180 Movie

Watch one of the most shocking documentaries ever produced. Are you pro life? Pro choice? Watch, and be ready for an intense challenge.

The Blood of Jesus + Anything = a Different Gospel

In Mormonism, this equation of, “grace plus”, is echoed throughout all of its scriptures, teachings, church publications, and prophets.

Is What We Have Now What They Had Then?

Is what we have in our Bible's now, what the original authors really said? Does the difference in the Bible Versions mean we cannot trust the Bible at all? Do textual variatians give validity to the mormon claim that the Bible is corrupt, and needed the restoration of Joseph Smith, so much so that we have a whole new book? Listen in as Dan Wallace provides an intense and astounding look at the reliability of the New Testament, looks at textual variations, and through evidence, and reason, builds an amazingly strong case for the validity of the Bible.

Dr. John MacArthur, Making a Case for the Authority of the Bible

Listen to this audio series as Pastor John MacAurthur presents a 5 part teaching series for the reliability of the Bible

Mormonism: Understanding the History and Heresies

Listen in as Dr. Phil Fernandes presents a 3 part audio teaching on Mormon history and heresy. Learn how to answer Mormon missionaries from one of the leading apologists in cults.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Sean McDowell on Mormonism

Sean McDowell is a gifted communicator with a passion for reaching the younger generation with the Gospel  message. He connects with youth in a tangible way through humor and stories while imparting hard evidence and logical support for viewing all areas of life through a Biblical worldview. He serves as Head of the Bible Department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools where he teaches Philosophy, Theology, and Apologetics. He is also the son of leading apologist Josh McDowell.

Listen in as Sean McDowell discusses Joseph Smith, Mormonism, and why we MUST stand up to defend Biblical Christianity.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

What is "this rock" that Jesus will build His Church on?

What is "this rock" that Jesus will build His Church on?

By guest blogger, Letitia Wong from TALITHA, KOUM!

One of the main Mormon claims to divine authority is in interpreting Matthew 16:13-18 to refer to their concept of "continuing revelation." By basing the organization of the LDS church on "continuing revelation," as "the rock" on which Jesus builds His church, the LDS church claims legitimacy for its founder Joseph Smith and the entire line of its prophets "continuing" through today.  It is widely known that Mormon leaders routinely misread, mangle, and misapply the Bible in order to fabricate legitimacy for Mormonism, so how has this been done to Matt. 16:13-18?

"13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

According to Mormon teaching, "the rock", or foundation, of Jesus' Church is the act of God revealing new information or new revelation to Peter.  It infers, therefore, that it is the act of new revelation or continuing revelation that is to be the basis on which Jesus builds His Church.  The Mormon Church, as Joseph Smith claimed, is that church that receives God's continuing revelation through the Mormon prophets.

Even if true, this is a curious position for the LDS church to adopt.  The concept of "continuing revelation" is believed on the basis of necessary change.  The idea that God can give "new" revelation has weak limitations in Mormonism, forcing most Mormons to contradict either themselves or the doctrine itself whenever called on to explain it.  On the one hand, the LDS church's main proposition is that it is a 'restoration' of the lost faith in God, yet on the other hand, it accepts that beliefs can and do change based on the next revelation from God.  

If the former is true, then "continuing revelation" is a danger to the very nature of Mormonism, for it would suppose that the restoration is complete and there would be no need for "continuing revelations."  If the latter is true, then Mormonism should not need any validation from the Bible; it does not need to 'restore' anything but only live out what is "new," which is a door flung open to any and all possibilities, even ones that contradict former revelations and all in the name of necessity (God does, because God *must).  This has forced Mormons to place weak limitations on just how far a theoretical new revelation can lead them, but of course, there is no such limitation within Mormon doctrines or the Four Standard Works themselves.  

The late Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson himself headed off this question of consistency by discouraging Mormons from comparing the words of previous prophets to any current one.  “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets," he said.  Indeed, Mormon Prophet Harold B. Lee said, "Sometimes we get the notion that if it is written in a book, it makes it more true than if it is spoken in the last General Conference. Just because it is written in a book does not make it more of an authority to guide us. President Taylor goes on with this same idea and explains why the **scriptures of the past are not sufficient for us today.**" [emphasis mine]

But I digress.  Back to the topic, which is the Bible passage from which the LDS church draws its legitimacy and divine authority, unnecessary as that is by its own standards.  Does it exegete the passage correctly?
The "rock" which Jesus calls Peter is masculine (petros), but the "rock" that Jesus says He will build His church on is feminine (petra). Looking at the syntax, "revealed" is a verb and cannot be 'petra', so neither can be the concept of "continuing revelation" which is further removed from the context of the passage. The one question that is almost never asked of this passage is "What is the subject matter?"   'Petra' can only point to the next closest idea, the subject, which in this case is Peter's confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' Church, therefore, is built on the divine *identity* of Jesus Christ, which leads necessarily to the believer's confession of His divinity. What Jesus is + our confession of Him = the foundation of the Church, which will continue to build and defeat evil to the point that not even the gates of Hell will be able to hold the Church back.
    
If the identity and confession of Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God is the foundation of His Church, then no religious body, sect, or denomination can claim to be the "One True Church" anywhere on earth.  Jesus did not build and is not building His Church on the outer trappings of religious practices or principles, of names or lineages.  The Church is built on Himself and is made of the people (the 'petros'-es) who believe on Him.  As it is, all institutions with bylaws, constitutions, hierarchies, and religious rituals are NOT the Church, even as those who are in them ARE the Church.  Those who believe and follow Jesus are not simply 'in the Church,' they are the Church as temples of the Holy Spirit.  
     
The confession of Peter can only be made in earnest at God the Father's revelation into the heart of the individual, as Jesus said.  For Mormons, this confession is not the foundation to faith and church, as the Mormon prophets have so clearly declared.  I should hope that every Mormon who places that high value in sincerety looks at the Peter's confession and the confession of all Christians throughout the history of the Church wonders why the Mormon prophets substitute themselves over "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" for the foundation of Jesus' Church.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Why The Mormon Church is Not Pro-Life

Is the Mormon Church really Pro-Life?

Like many positions in the Mormon church, it's stance on abortion has evolved. While it use to tell it's members that to have an abortion would be cause for immediate ex-communication, and that there would be no forgiveness for a woman who has had an abortion, it has made a formal statement as to the official stance on abortion. It states in part:

"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church"

At face value, it may seem that the church position is 100% pro life. However, if we keep reading, we find something else altogether:

"In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see "Adoption").

—See True to the Faith (2004), 4–5" Click HERE for link to lds.org where the statement is from. Be sure to click the "More Information" tab to see the full statement.

Now, what I would like to do is follow the thought process and decide if the position that they have taken is at all contradictory, if it is truly pro life, and if the value of every unborn child is viewed as the same.
  
The Mormon church has stated that they believe elective abortion is murder. Why? Because life begins at conception. We know scientifically that at conception life absolutely does begin, and the unborn is developed from the inside out. What's more is we know the answer to the all important question, "what is the unborn"? The unborn is a human life, with a right to life, and is afforded the same rights any other human person is.

So we can say the Mormon church is against elective abortion, since it is the willful and purposeful, premeditated ending of an innocent human life. So far, so good. However, they then make the distinction themselves that in certain situations, such as rape, incest, or the health of the mother, abortion becomes permissible. Granted they do say that even that does not by default mean you should get an abortion, but all of a sudden, we have an exception to the rule, an abortion that becomes a permissible act, and is no longer subject to church discipline, or ex-communication.

For the sake of this article, I want to state two things clearly.

1) This article is NOT dealing with those situations in which the mother will likely die should the pregnancy continue.

2) I believe rape is an absolutely evil, grotesque, hideous, traumatic violation of the victim. The victim of rape should have protection, and support against such an atrocity and the rapist should be prosecuted the the fullest extent that our law allows for. I believe the rape victim is an innocent victim, who played no willful part in the rape, could not stop the action from occurring, and through no fault of her own, is now left to deal with what has happened, who deserves protection, who deserves help, and who deserves the love she needs to get through what has happened. And everything I just said, is no different at all for the second victim of a pregnancy through rape ... the unborn. The unborn is as much of an innocent victim, that could not stop the action, that was not a willing participant, who deserves protection, love, and help.
  
So what is the problem with the Mormon church statement?

The problem with the statement that the Mormon church has issued, and the stance it has taken, is it defeats itself. If elective abortion is wrong because the unborn is a human being, and abortion is murder, than the question is literally begging to be asked, "what makes the unborn rape victim less human, and have less of a right to life, and less valued in the Mormon church's eyes"?

Let us look at the obvious. The unborn child who has it's life ended via elective abortion is a human with rights according to the Mormon church. But the unborn who is a victim of rape, while there is no question the unborn is a human being, some how forfeits certain rights through it's conception, making it permissible to abort the unborn. The question of course is, why? If the main question in abortion is, what is the unborn, than what difference does the conception make? You cannot tell the difference of a baby that has been born out of love or out of rape, just by looking at it, can you? Absolutely not! The question about how the conception occurred becomes a moot point once the mother has become pregnant. At that point, we have an unborn human who is alive and has a right to life, inside of the womb. The unborn does not change or cease to be human just because it was conceived through rape. 

Now, I agree, the Mormon church does say that even in rape, or incest, it does not give a blank check to have an abortion, but the fact is this, the Mormon church has made the distinction, the clause, the differentiation itself! The Mormon church is the one who has said that the unborn victim of rape has a clause which permits it's killing, and therefor cannot be given an equal right to life as those who are conceived out of a loving relationship.

So what we have to say truly in the end is, the value of a unborn human life is greater when it is conceived out of love, versus that unborn human life which was conceived out of rape. I know this is harsh sounding, but if we take the emotion away from this, and look at it from a logical standpoint, we truly have no choice. The unborn is protected by threat of church discipline and ex-communication if the mother is considering an elective abortion. However, while they may disagree with the mother, she has the right to make a choice to abort the unborn baby conceived through rape, without this discipline or ex-communication occurring. Therefor, the unborn conceived through rape cannot be valued as highly as the unborn conceived through love, since the unborn conceived through rape is permissible to abort. Somehow according to the Mormon church, something changes that takes away it's certainty to a right to life. 

When I look at this sort of self contradictory position, it shows me even more reasons why this religion is man made. If this view is from God, than obviously God cannot value the unborn the same. Yet, we know that it is precisely those who are hurt, and broken, those who are the most messed up, those who are sick, those are the ones Christ came for!

The other question of course is, how does killing an unborn human fix the issue of the rape? The unborn is innocent, could not prevent what happened, deserves protection from harm, and the chance at a normal loving relationship with either the mother, or adopted parents. To assume that murdering the unborn through it being burned alive, dismembered, decapitated, or in some cases strangled by the abortionist, is somehow more humane to the child is beyond human comprehension. Killing the unborn to prevent it from having a harder life is hardly loving.

I realize that for some of you reading, maybe your own position is that abortion is wrong, but that the mother who has undergone such trauma should not be forced to have a child against her will. My question is, while I agree the trauma is great, the act was evil, why does the unborn who is a human, who has every bit as much of a right to life as a 5 year old not have the same care and protection?

It may help in fact, to ask yourself this question, and you can fill in the blank.

"It is morally correct, and permissible to willfully, purposefully, and premeditatedly murder an unborn human being when __________."

I would assert the answer is, it is not. If we are going to stand up for the unborn, than we need to stand up for ALL unborn. The unborn human conceived through rape has just as much of a right to life as that of the child who has been conceived out of a loving relationship. And to value the life of the unborn conceived in love more than the unborn who was conceived through rape is absolutely morally wrong.

I would highly encourage you to think through this issue. And I would ask you if you are a Mormon, can you truly support your church's statement on abortion? Or do you agree that ALL of the unborn are of value, and have an essential right to life? If you cannot trust your church on this, what else can you not trust them on?

I pray you will look at the logic of the argument given for the rights of the unborn, and I pray this opens your eyes. All of us have value and worth from our creator, even those who have been conceived through traumatic circumstances.

Romans 5:8, "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

In Him,
Jamie

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Examining Facsimile One from The Book of Abraham

Watch as Bill McKeever takes viewers on a overview of what many consider to be the death knell for Mormonism, The Book of Abraham.

Examining Facsimile One from the Book of Abraham from Mormonism Research Ministry on Vimeo.

Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry. His site is www.mrm.org

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Joel Osteen on Mormonism - As Wrong As Wrong Can Be

Today, "Evangelical" mega church Pastor, Joel Osteen weighed in on the recent controversy with Mitt Romney and the question of, "Is Mormonism Christianity"?

Osteen had this to say ...



Joel Osteen has shown why it is imperative to know the Bible, and the core doctrines of Biblical Christianity. Osteen seems to completely be unaware of the teachings of Mormonism, which means he should not be commenting on them, or he does not care ... which means he should not being using his Pastoral position to comment on them. Either way, per the usual, Osteen is as wrong as the day is long. 

What Osteen fails to understand, is that simply saying, "I believe in Christ" or "Christ is my savior" does NOT mean by default they are talking about the Jesus we find in the Bible. Anyone who has experience dealing with mormons or other members in a cult know that frequently, Mormons use Christian terms, and have changed the meaning. For example, a Christian and a Mormon would both say, they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. However, Mormons mean that as God, who was once a mortal man, who has progressed to godhood through a process of exaltation, who has god parents, has A Son, the first born in the flesh only, whose name is Jesus. Jesus is not the only Son of God, as we are all literally in mormonism the literal offspring of God. Also, Lucifer is the spirit brother of Jesus in mormonism. Do you see what I mean? Same words, however the meanings are DRASTICALLY different.

What about core Christian beliefs?
The Jesus in the Bible that we read about as a coming promise in the Old Testament, as being the Son of God made flesh being born, living, dying, and resurrected in the Gospels, and the living Jesus at the right hand of the Father in the Epistles, is the same Jesus. Some of His nature:

Eternal (John 1:1-2)
Creator (John 1:3)
Only son of God (John 3:16)
Our Eternal High Priest (Hebrews 6:20)
The 2nd person described in the Trinity (Deut. 6:4)
The mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5)
The propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10)
The only name by which men can be saved (Acts 4:12)
The I AM (Mark 14:62)

Is this Jesus who was just described the same Jesus as we read about in Mormon Doctrine? Some of the nature of the Mormon Jesus:

Not Eternal (Click LDS.ORG Link Here)
Not the only son of God (Click LDS.ORG Link Here)
Not the Eternal High Priest (Click LDS.ORG Link Here)
Not a member of a triune God, but a separate God, one of many (Click LDS.ORG Link Here)
Not the only mediator, but Gordon B. Hinckley and Joseph Smith (Click LDS.ORG Link Here)
His death is not enough, but require a litany of works (Click LDS.ORG Link Here)
No Salvation without belief Joseph Smith is a Prophet (Click LDS.ORG Link Here)

This list is not even close to being exhaustive, but when you have a religion who denies virtually every single core doctrine of Christianity, you are left with something quite to the contrary of Biblical Christianity. If mormonism wishes to set itself apart from Christianity, that would be helpful. However, they continue to push themselves as, "just another denomination of Christianity", all the while completely attacking it as false, corrupted, and in need of restoration. 

Mormonism denies the trinity, it denies the Biblical plan of salvation, it denies the full deity of God, it deifies man, it denies that God's word is sufficient, it denies what the Bible teaches about hell, it denies the Biblical teaching of creation ex nihilo, etc. Virtually every single core doctrine of Christianity is violated. For these reasons, and many more, I deny that mormonism is anything other than a cult, and a pray that Osteen will be awakened to the damage he is doing when he wrongfully classifies mormonism as another branch of Christianity. 

For more information, see this helpful chart from rose publishing Here

In Him, 

Jamie

Monday, October 10, 2011

Dr. William Lane Criag on Mormonism

World renowned, and leading Christian Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig answers, "Is Mormonism a Cult?" on his latest audio blog series. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children. Dr. Craig is also author of several books, including, "The New Mormon Challenge" which is a philosophical apologetic refutation of Mormonism.

Listen in as Dr. Craig explains why Mormonism is NOT another denomination of Biblical Christianity, and is theologically an absolute cult.

Click HERE for the MP3 audio, which was found at Dr. Craig's site HERE.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

180 Movie

The abortion debate has never been so vital to our society. Every single day, hundreds of unborn babies are killed. Be it through being burned alive, dismembered, decapitated, or being strangled by the abortionist, the unborn are under a complete attack, and there is a growing movement to stand up for the unborn, stop the atrocities, and to educate those who have not fully thought out their "Pro Choice" position.

Living Waters has produced a video which already has had more than 1,000,000 views, several hundred thousands of copies given away at universities, articles on CNN, and billboard companies refusing to advertise for it. What is it that has caused such amazing controversy? What is it that would take a pro choice advocate, to change their mind and the way they vote in less than 20 seconds? Could it be that we are uncovering the truth about another holocaust?

Why don't you watch for yourself.



Monday, September 26, 2011

Is What We Have Now, What They Had Then? Daniel Wallace

Is what we have in our Bible's now, what the original authors really said? Does the difference in the Bible Versions mean we cannot trust the Bible at all? Do textual variatians give validity to the mormon claim that the Bible is corrupt, and needed the restoration of Joseph Smith, so much so that we have a whole new book?

Listen in as Dan Wallace provides an intense and astounding look at the reliability of the New Testament, looks at textual variations, and through evidence, and reason, builds an amazingly strong case for the validity of the Bible.

Note to mormons: If you are more interested in the truth than you are in being told what to think, this is one audio that you do not want to miss!

Note to Christians: If you want to understand how to effectively present and defend the case for the reliability of the Bible, this audio is a must!

Prepare to be challenged.



Originally at Apologetics315.blogspot.com

Thursday, September 22, 2011

What About Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?


What about those people who have never heard the gospel? Doesn't this prove that we "need: baptism for thedead? If God sends innocent people to hell, how can he be just?

Listen in as Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, puts this in perspective, and answers the question, What about those who have never heard the message.One word, be prepared to reason, and put emotion aside for a moment. Remember, what we all deserve is hell, what God offers is grace


Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Dr. Norman Geisler: Are we “Little Gods” and Other Misinterpretations



Genesis 1:26-27: Are we “Little Gods” and Other Misinterpretations, By Dr. Norman Geisler


Genesis 1:26—Does this verse indicate that there is more than one god?

Misinterpretation:
If there is only one God, why does this verse in Genesis use the word us in reference to God? Mormons often note that the Hebrew word usually translated God, Elohim, is in the plural, and the plural pronoun us is used. To them this indicates that there is more than one God: “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation….The word Elohim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods” (Smith, 1976, 372).

Correcting the misinterpretation:
Several explanations for the use of the pronoun us have been offered throughout history. Some commentators have claimed that God is addressing the angels. But this is unlikely since in verse 26 God says, “Let us make man in our image,” while verse 27 makes it clear that “God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him,” and not in the image of the angels.

Others have claimed that the plural pronoun refers to the Trinity. It is true that the New Testament (e.g., John 1:1) teaches that the Son was involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Also, Genesis 1:2 indicates that the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation process. However, students of Hebrew grammar point out that the plural pronoun us is simply required by the plural Hebrew noun Elohim, which is translated “God” (“Then God [Elohim, plural] said, ‘Let us [plural] make man in our [plural] image’”). Consequently,
they claim that this statement should not be used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity.

Still others have asserted that the plural is used as a figure of speech called a majestic plural. Indeed, the Qur’an, which denies that there is more than one person in God, uses us of God. In this use, God is speaking to himself in such a manner as to indicate that all of his majestic power and wisdom were involved in the creation of humanity. As has been noted, the plural pronoun us corresponds to the plural Hebrew word Elohim, which is translated God. The fact that the name God is plural in Hebrew does not indicate that there is more than one God. (Queen Victoria used the plural of majesty when referring only to herself. She once commented, “We are not amused.”) A number of passages in the New Testament refer to God with the singular Greek noun theos, which is also translated “God” (for example John 1:1; Mark 13:19; Eph. 3:9). The plural nature of the Hebrew word is designed to give a fuller, more majestic sense to God’s name.

It should be noted, however, that the New Testament clearly teaches that God is a Trinity (Matt. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2), and, although the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully developed in the Old Testament, it is foreshadowed (cf. Ps. 110:1; Prov. 30:4; Isa. 63:7,9-10).


Genesis 1:26—Does the fact that we are created in God’s image mean that we are
“little gods,” as the Word-Faith leaders say?

Misinterpretation:
Word-Faith teachers suggest that the Hebrew word for “likeness” in this verse literally means “an exact duplication in kind” (Savelle, 1990, 141). Indeed, humanity “was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God’s presence without any consciousness of inferiority….God has made us as much like Himself as possible….He made us the same class of being that He is Himself” (Hagin, 1989, 35-36, 41).

Correcting the Misinterpretation:
All Genesis 1:26-27 is teaching is that humanity was created in God’s image or likeness in the sense that a human being is a finite reflection of God in rational nature (Col.3:10), in moral nature (Eph. 4:24), and in dominion over creation (Gen. 1:27-28). In the same way that the moon reflects the brilliant light of the sun, so finite humanity (as created in God’s image) is a limited reflection of God in these aspects. This verse has nothing to do with human beings becoming God or being in God’s “class.” If it were true that human beings are “little gods,” then one would expect them to display qualities similar to those known to be true of God.

However, when one compares the attributes of humankind with those of God, we find ample testimony for the truth of Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23 that human beings “fall short of the glory of God.” Consider:
1. God is all-knowing (Isa. 40:13-14), but a human being is limited in knowledge (Job 38:4);
2. God is all-powerful (Rev. 19:6), but a human being is weak (Heb. 4:15);
3. God is everywhere-present (Ps. 139:7-12), but a human being is confined to a single space at a time (John 1:50);
4. God is holy (1 John 1:5), but even human “righteous” deeds are as filthy garments before
God (Isa. 64:6);
5. God is eternal (Ps. 90:2), but humanity was created at a point in time (Gen. 1:1, 26-27);
6. God is truth (John 14:6), but a human heart (since the Fall) is deceitful above all else
(Jer. 17:9);
7. God is characterized by justice (Acts 17:31), but humankind is lawless (1 John 3:4; see
also Rom. 3:23);
8. God is love (Eph. 2:4-5), but human relationships are plagued with numerous vices like
jealousy and strife (1 Cor. 3:3).

Genesis 1:26-27—Does this passage support the idea that God has a physical body?

Misinterpretation:
Mormons argue that, because humans were created with a body of flesh and bones, God the Father must have a physical body, since humanity was created in God’s image (Smith, 1975, 1:3)

Correcting the Misinterpretation:
A fundamental interpretive principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture. When other Scriptures about God’s nature are consulted, the Mormon understanding of Genesis 1:26-27 becomes impossible. John 4:24 indicates that God is spirit. Luke 24:39 tells us that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Conclusion: Since God is spirit, he does not have flesh and bones.

Genesis 1:26-27—Does the fact that a human being is made in the image of God
support the Christian Science claim that humanity is co-eternal with God?

Misinterpretation:
These verses assert that God created humanity in his own image. Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy urges that this means that “man and woman—as coexistent and eternal with God—forever reflect, in glorified quality, the infinite Father-Mother God” (Eddy, 516).

Correcting the Misinterpretation:
Eddy completely misunderstands this passage of Scripture. Several mistakes will be briefly noted.
It is contrary to the meaning of the words “image” and “likeness” to insist that humankind is like God in all respects. Even an “image” in this context is not the same as the original, as is clear from the use of this same Hebrew word (tzehlem) of an idol (e.g., Num.33:52; 2 Chron. 23:17; Ezek. 7:20) as only a representation of the god, not the god itself. The word create reveals that the text is not speaking of something that is eternal but of something that came to be. This word (bara) is never used in the Old Testament of something
that is eternal. Indeed, in this context it means something that is brought into being.
The same is true of the New Testament use of the word for “create” (cf. Col. 1:15-16; Rev. 4:11).

Also, it is a fallacy to assume, as Eddy does, that because we are like God, God must be like us. For example, she speaks of God as male and female (“Father-Mother God”). This is known in logic as an illicit conversion. Just because all horses have four legs does not mean that all four-legged things are horses. And just because God made male and female does not mean he is male and female. “God is spirit” (John 4:24), yet he made people with bodies (Gen. 2:7). Just because we have a physical body does not mean that
God has one too. The Old Testament was first written as a Jewish book, and Judaism is uncompromisingly
a monotheistic religion. But Christian Science is pantheistic, and Eddy is reading her pantheistic view into this Jewish document. A human being is neither eternal with God nor identical with God. Each person is a finite creature who was brought into existence by an infinite God and who resembles God morally and personally, but is not the same metaphysically.

For full documentation, see Dr. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask,
Baker Books, 1997 5TDGeisler799

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Mormon Theism, The Traditional Christian Concept of God, & Greek Philosophy: A Critical Analysis

 
MORMON THEISM, THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD, AND GREEK PHILOSOPHY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Francis J. Beckwith*

To read the paper in it's entirety, please click HERE

Click Here for Bio
Original link Here

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Debate between Mormon Professor Dan. Petersen and Dr. James White



This debate took place on a mormon call in radio program between Dr. James White, and 3 LDS Apologists. Dr. White does an outstanding job of refuting the logical errors of the apologists, and the callers in to the program.

This is part 1 of a 12 part video.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Are Mormons Christian? Brett Kunkle Asks


From STR

“Are Mormons Christians?” Not only do Mormons take offense at the very question, but even Christians react negatively to the suggestion Mormons are not Christians. Brett examines the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Mormon scriptures to see what they have to say about this question and then explains what’s at stake in our answer

Click HERE for the podcast audio

Challenging Mormon Cosmology

Challenging Mormon Cosmology


Does Mormon Cosmology agree with science? Does it matter? Can we marry reason and science within the framework of Mormon Cosmology? These are all great questions, and vitally important. Before we begin, lets ask, what is cosmology?

Cosmology can be defined as:

1. The study of the physical universe considered as a totality of phenomena in time and space.

2. The astrophysical study of the history, structure, and constituent dynamics of the universe.
3. A specific theory or model of this structure and these dynamics.


This will be part one of a 2 part post. Part 1 will be an overview of what Mormonism teaches on cosmology.
Along with this will be a "fly over" of the eminent Christian Philosopher and Christian Apologist; 
Dr. William Lane Craig.

Why Understanding the Mormon Position is Important
Now, while I know it is tempting to skip over the reading in favor of a video, it is very important to first read the Mormon position of cosmology, so you can appreciate what Dr. Craig has to say.
The Mormon Position:
(Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology#Cosmic_divinity - this gives a proper, undisputed outline of the Mormon position)

According to Mormon cosmology, there was a pre-existence, better described as a pre-mortal life, in which human spirits were literal children of heavenly parents.[1] Though their spirits were created, the essential "intelligence" of these spirits is considered eternal, and without beginning. During this pre-existence, two plans were said to have been presented, one championed by Lucifer (Satan) that would have involved loss of moral agency, and another championed by God the Father. When his plan was not accepted, Lucifer is said to have rebelled and taken a third of the hosts of heaven with him to the earth to serve as tempters. According to a plan of salvation as described by God the Father, Jehovah (the heavenly form of Jesus Christ according to Mormonism) created the earth, under the direction of God the Father, as a place where humanity would be tested. After the resurrection all men and women except spirits that followed Lucifer and the sons of perdition would be assigned one of three degrees of glory. Within the highest degree, the Celestial Kingdom, there are three divisions, and those in the highest of these divisions would become gods and goddesses through a process called exaltation or "eternal progression". This would involve having spirit children and populating new worlds.
The Earth's creation, according to Mormon scripture, was not ex nihilo, but organized from existing matter. The faith teaches that this earth is just one of many inhabited worlds, and that there are many governing heavenly bodies, including a planet or star Kolob which is said to be nearest the throne of God. According to some Mormon sources,[who?] God the Father himself once passed through mortality like Jesus did, but how, when, or where that took place is unclear.
Many Mormons[who?] believe that God once lived on a planet with his own higher god and that those who go to the celestial kingdom will eventually themselves become gods, a doctrine known as eternal progression (although this idea is disputed by some[who?] Latter-day Saints). The doctrine of eternal progression is based on a speech by Joseph Smith called the King Follett discourse and was succinctly summarized by LDS Church President Lorenzo Snow in the phrase, "As man is now, God once was; as God is now, man may become."
 
Origin of Elohim (God the Father)

According to Mormon theology, God the Father is a physical being of "flesh and bones."[10] Mormons identify him as the Biblical god Elohim. Latter-day Saint leaders have also taught that God the Father was once a mortal man who has completed the process of becoming an exalted being.[11] According to Joseph Smith, God "once was a man like one of us and…once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us."[12]

Origin of Jehovah (Jesus)

According to Mormon belief, Jesus is identified as the god Jehovah (Yahweh). The pre-mortal Jehovah was born to the Virgin Mary and was named Jesus. Jesus was the Son of God—the literal father of his physical body was God the Father.[13] Because Jesus was the Son of God, he had power to overcome physical death.[14][15] Because he lived a perfect and sinless life, Jesus could offer himself as an "infinite and eternal" sacrifice that would be required to pay for the sins of all of the other children of God.[15][16]

__________________________________________

Dr. William Lane Craig's Position - 4 Part Video

Part 1




 Part 2


 
Part 3

Part 4
 
The evidence against Mormon Cosmology is not only staggering, it proves it as being logically fallacious, and scientifically bankrupt. This presentation, as quickly as he goes, shows why Mormon Cosmologists are left with silence, and with virtually no response to this sort of evidence. Stay tuned for part 2, which will be slightly more theologically in depth. 

In Him,
Jamie
 

    Sunday, July 31, 2011

    Lee Grenier - Why I Left the Mormon Church

    Lee Grenier - Why I Left the Mormon Church



    Lee is also one of my friends, and has a great heart to reach those who are still in the Mormon Church, for the truth of Biblical Christianity. Praise God for His freedom!

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011

    New Evidences The Gospels Are Based On Eyewitness Testimony

    Monday, July 18, 2011

    Mormonism: Understanding the History and Heresies

    Mormonism: Understanding the History and Heresies 
    Dr. Phil Fernandes

    Dr. Phil Fernandes, IBD President

    The Institute of Biblical Defense (IBD) is a Christian apologetics ministry dedicated to helping train Christians to boldly defend the faith. The Institute provides training in theology, philosophy, Christian apologetics, world religions, counter cult studies and much more.

    Session 1 Click Here
    Session 2 Click Here
    Session 3 Click Here

    Thursday, July 14, 2011

    Robert Millet, God Was Once a Man ...

    "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 Yea that God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did"   Teachings of Joseph Smith



    Millet has been a member of BYU faculty since 1983.

    Tuesday, July 12, 2011

    Dr. John MacArthur on Mormonism

    Dr. John MacArthur on Mormonism


    Thursday, July 7, 2011

    The Image of God in Man

    The Image of God in Man

    What does it mean to be made in the image of God? Shall we look at ourselves and deduce that God has a body?



    Sunday, July 3, 2011

    The Mormon Church and Racism


    The Mormon church claims that the entire reason that people were born with a black skin, is because they inherited the curse of cain. The black skin is a "curse" on people for being disobedient in preexistence as spirit children.

    The Bible tells us in Acts 17 that God has made all the nations from One Blood. The Black, the white, the green, the red, the whoever. God created us all.

    While Mormonism may nay permit African Americans to hold the priesthood, the doctrine NEVER changed on why people are born with a black skin.

    Listen in as Dr. Walter Martin talks about the Mormon Church and the Negro.


    The Case for A Creator

    Mormonism teaches that the world was not created as Christians believe, "ex niholo", or out of nothing, but that matter is eternal and has always existed. They claim that matter was simply "reorganized" during the creation process, and this world was put together, stemming from a meeting of the "council with the gods".

    The theory Mormons present for their case has many issues, such as where then did matter come from, but do the findings of science back up the Mormon creation account? Or does the evidence show that the earth, like the Bible says, was created out of nothing?

    Watch as Lee Strobel, former journalist, and atheist, turned Christian Apologist, shows the overwhelming evidence we have in presenting, The Case for A Creator.


    Mormons Preach A Different Jesus Christ

    James Walker shows that Mormons preach a different Jesus than that of the Bible



    "As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" Galatians 1:9 (NASB)

    Saturday, July 2, 2011

    Is the Bible Intolerant? By Amy Orr-Ewing


    Is the Bible Intolerant? from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

    Mormonism teaches that while it claims to be the true church, that there are many ways to heaven. You can reject Jesus in this life, and still have another chance in death. Even that other religions have some truths.

    Watch as Amy Orr-Ewing discusses the question, Is the Bible Intolerant?

    Thursday, June 30, 2011

    *Updated* Correcting Mormon Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

    Why Do Some People Say Mormonism is a Cult?



    Is Mormonism a cult? This question was presented to Mormon Elder M. Russell Ballard, who is a member of the Quorum of the 12 apostles of the Mormon church, as the video above shows. Elder Ballard asserts that the Mormon church is a Christian church, who affirms what he refers to as the basics. Is the Mormon Church really a Christian church that has been misunderstood by people over the years, and is actually the true church? Or is it possible, that the teachings of Mormonism do in fact teach a different gospel about Jesus, deny the true nature of God, and deny other essential doctrines of Biblical Christianity? A person on either side of the argument should desire to know the truth.

    As an apostle of the Mormon church, one can assume that M. Russell Ballard is an authority on church doctrines, is well versed in Mormon theology, and speaks with the permission of the Mormon Church on such matters.

    So, the purpose of this post will be to compare what Elder Ballard said to what Mormonism teaches, and what the Bible says. If Mormonism is a Christian religion, and we are to search for truth, then we can conclude this is in an effort to find the truth of the matter, and it is right to take and compare the words of a Mormon apostle, to Mormon doctrine, and then the Bible. After all, the 2nd Prophet of the Mormon faith, Brigham Young said, "Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it and see if it will stand the test" (Brigham Young, May 18, 1873, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 46.). And Mormonism also teaches that Mormon doctrine and the Bible are in harmony, not contradictory, and so we should easily find harmony between the two.

    So let's examine the statements made in the video, compare them, and with an open mind, honestly seek truth.

    In the first 16 seconds of the video, is of Mr. Ballard can be heard saying over and over again that the reason people call the Mormon church a cult is due to a lack of understanding, and a characterization of who they are.

    So the first question to ask is this: Is it true that those who think of Mormonism as a cult simply misunderstand what Mormonism teaches, and have falsely characterized the teachings of Mormon doctrine as false? Is it possible that some have done this, simply repeating what others have said, without ever studying the matter out on their own? I am sure people have. However, is this the majority? I would say no. There are many people who have taken time to compare the Bible and the teachings of Mormonism and have come to their conclusion through study, and prayer. So while it certainly does happen, I would disagree that this is the reason why people would call Mormonism a cult. Let's continue.

    At 30 seconds into the video, Mr. Ballard says he will start by explaining the common basis in which "all Christians" accept, which is this:


    • Jesus is the Christ
    • He is the Son of God
    • He is our savior
    • He is our redeemer
    • And we love Him




    To anyone who hears this, especially those who do not know the doctrines of Mormonism would say that what Mr. Ballard says here sounds very good, and have heard their Christians friends affirm these very truths! And yes, these are absolutely essentials, that is to say if one were to deny any of these very fundamental doctrines, you would not be left with Biblical Christianity, but would be left with something different altogether, something that presents a very different gospel. So, I would agree that these are in part, very essential doctrines of Christianity. 

    What Mr. Ballard does explain however, is the Mormon doctrines behind those statements, nor does he define the terms of the words he uses. One thing that you must do when you speak with anyone on this subject is define terms. Don't assume when you hear a Mormon friend say they love Heavenly Father, that they mean the same thing a Christian means when we praise our Father in Heaven. Once you realize this, you  begin to understand why people do not call Mormonism a part of Christianity. Though Mormonism uses words that we would recognize as "Christian", they have given new definitions to those words. Mormon doctrine does indeed say that Jesus is the Christ. However, it does ALSO say that:
    • Lucifer, who is the spirit brother of Jesus, and the son of Elohim (God the father), also had a plan of salvation, which was to force people to serve God. Jesus had a better plan, therefor His plan what chosen, however, Jesus could have had a worse plan, and NOT been the savior.(See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:106).

    • Gordon B.Hinckley, former Prophet of the church said himself that, "As a church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say." (Gordon Hinckley, "We look to Christ," Ensign (Conference Edition) May 2002, p.90)
       
    • Mormonism teaches that the Christ was NOT perfect. "Even Christ himself was not perfect at first; he received not a fullness at first, but he received grace for grace, and he continued to receive more and more until he received a fullness". (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 1986, p.68. Also see Doctrines and Covenants 93:12-14)

    • In fact, one of the members of the Seventies said, "It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshiped by the Mormons or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". (Bernard P. Brockbank, "The Living Christ," Ensign, Conference Edition, May 1977, p. 26)

    Mr. Ballard then says Jesus is the Son of God. However Mormonism also teaches Jesus is NOT the ONLY son of God, but is the only begotten of God "in the flesh".
    • LDS.ORG says, "Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh."

    • Joseph Fielding Smith said, "We worship Elohim, the Father of Jesus Christ. We do not worship Adam and we do not pray to him. We are all his children through the flesh, but Elohim, the God we worship, is the Father of our spirits; and Jesus Christ, his first Begotten Son in the spirit creation and his Only Begotten Son in the flesh, is our Eldest Brother". (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:106).

    • In fact, mormonism teaches that Lucifer, the devil himself, had a plan of salvation. Mormon seventy Milton R. Hunter says, "The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind". (Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel through the Ages, p. 15)
    • Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie had this to say, "Christ stands preeminent among all the spirit children of the Father. While yet in preexistence he became "like unto God" (Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: The first coming of Christ, pp. 442-443).
    Mormonism also teaches you, I, and the entire world are all the "literal offspring" of father and mother God. In fact, Jesus is the product of a physical union between God the father and the "virgin" Mary in Mormon doctrine (how you have sex and remain a virgin, I do not know. Click HERE for more information on "Was Jesus born of a virgin in Mormon doctrine). So Mormonism teaches Jesus is not the ONLY son of God and that He is a created being. For example:
    • "Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
    • “And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 742)

    • "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!" (President Ezra Taft Benson, Come Unto Christ, p. 4)

    • "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268)
    Next, Elder Ballard moves to the church's teaching of Jesus being the savior and redeemer. Though Jesus is the savior in Mormonism  unless you fulfill a lifetime of works, duties, and ordinances, then this does not do you much good. Why? Because salvation is not solely by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone in Mormonism, but is found through your works of temple ordinances, baptisms, tithes, etc. Not only this, but you yourself can become a god of your own planet through the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression. So in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches, Jesus' work on the cross was not at all enough to guarantee the salvation of his people, and grace is now only after "all we can do" in Mormonism. Consider the following:
    • The 12th president of Mormonism, Spencer W. Kimball writes in his book, “The Miracle of Forgiveness”, “And however powerful the saving grace of Christ, it brings exaltation to no man who does not comply with the works of the gospel.” (p. 207)
    • In fact, Kimball had much more to say on the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. He writes, “One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation.” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p 206. See also the Book of Mormon student manual Religion 121 and 122, 1989, p. 36.)
    • Perhaps, one of the most honest statements made on this doctrine comes through the combined work of Joseph Fielding McConkie, (son of former Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie), and Robert L. Millet. They write, “Indeed, it is only after a person has so performed a lifetime of works and faithfulness – only after he has come to deny himself of all ungodliness and every worldly lust – that the grace of God, that spiritual increment of power, is efficacious”. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon 1:295)
    Elder Ballard then moves to the fact that Mormons love Jesus. He does not elaborate on which Jesus he speaks of, and he fails to mention that Mormonism does not allow followers to pray to Jesus, nor do they worship Him. They worship the father alone, as a separate God, who they view as a higher more revered being, one of an infinite number of Gods.
    • 2nd Mormon Prophe, Brigham Young said, "How many Gods there are, I do not know, but there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be so to all eternity". (Brigham Young, October 8, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:333.)
    Towards the close of the video, we see the classic statement that usually identifies a cult, that of receiving  "additional information". Whenever a religion tells you that they have new, or additional information, or new revelations of God, especially when it contradicts the Bible,  run! The new information that Mr. Ballard speaks of (the book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, etc.) instead of providing the clarity and truth of the true Gospel, does the following:


    • Claims the Bible is corrupted
    • Claims the Bible is in need of restoration
    • Claims to be more correct than the Bible, while yet containing false prophecies 
    • Claims to clarify scripture
    • It teaches a deification of man
    • Brings god down to the level of a common man
    • Teaches a false gospel
    • Proclaims a false Jesus
    • Asserts itself as a polytheistic religion, and claims monotheistic Christianity has always been polytheistic


    In his closing statements, Mr. Ballard feels he has answered why Mormonism is not a cult, and makes an assumption that now even if people do not accept Mormonism as truth, they now know that Mormonism is not a cult, and that they are basically just as "Christian" as anyone else in the world.

    For Mr Ballard to assume this is not only false, it also seems deceptive. He should know better than most Mormons, the doctrines his church teaches, and if he does not, he has no business speaking about this topic, especially given his high position of authority in the Mormon church.

    If Mr. Ballard would have differentiated between Mormon doctrines, and Biblical Christianity, and presented them as two different beliefs with vastly different doctrinal views of core doctrinal issues, I would not be as critical in my rebuttal to him. However, it is this type of deception that must be addressed and confronted. Since Mormon leaders have decided to change the meaning of beliefs, and definition of words, they have the responsibility to inform people of those changes. Sadly, they do not.

    The truth is that Mormonism teaches:


    • A plurality of gods
    • It deifies man
    • It is in error on the doctrine of man
    • It is in error on the doctrine of God
    • It is in error on the doctrine of sin
    • It presents us with a false Christ who is not found in the Bible
    • Etc.
    I encourage you if you are a Christian to present this evidence to your Mormon friends, with gentleness, and respect, knowing that this is sensitive  but also of eternal importance. And if you are a Mormon reading this  please research for yourself, and compare these teachings to Biblical Christianity.


    In Him,

    Jamie

    (Credit: In Their Own Words, A collection of Mormon quotations, compiled by Bill McKeever)

    Monday, June 20, 2011

    The LDS Eternal Law of Progression

    Dr. James White
    (audio is a little poor, but a great talk)


    Sunday, June 19, 2011

    Josh McDowell on The Bible's Accuracy

    Friday, June 17, 2011

    The Case for Christ

    Mormonism asserts that Jesus was "a" Son of God, but not the "only" Son of God. That Lucifer is our spirit brother, and that Christ is our elder brother.

    This video explores the Biblical evidences for Jesus being the only Son of God, and exaclty who the Bible alone, proclaims Him to be. He alone is the Son of God. This video will show you part of the overwhelming amount of evidence that the Bible alone enjoys.

    The Case For Christ from JD Pilgrim on Vimeo.