Ecclesiastes

I would like to view the concept of works based salvation in view of Ecclesiastes. Let me first define works based salvation: It is thinking that you by your own merit might be able to gain favor with God so that He might have favor on you, the emphasis resting on you. However, such a saving merit is not the merit of one's works because a faith that would save you is founded and formed first by the grace and merit of God, emphasis on God. We must remember to make much of God and little of ourselves (John 3:30). This seems to be the problem with LDS Soteriology: "We do our best and Christ does the rest." This couplet puts man first and Jesus second with the idea that your works are prior to the works of God.

What I would like to take from Ecclesiastes is the idea that open and closes the book, "Vanity of Vanities, all is vanity." This statement is made by a man who looks back on his life and sees that all the great things he has done have meant nothing, "striving after the wind." Compare this with Matthew 7:21-23 which talks about people who will stand before God telling Him they've done many works in His name, but God will say I never knew you. What is important then is not the works of man, but the will of the Father. Bringing this back to Ecclesiastes we see the writer clearly understood this: The great things that men do of their own amount to nothing, but the works of God endure (3:14). What matters then if not works? It is the will of the Father or, to say it differently, submission to His divine authority. To answer the question of James which some take to mean a stressing of works. What you must remember when reading James is what comes first, Faith. These works don't produce salvation, faith produces salvation and such a faith produces works. So what is foundational is God the author of your faith and faith then produces salvation and works, not salvation by works. Finally, remember what the psalmist said, "[God] only is my rock and my salvation" and that it is He who saves you by His wondrous love and insurmountable grace.

The Great Apostasy

"Periods of general apostasy have occurred throughout the history of the world. After times of righteousness, people have often turned to wickedness. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread wickedness, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but the did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fullness of the gospel." (True to the Faith "Apostasy" page 13)

In short: When the apostles died the authority that Jesus had given them was lost over all the earth until it was given again to Joseph Smith. What this means is that all the churches that have existed since then and until the day it was "restored" were, as according to Smith, an abomination. So what are we to say to this Great Apostasy?

The death of the last apostle would have happened in the end of the first century, around 90 AD. This would mean that the Great Apostasy happened after that date. This is important because in 70 AD the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed marking the beginning of the Diaspora. Jewish Christians would have been dispersed throughout the known world of that time: We have manuscripts of Christian books in the Syriac, Coptic and Latin languages. What this proves is there could have been no changes made to the original works because for such a change to occur all of the different manuscripts in different languages would need to have been changed in the same way at the same time. As for the Old Testament a discovery made in the 40s will cover that. The dead sea scrolls further disprove the apostasy of the Bible because all of the scrolls date before 100 BC and all the books of the OT are found with the exception of Esther.

With the knowledge the the Bible is Truthful and as it was when it was first written we can look at what is being used by LDS to say that the Apostasy happened. Lds.org gives several scriptures from the Bible to support the apostasy hypothesis, Isaiah 24:5; Amos 8:11–12; Matthew 24:4–14; Acts 20:28–30; 2 Timothy 3:1–5, 14–15; 4:3–4. The two Old Testament pericopes speak of an apostasy. However this apostasy is that of the people of Israel turning away from their God toward the gods of their own hands. Also, the restoration that the prophets speak of is the restoration of the coming Messiah . The New Testament verses are primarily warnings against false prophets and false teachings that will arise. Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." The Bible does not speak of a Great Apostasy like the one described by Joseph Smith. All the prophets speak about the sinfulness of Israel, how God will punish them, and about a restoration or promise of a messiah. It seems silly to think something like this would happen again when we have our Messiah. Also, what need is there for a defense of the gospel, spoken of by Paul, when God was simply going to give us up to the world again?

Please remember that God is still alive and so is His word. Keep fighting the good fight my friends.

The Sufficiency of Christ

Colossians 1:15-20

I thought I would say a few things about the sufficiency of Christ so I did a Google search and came up with a quote by C.H. Spurgeon and I think he says it much better...

Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee–it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee–it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument–it is Christ’s blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down…There is one thing which we all of us too much becloud in our preaching, though I believe we do it very unintentionally–namely, the great truth that it is not prayer, it is not faith, it is not our doings, it is not our feelings upon which we must rest, but upon Christ, and on Christ alone. We are apt to think that we are not in a right state, that we do not feel enough, instead of remembering that our business is not with self, but Christ. Let me beseech thee, look only to Christ; never expect delieverance from self, from ministers, or from any means of any kind apart from Christ; keep thine eye simply on Him; let his death, His agonies, His groans, His sufferings, His merits, His glories, His intercession, be fresh upon thy mind; when thou wakest in the morning look for Him; when thou liest down at night look for Him. (The Forgotten Spurgeon, Iain Murray, 42.)

If you say that your faith has saved you and that alone what has happened to the object of your faith? Great is His faithfulness not your's. Remember to make much of Christ and little of yourself (John 3:30).

The Bible vs The Book of Mormon

I would you encourage you to watch the movie put out by Living Hope Ministries called The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon. It is on youtube so here you go...



Also visit lhvm.org, the Living Hope Ministries website. After you have watched the above video watch this one put out by FAIR, fairlds.org. The video put out by FAIR shows how the LDS church lies and oppresses its people. They do this by saying the video has no evidence for its claims and by belittling it. How would this oppress the LDS people? They are taught never to doubt the faith and by lying about something that has a lot of support for it by saying it has none confuses the people into only being able to believe what their leaders tell them to believe.

Book of Mormon vs. Mormonism

Book of Mormon vs Mormonism

The Book of Mormon is the holiest book of scriptures of the Church of Christ and Latter Day Saints (LDS), considered by them to be even higher than the Bible. Articles of Faith 8 says, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”1 This would makes it seem that the Book of Mormon (BOM) and the Bible are equals, but this is not the case. The words “as far as it is translated correctly” mean something different in practice than what this quote will lead you to believe. They believe that the Bible has gone through too many translations and is no longer what God originally intended it to say. According to Mormons, the Bible is not translated correctly and the errors in it need to be “corrected,” which means that the Book of Mormon has more importance to a Mormon because it came straight from Joseph Smith and is translated correctly. This is what makes it hard for us as Christians to witness to the people of the LDS church. What we tell them from a Christian view of the Bible often has a very different meaning to them (not translated correctly) because most Christians have little knowledge of what it means to be a Mormon or what the BOM actually says. We must come to understand them and learn what their church teaches so that we may be able to use the Bible, and more importantly, the Book of Mormon to show them the errors of their faith and to bring them to Christ.

Was it Translated, Written or Stolen?

There are primarily two different versions of how the Book of Mormon came be: first is the official LDS view, which claims that it was translated from plates that Joseph Smith found on the hill Cumora; second is the alternative view, basically Joseph Smith did not find the plates or ever had them and made the whole thing up. Which one of these is the more credible explanation? I will argue that there is painfully little evidence for the Mormon explanation and there is considerable evidence for contrary theories. A simple statement of what the LDS church believes on the issue of where the Book of Mormon came from will set a basis for later arguments against it.

The Latter Day Saint Explanation

The Book of Mormon is “an account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates take from the plates of Nephi”2 which was translated by Joseph Smith and published in 1830. Smith was born in Sharon, Windsor country, Vermont in the year 1805 and moved to Palmyra, Ontario (now Wayne) County, New York when he was about ten years old then about four years later moved to Manchester in the same county.3 About two years after, the Smith family moved to Manchester where there was “an unusual excitement on the subject of religion.”4 Opposing sects claimed to hold the truth and attempted to win converts. Smith saw this and, while he was partial to the Methodist sect, he began to question which church was the true church. He then came across a passage in the book James, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”5

Joseph Smith then went into the woods to seek out the wisdom of God and to ask what church was the true church. Smith was then overcome by a spirit and saw two PersonagesA who, when Smith asked his question, told him that “[he] must join none of them, for they were all wrong.”6 Verses 1:21-26 of Joseph Smith – History talks about the persecution that smith faced, “the most bitter persecution and reviling.” Smith uses this persecution as evidence that what he is saying is true, “I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul.”7 On September 21, 1823 Smith had a vision of the angel Moroni who told him about gold plates that were buried on the hill Cumora along with a breastplate set with two seer stones, the Urim and Thummim. Upon finding the site of the plates he was instructed not to remove them until four years from that time. On the fourth year he removed them and was given a strict order to take great care of them because “the most strenuous exertions were used to get them from [Smith].”8 On May 2, 1838 Smith gave the plates back into the care of the angel Moroni.

In summary, Mormons claim that Smith was given plates and translated them. The Mormons hold dear to this because it is the basis for all they believe: if Smith had not be given the Plates of Nephi there would be no Book of Mormon and no reason for Smith to be considered a prophet. Behind this ulterior theory is evidence that the LDS church would like you not to know about and would prefer to think that it doesn't exist. While getting in an argument with a Mormon probably isn't the best strategy of witnessing to them, this information provides a framework for how the book came to be, how things were in the early days of the church and what has changed since then.

Joseph and Friends

Joseph Smith was raised form very early on to believe in the supernatural and was taught certain things that would make his decision to form a new church inevitable. Smith's Grandfather “rejected with a passion the institutionalized church and its creeds. This suspicion and spurning of religion was passed down from father to son to grandson, and became an integral aspect of Mormonism from its very inception.”9 It would be this suspicion that Smith received from his grandfather that would lead him to think that all the churches of his time were wrong. Joseph Smith Sr. had dreams where he was traveling through field of dead timber, which represented the world without religion, and in this field was a box of food surrounded by horned beasts.10 This box of food sounds like the box that the plates of Nephi were kept in; this could be a possible source for this account. Smith's mother also tells of the vivid imagination of her youthful son:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph could occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their, dress, mode of traveling, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. this he would do with as much ease seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."

The above quote makes Smith seem very guilty of making up the whole Book of Mormon, but more evidence is required to pass a final verdict. Another interesting theory is that Smith did not write the Book of Mormon, but stole it from Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found. This story contains a history of the ancient people of America and was written in the decades prior to the Book of Mormon being published. Researchers in 1976 claimed to have found a page in an original copy of the Book of Mormon containing the handwriting of Solomon Spaulding.11 This argument is a good one, however, most Mormons would find this such an audacious claim that they would not listen to you any longer if you made it. Rather than saying that Smith stole the words or at the very least the idea, one should instead try to cast doubt on whether or not the book is actually the true word of God.

There are a couple of characters in the days of the writing of the Book of Mormon that are worth mentioning here; One is Martin Harris, the scribe of Joseph Smith and backer of the book's publication, and Two, Charles Anthon, a scholar asked to authenticate a manuscript of “reformed Egyptian.” There are two different sides of this story: There is the one that backs the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and one that does not. The first is found in a tract put out by Israel A. Smith the president of the Reorganized LDS church. In this tract, he recounts the story of Joseph Smith: Harris in an attempt to prove the claims of Smith took a manuscript that Smith had made containing the “reformed Egyptian” and the translation of it to the city of New York. Once in New York, Harris found a Professor Anthon a man who was know for his literary achievements. Harris then gave Anthon the manuscript containing the “reformed Egyptian” and its translation which, after examining them, Anthon said that they were “more [correct] than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian.”12 Anthon gave Harris a certificate authenticating the document, but after he questioned Harris about the origins of the paper and learned that angels were involved, he took the certificate back and ripped it up saying that there is “no such thing as ministering of angels.” Harris then left Professor Anthon and went to a Dr. Mitchell who told him all of it was correct.

Charles Anthon wrote a letter in response to this idea that he had said the writings were true, proving that these suppositions are false. “The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false... I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax.”13 The Anthon letter contradicts the story proposed by Smith in his version of what happened. The clearest contradiction is that Anthon never gave any opinion on the manuscript because he did not want to have anything to do with the huckster that wrote it. Anthon goes on in his letter to urge Harris that Smith is trying to con him out of his money and to report Smith to the magistrates. Smith wanted Harris to sell his farm in order to pay for the publishing of the Book of Mormon and scared Harris into thinking that if he investigated the plates he would be destroyed by God. We can trust the Anthon letter because it is well documented, more so than the varying accounts of the Latter Day Saints. This letter is very important because it shows that even at this very early time of the church people were against the teachings of Joseph Smith, believe that it was all false and that there is no such thing as “reformed Egyptian.”

DNA and Archeology

Reasonable evidence provided thus far on the background of Smith and his works brings us closer to saying that the Book of Mormon was completely fabricated. To give more assurance that this is the case more evidence will be needed such as DNA and archeology. There has been significant research done in both these fields by both sides; the Mormons, however, have given up because it has proved futile for them.

The Book of Mormon tells us that the people described within the book are a remnant of the house of Israel. All DNA research done on this subject points to the fact that the ancient inhabitants of America have no trace of Semite blood in them. This presents a serious problem to Mormons because, as with anyone who has seen a show about crime scene investigators, they know DNA is very hard to refute.

"Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA testing are effective means of determining the ancestries and relatedness of people and people groups. DNA tests have been performed on thousands of individuals from scores of Native American tribes, from Alaska to the tip of South America. The results of the test show that the overwhelming majority (96.4%) of DNA originated in northeastern and north-central Asia, which essentially corroborates what had an already become a widespread consensus among archaeologists and anthropologists of varying disciplines. The post-Colonial era intermarriage easily accounts for the remaining 3.6% discrepancy. In addition, the testing of the DNA in the pre-Columbian skeletal remains shows a 100% correlation with DNA from Northeastern and Central Asia. No indication of Hebrew ancestry has been found in the DNA of Native Americans.14"

This would seem to be a nail in the coffin of the Book of Mormon, but seeing as how the LDS church will not stop at this, neither will we. The Book of Mormon tells of impressive cities of considerable size in the Americas (ex. Zarahemla) and of massive battles where thousands have died (The Battle of Cumorah). This presents another serious problem for Mormons: there is absolutely no evidence of this.15 If there had be such large cities at least one of them should have been found. We have ancient Mayan ruins, why not the ruins of Zarahemla and Bountiful? Also, if there were thousands that died in battle (which would mean a large number of dead on a relatively small area), we should find their bodies and weapons, but no such things have been found. While some have claimed that Mayan ruins where these cities Mayan temples and buildings have no trace of anything Jewish. New York contains the only site that the church recognizes as a historical site, the Hill Cummora.

Beyond the cities, battles and purely archeological we find many anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. There are steel swords in 1 Nephi 4:9; the events of 1 Nephi are supposed to take place between 600 and 570 BC which is long time before steel was discovered. Also there is no evidence of steel in the americas till possibly the time of the Spanish Conquistadors. Other anachronisms include: Blown glass, whole chapters from the King James BibleB, Peter is quoted centuries before he existed and it contains Greek names. The LDS church has done extensive research in the field of archeology in hopes that it would prove their beliefs, but it has only served as an embarrassment for them and a heartache.16

Contradictions Within the Church

If one were to conduct a careful study of the doctrines of the LDS church, one would find some serious contradictions between the earlier work of Smith, the Book of Mormon, and his latter prophecies. These contradictions range from the very foundational – e.g. doctrines of God, creation and salvation – to the more mundane such as money issues. These contradictions will provide an effective way of witnessing to Mormons because you will be able to uses their holiest book to go against what their church actually believes.

E Pluribus Theos?

Do Mormons believe in one God or a plurality of gods? The Book of Mormon makes it seem as though the Mormons believe that “there is a true and living God,” Alma 11:27C, but in the Doctrine and Covenants section 121:32 and in the King Follett Discourse there is something quite different. The Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 presents a council of the gods and the King Follett Discourse offers a translation of the creation story of Genesis which places God as a head of the gods. Another interesting occurrence of this doctrine in Smith's teachings is in the Journal of Discourses 6:5, “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create and populate the world and people it.” These errors are most likely the result of Joseph Smith's mistranslation of the very first verse of the Bible and on his misunderstanding of the Hebrew language.

With this passage, Genesis 1:1, Smith makes three mistakes. First, he says that a Jew at some later date added a word, “baith” which is not a word at all but a letter, which is erroneous because we have thousands of ancient manuscripts and if something had been added it would have been discovered. Second, he mispronounces the second syllable in the first word of Genesis as “rosh” when it is actually pronounced as “ray.”17 Third he assumes that since the second word in this passage, Elohim, is plural that it must mean that there is more than one God.

Why would Smith just throw out a word? The word really is not a word at all, but a letter (or, rather, a prefix) which means “in.” There does not seem to be any reason for this other than the fact that saying “in the head of the gods” would not make as much sense. From reading the King Follett Discourse it would seem that he might have taken it out to show his knowledge of Hebrew and also his prophetic nature. Smith does not have much knowledge of Hebrew which is shown by a mispronunciation of a word and mistaking it as a completely different one. The Hebrew “rosh” is in fact a word which means “head” which leads him to think that the first word in the Hebrew Genesis says, “the head of.” If this translation was true, it would prove a great deal for the Latter Day Saints, but it is not, so it only stands to show that Smith was not a prophet and was prone to errors. The last part of this is the word “Elohim” or the word for “God.” The word Elohim is a plural word form, the singular being Eloha, but this does not show that there are many gods. When this plural word is added to Smith's translation of the privies word it looks like the result is “the head of the gods.” There is a problem with this; Smith fails to realize that this plural is a majestic plural and does not necessarily mean more than one of something. It is clearly shown throughout the Old Testament that Elohim refers to a singular person, such as the use of Elohim followed by the singular “he.” 1 Samuel 28 13-14 provides a great example of this.

"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself."

This pericope clearly illustrates the idea of the majestic plural. In the the first verse we see the use of the word Elohim, “gods,” and in the second we see that she clearly is referring to a single person. This should sufficiently answer the questions of wether or not Mormons believe in a plurality of gods. The question then becomes how do you convince a Mormon that their holy scriptures and teachings are not in harmony with each other? The best way is to know your Bible, Book of Mormon and to know LDS doctrine. The Bible says in Isaiah 45:18-19:

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

The Pearl of Great Price says in Moses 2:1:

“And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.”

The Pearl of Great Price says in Abraham 4:1-2:

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.”

These passages clearly illustrate a point; there is a deterioration from the Bible on down to the quote from the book of Abraham. We see that in Isaiah there is no one else, in Moses there is only one, the Almighty God, and in Abraham there are many. With these latter two you should be able to show that there is a problem within Mormonism: They can not believe in one God and many gods at the same time. This is a great ministry tool to use when talking to Mormons, if you show them that they are in error by using their own scriptures there is no way that they will be able honestly to say anything against it.

God-man and Man-god

There is a very important maxim of Mormons that is good to know, "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."18 This says a lot about Latter Day theology, it says that God was once a man of flesh and bones just like us19 and that those who are good enough may be able to achieve godhood. Let us examine this god who was once like us:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens ... 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 you can see ... it is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God ... 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 it from the Bible.20

Smith is clearly saying that God was once a man, God was not from all eternity, God eventually became a god. Could God be a man? Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Psalms 8:4 says “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” Isaiah shows that God is far above man in every way, his thoughts could never be our thoughts, and Psalms tells us that we are insignificant compared to God. Is God eternal? Psalm 102:24-28 says:

“I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.”

This psalm shows a God that is everlasting, even the most permanent things in this world will pass away, but the Lord will endure. Could God have worked his way up to being God? Psalm 18:30 says, “As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.” We have already shown that God is not a man, that he is eternal and now that He could not have just worked his way up to being a God. How could someone reach perfection in all things?

You Gotta Work For It

Becoming a god in Mormonism is called Exultation and to being exulted “depends on your receiving other ordinances of salvation: for men, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood; for men and women, the temple endowment and marriage sealing.”21 The Melchizedek Priesthood is the most holy priesthood in the church and an explanation of it is found in Doctrine and Covenants 107:1-5:

"There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood."

For a man to become a god he must be a high priest in the order of Mechizedek, “For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.”22 These passages not only show that Latter Day Saints not only believe that they will one day be gods, but that God rewards those who do what is good. Ephesians 2:8-10 goes against this “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Prove It

"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 ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings." LDS Apostle, Orson Pratt, said this and it should be our rally cry when we are witnessing to Mormons. The problem is Mormons wont always listen to you, they have their testimony and whatever you say can not be true because of it. Stick to the facts and be convincing, "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."23 Once you convince them of their errors of doctrine convince them of their errors using the Bible. Show them that they are not a Christian and that they are in desperate need of Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

Leaders in the LDS church ask you to prove the error of their doctrines, but one quick talk with a Mormon will show you that they will not listen to this. They tell you this to make you think that their religion has been tested and is open to scorn, but in spite of this it has proven the victor. Furthermore, they use the Bible and Christian terminology to make it seem as if they are in line with traditional Christianity. This is not the case however, the Mormon religion has been proven wrong countless times with science, philosophy, logic and theology. The christ of the Book of Mormon is not the Christ of history nor is it the Christ of Christendom: There is nothing about Mormonism that would make it inherently Christian. Why would mormons want to come off as Christian when they have deemed the whole religion as apostate? The answer can be found in Mark 13:22, “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.” The christ of Mormonism can be known to be false because he is different than that of the Bible (Galatians 1:8), he is not fully God (John 1:1) and Christ dies for sinners not for the righteous (Romans 5:6-9; Ephesians 2:8-10). The reason that Mormons want to portray themselves as followers of a traditional Christ is because they want to appear as a better alternative church for you and your family.

Why Bother?

The question comes up of why should we bother with witnessing directly to Mormons at all? Why not just tell Christians the errors of Mormonism so the scenario in Mark is avoided? We must do both of these things: Tell Mormons that they are not saved and are quite possibly going to hell and that there is no salvation within Mormonism. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”24 Remember that Mormons are as much need of the saving grace of Jesus as you are. Convince them of their errors and they will forever be grateful.


Works Cited
1. Articles of Faith 8, Pearl of Great Price, 1982 ed., p. 60
2. Book of Mormon, 1981 ed., Title page
3. Joseph Smith History verse 3, Pearl of Great Price, 1982 ed., p. 47
4. ibid verse 5 p. 47
5. James 1:5 (King James Version) also in Joseph Smith History verse 11, Pearl of Great Price, 1982
ed., p. 48
6.Joseph Smith History verse 19, Pearl of Great Price, 1982 ed.,
7. ibid, verse 24 p. 50
8. Book of Mormon, 1981 ed., Introduction
9. Ruth A. Tucker, Another Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 50
10. Ibid p. 50
11. Ibid p. 56
12. Gordon H. Fraser What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), 110-111
13. Charles Anthon, Professor Charles Anthon Letter (Utah Lighthouse Ministry),
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/anthonletter.htm (accessed April 14, 2008)
14. DNA Challenge to the Book of Mormon, http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dnachal.htm (accessed
April 16, 2008)
15. DNA vs. The Book of Mormon, Google video, 48 min (Living Hope Ministries, 2003)
16. Ibid
17. Gerald Sigal, Joseph Smith's Translation of Genesis 1:1 (1999)
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/Mormons/mormongenesis.html (accessed April 17, 2008)
18. Fifth LDS President Lorezo Snow said this in June of 1840
19. Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse (1844) http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm (accessed April 11,
2008)
20. Daniel G. Thompson, The Mormon Scrapbook (Kokomo: Providence Publications, 2004) Appendix
2 s.v. “God.”
21. True to the Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004) s.v.
“Eternal Life.”
22. Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-34, 1982 ed., p. 156
23. 2nd LDS president, Brigham Young -Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 46
24. Acts 4:12 (King James Version)

Entropy and Steady-State Creationism

This is a paper I wrote for Prof. Isaacs' English class:

What is meant by steady-state creationism, here anyways, is that the universe is and always was and everything today has been made inside of this infinite universe. This is most often the belief held by Mormons and so they will be suspect. It is hard to find a clear doctrine or set explanation of Mormon cosmology or creation because much of it varies from member to member so guidelines must be set for what is meant by it. This will set the basis to be compared with the second law of thermodynamics which is one of the most proven laws of science. With this in mind, any contradiction found between entropy and this form of creationism would only go to say that the latter is not true.

“To create is to organize. It is an utterly false and uninspired notion to believe that the world or any other thing was created our of nothing... The Elements are eternal.”1 From this short quote one can infer what Mormons believe about how things came to be: Things are and were today and yesterday forever and ever. What is foundational (infinite) to Mormon Creationism is not God as in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, but rather it is the universe which is an impossibility of metaphysics based on other LDS doctrines. Simply put, if the universe is infinite then god/gods cannot be infinite because infinity is not a variable, one infinite can not exist within another, and also the gods themselves were created which means they had a starting point; infinity has no beginning or end. Mormon theology presents the gods as infinite; this is impossible. Also, the elements themselves can not be eternal/infinite. This would be because it contradicts with their idea of god, but more than that it does not work with the second law of thermodynamics. A contradiction with such a well founded law should be clear evidence that the doctrine of the church is in error and that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.

“[...]The second law of thermodynamics is that things become more disorderly, or have less information over time. That is, the universe starts out in a state of low entropy, where there is much order, and then steadily moves to a state of high entropy, where there is increasing disorder.”2 A good example of entropy would be leaving a glass of ice water on the counter. After time the ice cube melts and becomes one with the rest of the water in the glass. The contents of the glass become less stratified over time, less ordered, structured, and thus carry less information. Can this glass be taken to the cosmic scale? This law would be easier to apply to a grander scale because it is a general law about how things interact with one another. Since we are looking at the grand scheme of things we can rule of the instances of non-entropy and say that this would have happened in the whole universe gradually over time.

“Entropy measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes — at a specific temperature.”3 There are many types of energies, not just electricity like most of us probably think when we hear the word energy. So basically entropy applies to all matter and is not restricted to just temperature or the changing of matter from solid to liquid, sublimation. At maximum entropy energy become irrelevant because all things are basically equal and things are not able to change or progress anywhere, for example a piece of iron cannot rust or even, like a tire with a hole punched in it will leak air, at maximum entropy the air will not go anywhere.

What does all this talk about entropy mean to Mormonism? Going back to the first quote up above, “all things are eternal,” this can not be because in an infinite amount of time maximum entropy would surely have been reached. Mormons believe that the universe and all its matter have always been, that it has no beginning or end. With what we know about entropy one should clearly be able to see that this Mormon doctrine is clearly in error. The doctrine that the universe is eternal seems to fit more with the modern scientific theory came to be, the big bang theory. This theory says that something can not be made out of nothing, just like mormons will tell you. This over looks something though, if the matter always was for all of existence, eternity/infinity, then entropy would have maxed itself out by this time. So even though this Mormon doctrine is somewhat in line with what most scientists are saying about creation we know that because of entropy that even that theory isn't even true.

Mormonism presents a serious problem to the body of Christ, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”4 Mormon missionaries try very had to appear as if they are christians, but they are not (“false christs”) and they uses this “christianity” to try and turn Christians to their faith. This is the very thing Christ warns us against so, it is very important to us as Christians to stand on guard against it. In 1 Thessalonians it says, “but test everything; hold fast what is good.”5 Hold onto the good of the Bible onto all Christ's words and test the supposed truths of Mormonism and you will see that it does not stand. The second law of thermodynamics stands boldly against the lies of the LDS Church proving that the most fundamental parts of their theology are utterly wrong. With all this said, a Christian must love a Mormon to try and show him the love of God. Remember not to be angry with Mormons, remember that through the grace of God they too could be saved, thus they are our brothers and need our prayers.

Bibliography

1. Thomas, Daniel G. The Mormon Scrapbook. Kokomo: Providence Publications, 2004. “Creation” p.110 Quote: Smith, Joseph. Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, p. 169
2. Beckwith, Francis J., and Stephen E. Parrish. See the Gods Fall. Joplin, College Press Publishing Company, 1997.
3. Lambert, Frank. A Student’s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy. February 2006, http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html
4. Mark 13:22 (English Standard Version)
5. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (English Standard Version)

Did Joseph Smith Know Hebrew?

Joseph Smith in his King Follett Discourse introduces many new doctrines to his followers, one of them is the plurality of gods. He comes to this conclusion through a misunderstanding of scripture by way of a misunderstanding of the Hebrew Language.

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible, Berosheit. I want to analyze the word; baith--in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh--the head. Sheit--grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. A man, a Jew without any authority, thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head. It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods"; that is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. No man can teach you more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council." (From the King Follett Discourse, can be found here)

More on this subject can be found in other writings by Smith...

". . . 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." . . . The head God organized the heaven and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits"-"The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all word sending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. . . . "(Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed., B.H. Roberts, from this website here).

Smith makes several mistakes when he says these things. One would be the removing of a word because some fictitious old Jew added it, "Baith." Another would be a simple mispronunciation of a word, "Rosh." Yet another would be an ignorance of the use of the plural form of certain words to denote royalty or majesty.

It seems silly to blame an old Jew just so you can make a point, which it is, but Smith gets more wrong than just this. The word "Baith" is not a word at all but the letter "bet." Also, "Rosh" isn't the way this word is pronounce, it is "Ray." The problem with this is that "Rosh" means "head" in Hebrew while "Ray" does not. So Smith is clearly in error when translates Genesis as "In the beginning the head of the gods..." To support this he uses the fact that Elohim is a plural word, but this is just a common word usage to show the majesty of someone. We see this clearly throughout the Bible where we have the plural use of Elohim followed by singular word forms such as "he."

I hope that this was informative and that it gave you a greater understanding of what Mormons actually believe and what their prophet actually taught. For more information on this very topic refer to the jewsforjudaism.org website. This here is basically a summary of what is found on there.

The Anthon Letter

I was reading a book by Gordon H. Fraser the other day called What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? and I read something something about a letter written by Charles Anthon. This letter was written to Martin Harris who showed him a manuscript that was written by Joseph Smith which supposedly was written in Reformed Egyptian. Harris showed Anthon, who was an expert in ancient languages, a manuscript that Joseph Smith had given him for the purpose of verifying its authenticity. This interaction between Harris and Anthon as well as the paper called the Anthon Manuscript has been used by Mormons as evidence that the BOM was in fact taken from plates written in Reformed Egyptian. The story according to Joseph Smith History, Martin Harris' story goes as follows:

64 “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

65 “He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angles, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”

Anthon has quite a different story, his letter can be found here. He says that the reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics are "perfectly false" which is quite different than being more correct than anything else. Reading through the letter you will see that Anthon is trying to protect Harris from a conman, Smith wanted Harris to sell his farm in order to pay for the publishing of the Book of Mormon.

Not much of a story, I know, but it does show that there were people against the LDS church even in the most early stages of it and that Smith did all he could to cover it up.