From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Summary: Even more twisted caricatures of LDS theology...
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:53:02 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

dali@milton.u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) writes:
> This is an exerpt of some writing/compiling that I did recently.  Hope 
> it makes some people think.

Indeed.  It would be better if more of it were correct.  As it is,
you are spreading great amounts of misinformation about a church 
that you clearly know little about.  Why?

Also, are you *sure* that you want to take credit for this mess?
It reads to me much more like a tract that you typed in.  I've
collected my share of anti-Mormon literature in my time, and so
far I've never seen anything that you couldn't poke a million
holes in (in fact, this sort of literature was instrumental in
my joining the church!).  

Onward:

> 	A major tenant of the Mormon religion is that all men will 
> become exalted gods over their own kingdom on a star after death.  

This is not correct.  I don't know where you got this gem, but at
best it's a strange warping of a widely-held quasi-doctrinal belief.

> 	The Jesus of Christianity is The One True God come in the flesh.  
> He is not a second God. The doctrine of the Trinity states that there 
> is One God in three Persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit).  
> Not three Gods, not one person & also three persons. The Jesus of 
> Christianity was never just man but was always fully man and fully 
> God.

The whole question of the Trinity is problematic for all Christians.
We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate
beings, but one God, united in purpose and action.  That to me is
no less incomprehensible than the idea of three manifestations of
one being -- if this were true, then who did Jesus pray to?  Himself?

> 	The Book of Mormon was not inspired by God.  

Then, since it obviously exists, how did it come into being?

> 	No man has seen God at any time.

No?  Then who did Stephen see as he was being stoned to death?

> 	Even Joseph Smith claimed no one could see God without the Holy 
> Priesthood, 

Where is this claim made?  I think you have a subtle misunderstanding
of what he said.

> The beings in Smith's vision claimed all the churches at that time 
> were wrong and all their doctrines corrupt.  

No, this is not true.  The beings (God the Father and Christ) told
JS that all the churches on the earth at that time had mingled God's
truth with the philosophies of men, that they paid only lip service
to God but denied his power, and that he was not pleased with them
(this, BTW, was foretold in Isaiah).

> If that were true, why 
> does Mormonism have some doctrines in common with Christian 
> denominations?  Certainly if all the doctrines of the Christian 
> churches were wrong, Mormonism should not have any doctrine in 
> common with biblical Christianity.

True, but since your supposition that Mormons believe that "all" 
the doctrines in other Christian churches are wrong is itself
mistaken, this nice syllogism has no bearing on anything.

> 	Later Smith was visited by an angel who was so bright his "room 
> was lighter than at noon day."  Immediately 2 Corinthians 11:14 
> comes to mind:
>  
> 	And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of 
> 	light.

So was Paul's vision also from Satan?  That is, are you saying that
*every* bright manifestation is Satanic, or only that we get to pick
and choose?  If the former, I suggest you go back and read 2 Cor again.
If the latter, on what basis do you call this visitation Satanic and
not divine?  Perhaps you should judge it by the fruits it bore rather
than by your own ignorance of the event.

> 	Instead of confirming the truthfulness of God's Word, the angel 
> told him of plates that contain the "fullness of the everlasting 
> gospel."  Another gospel?

No.  A confirmation of the gospel of Christ already recorded in 
the Bible (as you would know if you had even perused a bit through
the BoM).

> 	Mormons believe the Book of Mormon "another testament" of 
> Christ, a second witness.  Never do the Scriptures give any 
> indication that another book is necessary to testify of Christ and His 
> divinity.

Actually, it does mention this other record, though I don't have 
the reference off hand.  It is the section typically translated as
talking about the "stick" of Joseph and Jacob, though the word used
for "stick" is translated elswhere as "tree" and "book",  Also, Christ 
did mention his "other sheep."  We believe the BoM is a record of 
some of those sheep.

> 	The Book of Mormon is not the source of doctrines of the Church 
> 	of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  It can scarcely be termed a 
> 	book of doctrine, for doctrines are suggested, although not defined, 
> 	and none of the peculiar beliefs by which the Mormons are 
> 	distinguished today are present.  

Not true.  For example, the injunction against infant baptism comes
from the Book of Mormon.  For the most part, however, it is a support
and second testimony of the teachings of Christ, and serves, like the
OT, as a record of God's dealings with his people.

On the other hand, how many of *your* doctrines do you get from the
Old Testament?


I've omitted most of the laundry list you provided of doctrines
that do not appear in the Book of Mormon.  First, this is really
a straw man, and not worthy of discussion -- we do not base our
faith on the BoM, nor have we ever claimed to.  We base our faith
on Jesus Christ, and believe that God will continue to communicate
with those who serve him (as it says in Amos (3:2??)), leading us
in the things we should know and do.  That is, ours is a *living*
relationship with God, not one dependent on someone's translation
of someone's fragment of someone's copy of someone's recollection
of what someone else said.  We believe that we can and should
have a much closer and more communicative relationship with God
than that.

I did want to point out a few other errors in this list though:

> 	The Mormon doctrine of the plurality of Gods cannot be found in 
> 	the Book of Mormon.

> 	The Mormon doctrine of the plurality of wives cannot be found in 
> 	the Book of Mormon.

> 	The Mormon doctrine of a "heavenly mother" cannot be found in the 
> 	Book of Mormon.

There is no doctrine corresponding to these statements.

> 	How then can Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is a 
> 	revelation of the "everlasting" gospel?  

The BoM teaches the same truths (and more) that are found in the
Bible.  No one ever said that it was an *exclusive* teaching or
that nothing else remained that God might want to teach to his
children; that is your own projection onto our beliefs.

> 	The problem which Mormons cannot explain is that if one is to 
> 	believe Joseph Smith is the Prophet of God and the Book of Mormon 
> 	the Word of God it is not possible, with any logic, to discredit one 
> 	without discrediting the other.

Um, what's the problem?  You're right that if Joseph Smith was not
a prophet then the BoM is worthless, and vice versa.  So, what's your
point?

> 	The question arises of how thinking persons can accept the 
> 	doctrinal omissions, fallacies, discrepancies, and inconsistencies of 
> 	the Book of Mormon and its translator.  

Perhaps you would give us some concrete examples of each of these,
rather than just alluding to them?  


> 	The Bible teaches that a true believer has the witness of the 
> Spirit that he is saved and ready for heaven.  Are you certain that if 
> you were to die today that you would be in the presence of the Lord?
> 2 Nephi 25:23 says you are saved by grace "after all you can do."  
> Have you done all you can do?  How do you know if you have or have 
> not done all you can do? 

Only by the Spirit.  So?  Does this mean we agree on this point?

> 	Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by 
> 	observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of 
> 	sin.  (Romans 3:20)
>  
> 	The law has no power to save from sin, it merely points out mans 
> imperfection, and his need for salvation. 
> ...
> 	The Church is also made up of those who realize that there is 
> absolutely nothing they can do to buy their salvation and have put 
> their total trust in Jesus Christ.  We are saved by grace, not by 
> works.  Please read Romans 3:21-4:25; this section fully explains 
> why we are saved by grace, not by works.  

This is an old, tired, and well-acknowledged point.  We *DO NOT* believe
that we can be saved by our works.  As you pointed out, the BoM teaches
salvation by grace -- provided we follow Christ, which is a fundamental
teaching of the LDS church.  This is the same thing that Christ himself 
taught, as did Paul (1 Cor 2:10-15 among others), Peter, and James.

To make sure this is clear, you don't believe that you are saved 
solely and completely by grace with no action on your part do you?
If so, what about James' discussion of a living faith?  What about
Paul's analogy of a person being saved but losing their reward 
because of their lack of good works?  What about Acts 2:8 (?) 
where it says "we will be judged by our works"?  All of these
things *presuppose* faith in Christ, but that faith is the 
beginning point, not the end, of salvation.

> 	It is not true that Mormonism does not attack Christianity.  It's 
> 	very tenants are an affront to Christianity, since it believes that the 
> 	blood of Christ was not enough to save man.  The Mormon believes 
> 	Christ died and rose again merely to pave the way for all men to be 
> 	resurrected.  

No, that's not correct.  That is *part* of what Christ's sacrifice
did for us.  It also provided an atonement for our sins, if we repent
and follow his commandments.  Do you not believe this?

> Salvation, or exaltation, is solely dependant upon the 
> 	works of men.  In the words of Mormon Apostle James Talmage:
>  
> 	Salvation is, and must be, a cooperative enterprise between God 
> 	and man. (An Understandable Religion  p.24)

Do you undertand the word "cooperative"?  That means that both are
involved.  We do not believe that we are saved no matter what we
do by the capricious whims of God, but that we must follow Christ's
commandments.  Thus it requires action and effort on our part, even
though no effort by itself would be enough.  

> 	One of the most offensive tenants of Mormonism is their 
> 	insistence that they are the only true Christian church on the face of 
> 	the earth and that every other church is in a state of apostasy.  

I could just as easily, and perhaps with some justice, say that the
most offensive tenet of some Christian is their arrogant intolerance
of others' beliefs, especially when they obviously don't know what
they're talking about.  So much for charity, I guess.

> 		In 1973, Mormon Apostle Mark E. Peterson succinctly stated 
>	this Mormon position when he said:
>  
> 	When the Savior established his church during his mortal 
> 	ministry...one important fact became conspicuously clear: Salvation 
> 	comes through the Church. It does not come through any separate 
> 	organization or splinter group nor to any private party as an 
> 	individual.... Therefore it was made clearly manifest that salvation 
> 	is in the Church, and of the Church, and is obtained only through the 
> 	Church. (The Ensign, July 1973, p.108)
>  
> 	From the context it is clear that Peterson refers to the Church of 
> 	Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as "the Church."
>  
> 	The true Church is made up of people, not four walls.  

No, or mostly no.  The church is a divinely inspired and regulated
organization.  It is not four walls certainly, but neither is it just
made up of people -- at least God's church isn't.  This is the church
that Peterson was speaking of.

> ...The Mormons believe that the Church is 
> built upon the Prophets and Apostles.  But you must ask what are the 
> Prophets and Apostles built upon?  Upon the cornerstone, Jesus 
> Christ.  He is the true foundation the church is built upon.  He 
> founded the Church, and reigns as the authority over it.  No other man 
> can claim authority over Christ! 

I agree with this almost completely (are you arguing for or against the
LDS church?).  Actually though, I'd say that the church is built on
the rock of revelation, as Christ said to Peter.  The prophets and
apostles are only the organizational manifestation of this rock; if
they are not led by God then they are just a mortal organization.

> No church organization has the authority or power to 
> save; that comes only through Jesus Christ and Him alone. 

Then what did Christ mean when he gave Peter the power to bind and
loose things on earth and in heaven?  Was that just idle chatter?
The Church has this power only to the extent that it has been granted
by Christ.  No one takes this on themselves.


> 	The Mormon religion believes in "living oracles," as the source of 
> Church authority.  In recent years, many Mormon authors have been 
> placing disclaimers in their books.  Even Mormon General Authorities 
> have prefaced their writings with the claim that their books are not 
> official church publications and may not represent official LDS 
> church policy.  

We do not believe that what men say is necessarily the word of God;
it must be confirmed by the Holy Ghost.  Nor do we believe that all
the leaders of the church speak "ex cathedra"; they are men entitled
to their own opinions.

> Furthermore, the words 
> of the "living oracle" become null and void after he dies.  

This is nonsense.  We believe that much has been revealed, and
will continue to be revealed by God as we have need of it and are
ready to receive it.  If we didn't believe what former prophets
said, why would we read the BoM or the Bible?!  

> 	The primary goal all Mormons live for is to attain individual 
> salvation, or exaltation, which is to become a god over your own 
> kingdom through all eternity.  The way to reaching this point is by 
> obeying the doctrines of the Mormon church. 
> 	The true Christian keeps the commandments of the Lord, not to 
> earn or keep his salvation, but because he loves the Lord who first 
> loved him.  
> 	One is self-serving, one is self-less.
> 	One seeks approval of man, one shows loyalty to God. 
> 	Which one do you believe???  

This is an ugly distortion of what we believe.  We do not do
things to ensure our exaltation (or at least we should not -- any
more than people should do things to escape the "fires of hell").  
We try to do the things God commands us to do because we believe that
God loves us and would have us be happy, and because of our love
for him.  Despite what *you* may have been misguided into believing
about us, this is the truth; we do not try to work our way into
heaven, we do not believe in doing things for selfish motives, 
and we do not care for the approval of people over the approval
of God.  We are not perfect, but then, we don't have to be.

--
                    Mike Sellers       mike@isgtec.com
                        User Interface Team Leader
                    ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
            "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.