spoke against and for plural marriage, but within a specific context,

The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows — "Except I the Lord command my people." The same Book of Mormon and the same article that commanded the Nephites that they should not marry more than one wife, made an exception. Let this be understood-"Unless I the Lord shall command them." We can draw the conclusion from this, that there were some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to do them.¹⁴

1844

June 7, William Law, Joseph Smith’s second counselor, publishes the Nauvoo Expositor, which revealed the practice of polygamy in Nauvoo and the teaching by Joseph Smith there was a plurality of Gods (I replaced the word "exposes" with "revealed").

There is more to this historic event that Farkas and Reed failed to reveal.

William Law was Joseph Smiths first counselor who received the "ancient order of the priesthood" (4 May 1842)"¹⁵. When Joseph Smith revealed the practice of plural marriage, William Law was shocked, especially since he defended Joseph a year before against such claims. Yet, William Law's own diary clearly indicated that he seriously considered entering into the practice of plural marriage¹⁶.

When Joseph Smith refused to eternally seal William Law with his wife, a rupture occurred between Law and Smith, which eventually led William Law to act against Joseph Smith and the Church. This says that if Law was eternally sealed to his own wife, then he would likely have supported Joseph Smith and the doctrine of plural wives.

Attempts were made by William Law and those close to him to get Joseph Smith to renounce the doctrine of plural wives, but Joseph Smith stood fast. It was the rebellious actions of William Law against Joseph Smith and the Church that earned Law his excommunication from the Church. It was Law's injured feelings and subsequent contention (which was evil in itself) that led him to make the publications in the "Nauvoo Expositor".

William Laws articles in the Expositor were his attempt to save the Church from damnation, as if to make himself as a self-appointed Saviour. With that attitude, Law was deeply disappointed when his expectation of saving the Church was damned by the Mormon general membership;

But William Law badly misjudged the mentality of the Mormon people. He had not recognized their corporate solidarity or the tremendous love and support extended to Joseph Smith as the Lord's mouthpiece. Much to his dismay, his open attack on the Church leader further alienated him and labeled him as a bitter enemy of the Restoration.¹⁷

There was no "exposing". The articles in the Expositor were from Laws disaffection with the Mormon Church and his disbelief that Joseph Smith received the doctrines of Plural Marriage from God. That was his personal stand on the matter and had nothing to do with any truth as to whether Joseph truly spoke with God.

William Law is not proof against Joseph Smith or against the doctrine of plural marriage. The historic account reveals that Law's negative acts against plural marriage and Joseph Smith was an attack motivated by personal feelings against Joseph Smith because Smith denied Law a spiritual sealing to his wife.

1844

June 10th, Joseph Smith, as the mayor of Nauvoo, along with the city council, ordered the destruction of the press office and papers of The Nauvoo Expositor. On June 25th, Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith were arrested for their part of the destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor press and the calling out of the Nauvoo Legion.

The following is the missing (and important) information.

On the 16th day of June, Judge Jesse B. Thomas came to Nauvoo and advised the mayor and the other men named in Morrison's warrant to go before some justice of the peace in the county and be examined upon the charge named therein. Judge Thomas said that if they would do this and should be acquitted or bound over, all excitement would be allayed, the mob would be left without a pretext, and he himself would be bound to compel the mobocrats to keep the peace. Joseph and his brethren expressed their readiness to submit to any fair investigation. The next day, upon the complaint of W. G. Ware, they were arrested by Constable Joel S. Miles, on a writ issued by Daniel H. Wells for a riot in destroying the Nauvoo Expositor press. They all submitted to this process, and went before Justice Wells, who, at this time, it must be remembered, was not a member of the Church. After a long and close examination, it appeared to the court that they had not proceeded illegally, and they were discharged.¹⁸

There was a second trial for the same event,

What could we do, under the circumstances, different from what we did do? We sued for, and obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the municipal court, by which we were delivered from the hands of Constable Bettesworth, and brought before and acquitted by the municipal court. After our acquittal, in a conversation with Judge Thomas, although he considered the acts of the party illegal, he advised that, to satisfy the people, we had better go before another magistrate who was not in our Church. In accordance with his advice, we went before Esquire Wells, with whom you are well acquainted; both parties were present, witnesses were called on both sides, the case was fully investigated, and we were again dismissed."¹⁹

This is where the truth will hurt Farkas and Reed. They conveniently left out parts out because, I believe, would shine a true light on the affairs concerning Joseph Smith during this 1844 year, the year of his martyr death and this would upset the work of Farkas and Reed to discredit Mormons.

After the dismissal of charges against Mayor Joseph Smith, Governor Ford asked Joseph Smith to attend Carthage for another judicial review of the Nauvoo Expositor affair, claiming that the people needed to be satisfied. Joseph Smith reminded Governor Ford of the two court trials that were held on the matter, both finding him not guilty. Governor Ford ignored this fact and persisted with his request to attend Carthage. Joseph Smith knew that this was an improper request and believed that ill plans were afoot, yet Joseph went to Carthage, where upon he was arrested on false charges and incarcerated in the local jail.

It was here that the mob, who premeditated the murder of Joseph Smith, rushed the jail house, broke into the room shooting and killing Joseph and Hyrum Smith ²⁰

My Comment:
Farkas and Reed falsely accused with the word "illegal", regarding the actions by Mayor Joseph Smith against The Nauvoo Expositor. Smith was found "not guilty", twice, and charges dismissed! Therefore, there was no illegal act committed by Joseph Smith.

The next part of this entry in their book, pertaining to the incarceration of Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Willard Richards in Carthage Jail leading to the death of Smith by a mob, was incorrectly placed. They left out important information between the charge of destroying the Nauvoo Press and the incarceration at Carthage Jail.

When reading the account of why Joseph was in Carthage, I could not ignore the fact that Governor Ford was a silent against a plan of murder. The mob did not act in secret, they went about town acting boastful and rowdy and their intentions were known, yet Governor Ford did nothing to stop it or protect Joseph Smith. Basically, Joseph Smith was setup to die. This is a prime example of conspiracy to commit murder, a very evil act and Farkas and Reed ignored this. This tells me that Farkas and Reed approve of immoral and unethical acts when it is convenient for them. Was it not "illegal" enough for them that men, even a government official were involved in a conspiracy to commit murder?

Joseph was legally cleared of all wrong doing, but that was not acceptable by the world.

1882 to 1885

This is the time where the Edmunds Act came into being. These events are necessary to relate to readers the history of the people of the United States. Showing the inconsistency of the laws that were enacted and enforced against the Mormon Church, such that if this was to occur today, would raise cries nation wide of injustice.

Daniel Ludlow said it this way,

Public pressure led Congress to pass the Edmunds Act in 1882, which mandated up to five years' imprisonment and $500 fines for polygamy and up to six months and $300 fines for unlawful cohabitation (see Antipolygamy Legislation). Persons practicing polygamy or unlawful cohabitation lost their civil rights to serve on juries, hold public office, and vote. The law created a board of five commissioners to handle voter registration and elections. It declared children born of polygamists before January 1, 1883, legitimate, and it gave the president power to grant amnesties at his discretion.

The Utah Commission began its work in 1882 by declaring that anyone who had ever practiced plural marriage, even before the 1862 anti-bigamy law, could not vote. Since the commission required voters to take a "test oath," swearing that they were not in violation of the law, within one year the law disfranchised more than 12,000 Latter-day Saints. In 1885, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this test oath was unconstitutional.²¹

The Mormon Church suffered a serious loss due to the Edmunds Act. The government seized about $800,000 of property and assets. In relation to the seizures, the US Supreme Court, in 1890, voted the seizures as constitutional.

Federal receivers confiscated about $800,000 worth of property not turned over to private parties or associations, then rented back certain properties to the Church, such as the Temple Block in Salt Lake City. Church leaders tested the constitutionality of the confiscations, but in 1890 the Supreme Court upheld the new law by a 5-4 vote. The economic destruction of the Church seemed certain.²²

The Edmunds Tucker Act did more damage to society as a whole as it focused on Mormons. It supported (strengthened) schools that would exclude religion from their curriculum, but this did not deter the Mormon Church.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act strengthened public schools, which excluded religious education. In response, the Church began holding after-school religion classes in meetinghouses and established academies or high schools in larger settlements. Between 1888 and 1891 thirty-one LDS academies were opened in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Canada, and Mexico.²³

Of course, the Idaho test was finally voted as constitutional by the US Supreme Court,²⁴ but in light of what the oath required, made it, by today’s standards, as unconstitutional. The Idaho Test oath was against the freedom of religion, as it required members to state under oath that they did not believe in or belong to a church that believed in plural marriage.

1921

The part of the Doctrine of Covenants (D&C) called "Lectures on Faith" was removed. The removal did not require a vote from the membership because it was never voted as scripture or canon in the first place. Lectures on Faith were included in the D&C from 1835 to 1921, but removed in 1921 because of inconsistencies between the lectures on certain doctrines and revealed revelations. The Church states that the Lectures on Faith were never voted as scripture or canon, but only included as theological articles.

Until 1921 the "Lectures on Faith" were printed in almost all the English-language editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, and in many, but not all, non-English editions. An introductory statement in the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants explains that the lectures were deleted because "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" (see Doctrine and Covenants Editions). The decision may also have been influenced by what many readers have perceived as conflicts between statements about the Godhead in the fifth lecture and certain later revelations (D&C 130; Dahl and Tate, pp. 16-19). Others have found these conflicts to be more apparent than real and have attempted reconciliations (R. Millet, in Dahl and Tate, pp. 221-40).²⁵

This was not an attempt to sidestep any issue about the removal of the Lectures on Faith. Joseph Smith himself stated that these Lectures on Faith were theological works and such works are not required to be with the D&C.

Joseph Smith referred to the Lectures on Faith as "lectures on theology" (History of the Church 2:176; hereafter HC).²⁶

My Comment:
The claim by Farkas and Reed that the Mormon Church quietly removed the Lectures on Faith is an attempt to discredit the leaders of the Mormon Church, as if Mormon leaders work in secret against the membership of the church. The fact that Farkas and Reed dislike or mistrust the reason for the removal is inconsequential, especially when relating historic events.

1967

The account of the "papyri" and the Book of Abraham. The papyri held by Joseph Smith was lost when it was sold by his widow,

In 1856 the papyri were sold by Joseph's widow to Abel Combs. With the exception of a few fragments returned to the Church in 1967, the present location of the papyri is unknown.²⁷

What is important when researching the history of Joseph Smith is to ensure that the facts are rightly stated, without a personal bias. Fact in point is the following historic information.

In the historical documents currently possessed by the Church, Joseph Smith never described fully the actual process he used in translating ancient documents. In reference to the Book of Mormon, he said that it was "not expedient" for him to relate all the particulars of its coming forth (HC 1:220; see Book of Mormon: Translation by Joseph Smith). He did, in several instances, refer to the book of Abraham as a translation (HC 4:543, 548); and when the installments of the book of Abraham were published in the Millennial Star, it was described as being "translated by Joseph Smith" (July 1842, p. 34). Both Wilford Woodruff (in his journal) and Parley P. Pratt (in the July 1842 Millennial Star) maintained that the translation was done by means of the Urim and Thummim, although Joseph Smith himself does not mention using this instrument anywhere in the translation.

One must consider, however, what Joseph Smith meant by translation. Section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants offers one standard measure. Here, the Prophet, using the Urim and Thummim, translated a "record made on parchment by John the Revelator." Although it is not known whether Joseph Smith actually had this document, he provided a translation of it. Since it is not known just how Joseph Smith translated, it is reasonable to postulate that, when studying the Egyptian papyri purchased from Michael Chandler, Joseph Smith sought revelation from the Lord concerning them and received in that process the book of Abraham. He might then have searched through the papyri in his possession to find illustrations similar to those he had learned by revelation. This forms one possible explanation of how drawings done about the first century A.D. were used to illustrate the book of Abraham.²⁸

Apparently, this is a common error by critics of the Mormon Church, where they continue to believe that the translation of the Book of Abraham was from the papyri identified as an Egyptian funeral text called, "Book of Breathings". Good articles were written about this common Anti-Mormon error. Two links are list below:

"Was the Book of Abraham Disproved?" - By Stephan R. Gibson – ( http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/disproved.htm )

"Neglected Evidence on the Book of Abraham" - by Hugh Nibley, Improvement Era, January 1969 (http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham2.htm )

My Comment:
Farkas and Reed are quite bias and rely on faulty and false information for their claims. The articles written to refute Anti-Mormon works regarding the papyri would cause a reasonable man to reject the claims by Mormon detractors that the Book of Abraham was not translated by Joseph Smith, because the few fragments that were recovered referred to something completely unrelated. This would be opportunist criticism on their part, having no creditably in any other way.

(Part 2 - forthcoming)

Footnotes

Hill, Marvin S., BYU Studies Vol 12, Winter '72, p. 223-234
(http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/89889 )
Ibid
Kirkham, Francis W., Ph.D, IMPROVEMENT ERA, 1947, "Joseph Smith in Chenango County, New York, and Its Alleged Court Record"
(http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/72297 )
Lightplanet - "Church History c. 1831-1844, Ohio, Missouri, And Nauvoo Periods", (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/eom.htm)
Ibid
Lightplanet - "Legal and Judicial History",
(http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/legal_judicial_eom.htm)
Wimmer, Larry T., "Kirtland Economy", Encyclopedia of Mormonism, BYU Studies (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Kirtland_Economy )
Lightplanet - "Church History c. 1831-1844, Ohio, Missouri, And Nauvoo Periods",
(http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/eom.htm )
Ibid
Various Authors, "REGIONAL STUDIES IN LDS HISTORY: MISSOURI": A Profile of Mormon Missouri, 1834-1839 by Johnson, Clark V. (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/29420 )
Holzapfel, Richard Neitzel, Holzapfel , Jeni Broberg, WOMEN OF NAUVOO, Chapter 6 New Revelations—A Time of Testing (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/31912 )
Wiki Answers.com - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_polygamy_become_illegal_in_the_US
Ludlow, Daniel H., ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM 4 VOLS., "Plural Marriage"
( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/107318 )
Elder Pratt, Orson Sen., delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, July 24, 1859, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, VOL. 6
Cook, Lyndon W., BYU STUDIES, VOL. 22 (1982), " William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter"
( http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/90311 )
Ibid
Ibid
Cannon, George Q., LIFE OF JOSEPH SMITH THE PROPHET, "Acquittal" Chapter 61 (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/14009 )
Roberts, B. H., RISE AND FALL OF NAUVOO, "APPENDIX IV. AN ACCOUNT OF THE MARTYRDOM OF JOSEPH SMITH, BY PRESIDENT JOHN TAYLOR" (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/17794 )
Ibid
Ludlow, Daniel H., ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM 4 VOLS, "History of the Church" (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/106999 )
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ludlow, Daniel H. Ludlow., ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM 4 VOLS, "Lectures on Faith" (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/107116 )
Tate, Charles D., Dahl, Larry E., LECTURES ON FAITH IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, "Authorship and History of the Lectures on Faith"
(http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/27851 )
Ludlow, Daniel H., ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MORMONISM 4 VOLS, "Book of Abraham" (http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/106674 )
Ibid