The Resurrection Is Not a Fable

Each of us will have our own Fridays--those days when the

universe itself seems shattered and the shards of our world lie littered
about us in pieces. We all will experience those broken times when it seems
we can never be put together again. We will all have our Fridays.


"But I testify to you in the name of the One who conquered
death--Sunday will come. In the darkness of our sorrow, Sunday
will come.

"No matter our desperation, no matter our grief, Sunday
will come. In this life or in the next, Sunday will come.

"I testify to you that the Resurrection is not a fable. We have the personal
testimonies of those who saw Him. Thousands in the Old and New Worlds
witnessed the risen Savior. They felt the wounds in His hands, feet, and
side. They shed tears of unrestrained joy as they embraced Him."


(Joseph B. Wirthlin, "Sunday Will Come," Ensign, Nov. 2006, 30)

Witnesses of the Resurrection Boldly Proclaimed It

"After the Resurrection, the disciples became renewed. They traveled
throughout the world proclaiming the glorious news of the gospel.

"Had they chosen, they could have disappeared and returned to
their former lives and occupations. In time, their association with Him
would have been forgotten.

"They could have denied the divinity of Christ. Yet they did not. In the face of danger, ridicule, and threat of death, they entered palaces, temples, and synagogues boldly proclaiming
Jesus the Christ, the resurrected Son of the living God.

"Many of them offered as a final testimony their own precious lives. They died as
martyrs, the testimony of the risen Christ on their lips as they perished.

"The Resurrection transformed the lives of those who witnessed it.
Should it not transform ours? We will all rise from the grave. . . .

"Because of the life and eternal sacrifice of the Savior of the
world, we will be reunited with those we have cherished.

"On that day we will know the love of our Heavenly Father. On that day we will
rejoice that the Messiah overcame all that we could live forever."


(Joseph B. Wirthlin, "Sunday Will Come," Ensign, Nov. 2006, 30)

Mockers...

Job 21:3
Suffer me that I may speak; and after that I have spoken, mock on.

Jude 1:18
How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude 1:17-19 (in Context) Jude 1 (Whole Chapter)

Mat 20:19
And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again. ( Even Christ was mocked)

Job 11:3
Should thy lies make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed?
Job 11:2-4 (in Context) Job 11 (Whole Chapter)

2 Chronicles 36:16
But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.
2 Chronicles 36:15-17 (in Context) 2 Chronicles 36 (Whole Chapter)

Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Galatians 6:6-8 (in Context) Galatians 6 (Whole Chapter)

anti-Mormons & Christ...

Why is it that anti-Mormons insist on spending time and money to judge the faith of others, instead of promoting Christianity and faith? Why are there so many anti-Mormon blogs, web sites, books, pamphlets, and videos dedicated to negative proselytizing? Why do the anti-Mormons promote ill feelings and mistrust with their negative feelings toward Mormons? This is unfortunate, especially in the United States, where religious freedoms encourages respect for individuals of all religious beliefs.

What makes the vicious attacks by the anti-Mormons so shocking is that they do it in the name of Christianity. Mormons could expect such an attack from an atheist or a non-Christian, but from someone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ? If one really wants to know what Mormons really believe in, ask a Mormon - not someone who is filled with hate against another Christian sect.

You will not find The Church of Jesus Christ wasting time and money tearing down someone else's religion - there are just to many sick, hungry, and poor in the world today to care for.

The Bible makes it clear that toleration, peacefulness, kindness, understanding, etc. are the true Christian standards. In Mark 9:38-42, we learn that even Christ was not concerned with doctrine or theological differences. The message in these verses are to let those who worship Him, worship Him, because those who are for Him are not against Him.

The anti-Mormons hold rallies, have booths at state fairs, and try to disrupt church services of the Mormons - all this in the name of Christianity. Jesus would be ashamed if He were here on earth today. That is what the Pharisees did against Jesus in his day. Not much has changed since the days of Christ.

Didn't Peter tell us in 1Peter 2:21-23 to follow in Christs footsteps, that when reviled, revile not again? Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:39? Didn't James say to be slow to wrath and that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God? James 1:19-20 James also says that if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. James 3:2 If the anti-Mormons really believed in the New Testament, how do they justified their attacks on Mormons?

I have personally been to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints general conferences held in Salt Lake City and I have witnessed the biting, hateful, and ugly attacks on the Mormons that goes on there. Street corner after street corner is filled with the anti-Mormons yelling and holding up signs telling us that we are all liars and all going to hell. The police presence during this time is high due to the violence that has erupted in the past. I have personally witnessed the anti-Mormons taking the garments that Mormons hold sacred and rub them on their behinds or spit on them. I wonder if they would have the courage to walk down to the local Jewish synagogue and do the same with a Jewish yarmulke. I doubt it. I have never been asked by the LDS Church to go to another Christian church and hold a rally and speak hurtful and hateful things to them. Never.

Anti-Mormons are so busy spending time and money looking for faults in the faith of Mormons, that they don't have the time, evidently, to read their own Bibles. In Romans 2:1 we read ; " Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whoseoever thou art that judgest: for thou that judgest doest the same things".

One can never judge another religion righteously without hypocrisy. It is God's right to judge, not man's. The Bible tells us that the true followers of Christ is not to judge at all: no excuses. See the following: Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 19:22, John 8:15, 12:47, Corinthians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:23, James 2:13, and Revelation 16:7.

It is those who choose to ignore Christ and the Bible who execute their own personal judgements.

More on this topic on the next posting. IMHO

Enough is Enough................

The following was taken from this link:

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/107785/I-May-Not-Be-Mormon%2C-But....%22Enough-Is-Enough%21%22..%2F%2FIn-Defense-Of-Truth

In Defense of Truth
A Candid Response to Anti-Mormon Criticism
Another Jewish Voice in Defense of Mormons « Two Sticks

Ever since the origin of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church members (Mormons) have experienced religious and physical persecution. Today's persecution comes from pseudointellectual attacks by "Christian scholars." Using media technology, they spread false claims about the LDS Church and its teachings to large audiences, in the same spirit and manner as anti-Semitic polemics of earlier times.

[Note: I am a democrat and will probably not vote for Mitt Romney (for purely political reasons), however, I have been appalled at the way he has been treated in media. I found Lawrence O’Connel’s recent rant on the McLaughlin group particularly outrageous. In any case, I have been pleased that a number of my fellow Jews have been writing in defense of Mitt and Mormonism and, as far as I know, none have been against him.]

In Iowa, at the end of Mitt Romney’s speech, he told a story from the early days of the First Continental Congress, whose members were meeting in Philadelphia in 1774: “With Boston occupied by British troops . . . and fears of an impending war . . . someone suggested they pray.” But because of the variety of religious denominations represented, there were objections. “Then Sam Adams rose and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.”

Were Adams alive today, he most certainly would hear a prayer from a Mormon. It is hard to imagine a group more patriotic than the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But there is reason to believe that voters in Iowa and elsewhere will not accept Mr. Romney’s invitation–put forward implicitly in his remarks at the George Bush Library–to ignore religious differences and embrace him simply as a man of character who loves his country.

Born Again Mormons...

Being "born again" is an area that the anti-Mormons like to center their attacks on, and it is very confusing as to why they do so. For Mormons, being born again is a highly desirable state to be in. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or affectionately known as the Mormons, being born again can not only relate and define the physical act of baptism by immersion, but it can also relate to a later spiritual experience as well. These two events don't necessarily take place at the same time, and often don't.

Quoting from the Book of Mormon, in Alma 5:14, we read: " And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

And quoting again from the Book of Mormon, in Mosiah 27:25-26 : " And the Lord said unto me: marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons, and daughters. And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God."

The above quotes certainly show that the Mormons do believe in being born again, and contrary to what the anti-Mormons proclaim, Mormon theology is closer to their own idea of being born again than they suspect. To a Mormon, being born again, requires a full submission to God and complete trust and acceptance of Christ. I can see no difference in the born again Evangelical or the born again Mormon. Anti-Mormons who insist that Mormons don't believe in being born again are at best uninformed, and at worst, deceitful.

The only difference in the anti-Mormon born again Christian, and the Mormon born again Christian, is that the anti-Mormons go around proclaiming in a loud voice that they are born again. How much is this like the Pharisee's of Jesus' time? Mormons show that they are born again Christians by example, by living their lives as Christ set the example on how to live- with kindness, goodness, and charity.

Next - anti-Mormons and Christ. IMHO

Faith & Grace...Part 2.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 (see also Luke 6:46-49 )

A cry of faith to the Lord does not let the sinner into God's kingdom without doing the Lord's will. Jesus' words are precise, with no questions about what a true Christian must do.

In Matthew 25:40, we read: " And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Here, Christ was talking previously about giving meat to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, and visiting those in prison. These are those who will inherit the kingdom of God. These are those who did good works. They are not the ones who say that they have faith alone. They are not the ones who say that they have been permanently saved. Jesus is telling us here tha those who omit good works from their lives will go into everlasting punishment, in spite of any faith they claim to have. Read Matthew 25: 31-46.

In Mark 12: 28-34, Jesus is asked what the first and greatest commandments are. He says that the first is to love the Lord God, and the second is to love our neighbor. then He adds: there is none other commandments greater than these. If faith alone were all that was necessary for salvation, Christ surely would have mentioned it here as one of the greatest commandments. To love God requires an action on our part, for He says if you love me, keep my commandments. To love our neighbor also requires action on our part - we must feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc - all a part of doing something.

James 1:22 says: "be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only." It is clear that James is saying that hearing of the word is not good enough - that we must also be doers of good works.

3 John 11 " He that does good is of God; he that does evil is not."

The Bible assures us salvation is not by faith alone. In fact, the word "faith" and "alone" are not found together in the Bible anywhere, so why would one put his trust in such an anti-biblical concept?

Now, if somebody is already saved, what is the need of a judgment? Judgment is not necessary if one is already saved - either you are saved, or you are not. No need of a judgment.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10

Revelation 2-26 teaches us " And he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations."
If someone is permanently saved, there is obviously nothing to overcome, and this warning is in vain. There is no absolute biblical assurance of instant and permanent salvation. IMHO

Faith & Grace...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or sometimes affectionately referred to as Mormons, teaches that salvation is the gift of God, predicated on the atonement of Christ, and that man can do nothing of himself to earn it.

And Mormons, like most people, dislike having their beliefs deliberately misrepresented. Mormons do believe in salvation by grace, even salvation by grace alone. Mormons also believe in salvation by grace through faith, but not salvation by grace through faith alone.

Salvation is any sense is a free gift from God. Man can do nothing to earn it. We cannot save ourselves. But the anti-Mormons will continually berate Mormons on this concept, even though the Mormons have recent scripture that states: "And we know the justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true" D&C 20:30
Mormons take upon themselves the name of Christ, and are saved by grace through faith just as many other Christian religions believe.

But God's grace is conditional.....to receive God's grace is to live under the acceptance of that grace. God's grace must be fully accepted in order to be fully received. As with any gift given, it can be rejected. So therefore it must be fully accepted.

Faith is often viewed by anti-Mormons as nothing more than a belief that Jesus can do something about a person's problem with sin. Grace is a given, but Mormon's do not let it remain stagnant, and are encouraged to follow the path of grace instead of just standing still and celebrating. For faith to be real, it must bring forth good fruit, works, and obedience. This concept is clearly taught in the bible, see Acts 6:7, Luke 8:15.

I will address two concepts that the anti-Mormons adhere to that are not biblical, the first being, We are saved by grace alone, without works or obedience, and the second being, salvation is instant and permanent. The anti's believe in the concept of once saved, always saved.

Salvation by grace through faith alone is not a Bible teaching. This thought came about through the Reformation, and in particular, by Martin Luther. This concept was unknown until the sixteenth century among Christians, until Luther introduced this doctrine by inserting the word "alone" into Romans 3:28. So therefore, whenever the anti-Mormons see the words "faith" or "Grace" in the Bible, they also insert the word "alone" into their speech.

In James 2:14 we read: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" . And again we read, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead; being alone." James 2:17 And one more in James 2:24: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only." What is amazing, is that the anti-Mormons love to preach literal translation of the Bible to suit their needs, but not when it contradicts their own teachings. Because, according to James, works and faith are inseparable for salvation, including justification.

The most popular scripture verse that the anti-Mormons love to cite is found in Ephesians 2:8-9 which reads : "For by grace are ye saved though faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Interestingly, Mormons do not have a problem with this verse. Mormons believe salvation is the gift of God predicated on the atonement of Christ, and that works will not save anyone. Grace becomes effective through active faith, as opposed to dead faith, and it is dependent on two things: continuing in the works of faith and continuing steadfastly in the faith of Christ.

Now if the anti-Mormons would read the next verse in Ephesians, they will read, " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Thus we were created unto good works, and that we should walk in them, not maybe walk in them, or perhaps walk in them, or might walk in them, but should walk in them. It is amazing what one can learn when we don't lean on just one verse in the Bible, and not take things out of context, but believe in the Bible as a whole truth.

In 1 John 2:4 we read, " He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Faith is active and includes good works. Being saved instantly by faith makes a mockery of this verse. Giving lip service to faith and declaring that we are already saved because we have faith in Christ is not salvation. What we obey demonstrates our true faith.

I will continue with this discussion tomorrow. IMHO

The Infallible Bible....

One strong bias that the anti-Mormon authors of books, pamphlets, and videos have is their position that the scriptures known as the Bible is all God has ever declared to mankind. They claim that it is completely accurate, error less, and infallible. Some of them actually raise the status of the Bible equal to that of God, and actually worship it as such.

What does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, believe in? Mormons believe in the Bible, and treat it as the Word of God. The Mormons read it, study it, and accept it as Holy Scripture. But........Mormons believe that the scriptures were written by men, translated be men, and that we interpret them as men. The scriptures are a mixture of the divine and the human mind. Mormons do not believe that any scripture is perfect.....including the Book of Mormon.

Mormons are not alone in this belief. This belief is also shared by many non-Mormon, knowledgeable, Bible scholars. Something to "Google" on a rainy day ;-) .

What I find most interesting is the fact that there are, in the English language alone, over twenty (20) different versions of the Bible, there may be more, but that was all I could find. See this non-Mormon site:

http://www.biblegateway.com

Now if you look up a particular verse, you may get a number of changes found from Bible to Bible. So which Bible is correct? (And who said that it was the correct Bible? ;-) )

The following examples will show that the existing text of the Authorized Version of the Bible shows many errors, contradictions, and confusing statements:

2 Kings 8:26 -- Ahaziah began his reign at age 22
2 Chronicles 22:2 -- he began at age 42

Matthew 27:5 -- Judas died by hanging himself
Acts 1:18 -- He fell burst open, and his bowels hushed forth.

Mark 15:25 -- Jesus was crucified the third hour
Luke 3:23 -- He was still before Pilot the sixth hour

1 Kings 4:26 -- Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses
2 Chronicles 9:25 -- He had only 4,000 stalls of horses

Mark 16:14-19 -- The Ascension took place in a room
Luke 24:50-51 -- It took place outdoors

James 1:13 -- God tempts no man
Genesis 22:1 -- God tempted Abraham

These are but a few of the many, many, differences that can be found in just one version of the Bible. I shudder to think of all the differences in all the 20+ Bibles in the English language!
Is it unchristian to believe that the Bible is infallible?

The Gutenberg press was not invented until the mid 1400's, so all of the previous Bibles were written by hand and man, one book at a time. Doesn't logic tell you that perhaps someone at some time made an error in transposing from one book to another?

Martin Luther is called the father of the Reformation. This is what one web site says of his translation of the Bible: Luther's translation of the Bible into the German vernacular, making it more accessible to ordinary people, had a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture. The translation also furthered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation,^[5] and influenced the translation of the English King James Bible.

Does anyone really believe that Martin made NO mistakes in his translation? This is the same Martin Luther who took out some of the books in the Old Testament, because he didn't believe that they belonged. But is Martin Luther unchristian because he had strong feelings against certain books of the Bible that he thought weren't worthy of being in the canon of scripture? Is Martin Luther unchristian because, as a monk in the Catholic Church, he was ex-communicated and therefore went out and started his own church? Even Martin Luther, father of the Reformation and Lutheranism, didn't believe that the Bible was without error.

Nowhere does the Bible claim to be infallible. To say that the Bible is infallible, means that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible, which is very close to saying that you are infallible.

Today, many Christian churches have a different number of books in their canon, which says that the problem of canonical has not yet been solved.

The Bible itself lists several books that are not in the Bible today. Here is a short list of some of them - there are many more:

Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:7)
Book of Enoch (Jude 14)
Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
Book of Statues (1 Samuel 10:25)
Book of Jasher ( Joshua 10:13 )

Interesting that both the Book of Jasher and the Book of Enoch have been found since our modern Bible was canonized. Simply "Google" Book of Jasher and Book of Enoch for some interesting reading.

Finally, the Bible never declares itself complete or infallible. Never. But if the Bible is as complete and infallible as the anti-Mormons claim it to be, why hasn't it lead to a oneness of mind, a oneness of religious beliefs?

What is your true object of worship? I don't believe that you can worship God and the Bible. Truth comes from one source, and I believe that one source to be God the Father.

The Bible does not have to be infallible to get its message across. IMHO

Next : Faith vs works.

The Apostasy........Part 2

Yesterday, I spoke on how the apostasy came about historically, and today I would like to discuss how the scriptures foretold of the apostasy.

But first, let's discuss how the Bible has not brought about unity of the many different churches found on the earth today. One anti-Mormon states in his book, " The doctrine is that the true Church of Jesus Christ is not to be identified exclusively with any one earthly organization, but that it includes members of various denominations scattered throughout the earth." If this is true, one only has to ask why don't all true members of the Church of Jesus Christ from these different denominations come forth and form one true Church? Another question also comes to mind - who gave these different and various denominations permission to break off into different divisions? And where in the Bible does it say that it was ok to do so? Why does one church teach baptism by immersion, and another by sprinkling? Can they both be true? Why do the different churches teach differently about the next life? Why do they teach differently about how and when one receives the Holy Ghost? Why do they teach differently about grace and works? Infant baptism? The Sabbath day? Tithing? The sacrament? How can different teachings from all the various denominations all be true?

In Matthew 15:8-9 Jesus said : " This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their hearts are far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

In his letter to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul assured the members of the imminent coming of Christ. Many apparently thought Christ would arrive in their lifetime, but Paul corrected them saying, " that day shall not come but there be a falling away first." Thessalonians 2:3 The word for "falling away" in the Greek for this passage is apostasia, and it literally means apostasy.

The Apostle John also knew that an apostasy would take place and that the time of the Church was growing short. In 1 John 2:18 he said: " Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; we know that it is the last time."

Acording to John, the falling away predicted by Paul was already beginning in his own time. The author of Acts reaffirms this prophecy of a falling away in Acts 20:29-30 : " For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."

These passages, clearly show that a falling away from the truth was to occur before the second coming of Christ, but see also the following verses: 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Peter 3:3; and John 16:1-4.

One of the marks of the apostasy, or falling away, was the changing of the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ" to the Catholic Church, and when the protesting groups finally broke away from the Catholic Church, through the Reformation, none of them took the name of Jesus Christ but named themselves after men, or after the method of baptisms, or after other religious beliefs that caused them to break away from the Catholic Church in the first place.

The Church of Jesus Christ, established during His ministry, was properly known as His Church. and not the Church of John the Baptist, or the Church of Peter the Apostle, nor the Church of Paul the Great Missionary.

One of the problems with anti-Mormon logic is that they insist that Christ's original church did not fall away. Then to be consistent they should also admit that their own church is a fraud, because there would be no need to organize any modern-day churches if the original church was still here.

Tomorrow, I will discuss the infallible, perfect, and final Bible. IMHO

The Apostasy............

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, believe that an apostasy, or falling away, of the true church occurred and that a restoration, not a reformation, was necessary to establish the Church of Jesus Christ back on earth.

The anti-Mormons do not believe that this happened, but there is a ton of evidence that supports the apostasy both scripturally and historically. The early church struggle through many changes and evolved into many apostate groups. Let's look at it today from the historical side. Please read about the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed from my previous posts for some solid evidence of this struggle between many different groups.

Even more important, let's consider what I had posted earlier:

The Christian churches of today may be generally classified as follows:

1. The Catholic Church, which contends that it has had an uninterrupted existence upon the earth since it was originally founded by Jesus Christ.

2. Protestant churches founded by reformers who contend that the original church fell into apostasy, and who, therefore, through a study of the Bible, have attempted to return to the original teachings and practices of the church. The number of these churches is evidence of how impossible it is to agree upon the teachings of the Bible when left to the wisdom of man to interpret and understand them. Because of this lack of unity, churches have continued to multiply in a further effort to return to what they consider the original teachings of the Christ.

3. Those who believe that the church established by Jesus Christ while he was upon the earth fell into an apostate condition as predicted by the apostles, and that the church could not be reestablished upon the earth merely through a reformation, but only through a restoration.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands alone in this latter classification.

In considering these claims, it is obvious that if the first is true, there is no excuse for the existence of any other Christian church. If the original church had gone astray, could a reformation restore its power?

The issue is really between the Catholics and the Mormons. If the Catholics are right, then Mormonism is wrong. If Mormons are right, then Catholicism is wrong. The Protestants don’t have a leg to stand on, because if the Catholics are wrong, so are they, for they were originally a part of the Catholic Church.

I would challenge any anti-Mormon to trace the roots of his/her church back to Christ. There are several web sites that do just that, and all the roots go back to the Catholic Church. the roots of the Evangelical Lutheran Church can be found here:

http://www.elca.org/communication/roots.html

Here, they state that their roots can be claimed all the way back to the Protestant Reformation, and that Martin Luther was a monk who didn't agree with the teachings of the his church, so he started his own church. ( Reading about Martin Luther can be quite enlightening. Did you know that he threw out some of the books of the Old Testament, and was talked out of throwing out four books of the New Testament?) Within a couple hundred years, even the Lutheran Church was by then broken up into different synods, and I quote " There were "revivalist" and "confessional" movements within Lutheran churches in Europe and in America, and as Lutherans migrated to this country they were influenced by the "fundamentalist" movement here. Consequently, there developed a wide variety of expressions of Lutheranism in North America."

The Baptists can trace their history also back to the reformers who broke away from the Catholic Church, as seen here: http://www.allaboutreligion.org/baptist-church-history-faq.htm

There are many, many, different forms of Baptists, and trying to Google Baptist Church turns up a lot of miscellaneous information, but I found this interesting here:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Baptists-954/baptist-1.htm

This site claims, and I don't know if this is correct or not: "There are approximately 250 different Baptist groups worldwide, plus within each group, any given local Baptist church is autonomous, which means that each congregation decides how it will "do church." The answer to your question, therefore, is ... there is no one answer, or even only 100 answers, or even only 1000 answers. There are about 50-60 million Baptists worldwide, and perhaps as many as 1 million congregations. If one were to examine all Baptist individuals and congregations, one would find that Baptists worship in tens of thousands of different ways (and perhaps more than that)."

Like I said, I don't know if that information is correct, but I do know that there are a lot of different Baptist Churches and they don't all teach the same thing. The following is taken from: http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0575.htm

"If it is a fact that the lost world is bewildered by the conflicting claims of hundreds of churches and denominations all calling themselves Christian; is it not equally true they would be confused by the conglomeration of beliefs that are covered by the name Baptist? There are American Baptists, Southern Baptists, Christian Unity Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Duck River & Kindred Associations of Baptists, Baptist Church of Christ, Freewill Baptists, General Baptists, General Six—Principle Baptists, Independent Baptist Church of America, National Baptist, Evangelical Life & Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A., Regular Baptists, Separate Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, United American Freewill Baptists, United Baptists, Free Communion Baptists, Anti-mission Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and a host of others."

There is no way logically that all of these different Baptist Churches are teaching the same message that Christ taught......no way.

Again, I would challenge any anti-Mormon to trace his/her church history back to the original Church that Christ established.

Yet, the anti-Mormons claim that there was no apostasy or falling away of the truth in spite of all the historical evidence.

Tomorrow, I will post on the scriptural evidence of an apostasy. IMHO

The anti-Mormons and the Trinity...Part 2

Yesterday, we learned a little about the Nicene Creed - a creed written by men to try and explain the nature of Christ. This is apparently when the theory of the Trinity developed, for the trinity can be found nowhere in scripture.

But wait...there is another creed to once again try to explain the nature of Christ and the Trinity, and this comes from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod located here:

https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3357

This is what it says: ( The highlights are my own)

Athanasian Creed

Whoever will be saved shall, above all else, hold the catholic faith. Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal. As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet they are not three lords but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself to be both God and Lord, So we cannot by the catholic faith say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.. He, therefore, that will be saved is compelled thus to think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; Who, although he is God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God;. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies and will give an account of their own works. And they that have done good will go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. Sorry, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I get confused just reading that! The one word used in this creed that I find interesting is the word "incomprehensible". In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of the definitions of "incomprehensible" is impossible to comprehend and unintelligible. How can any knowledge be attained from that which is not known? And can anyone "know" something incomprehensible? Now, I feel that is the major difference between the anti-Mormons Jesus and the Mormons Jesus. The Mormons Jesus can be understood and He is very intelligent. Mormons also believe that man was created literally in God's image, but the anti-Mormons assert that God is only a spirit, that He can fill the entire universe and sit on the head of a pin. Yet the anti-Mormons have a difficult time explaining what a spirit is. The anti-Mormons like to quote John 4:24 that states that God is a spirit. Again, the anti-Mormons like to take a quote out of text and then adhere to it literally. Ok, let us do just that. If we except that God is just a spirit, then by definition we must exempt Christ from the Trinity because Jesus said in Luke 24:39 "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." In Romans 6:9 we read "...Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him." This means that Christ still has His body, (as many people witnessed as He ascended into Heaven), and to say that He has no body is to say that He has died again. For the anti-Mormons to insist that Christ is part of the Trinity in spirit only is a total denial of Christ's Godhead because Christ has a resurrected body! So, taking this one step further, if Christ is God, then God has a physical body. Period. Mormons believe that Christ was resurrected with His body, and that many of His followers testified that they saw him and that they felt the wounds in His hands and side. Matthew 5:8 says "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God." I wonder if the anti-Mormons take that verse literally. Incomprehensible?...a spirit only?......Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity?.....I think not. Logic alone tells me that this is not my Christ. The anti-Mormon concept of God was developed a century or more after most of the New Testament was completed. As anyone who studies Christian history will discover, battles and debates over the identity of God lead to creed statements defining God, not to biblical statements defining God. Finally, if the concept of the Trinity is so important, why is it not found anywhere in the Bible? The Bible does not explain how God exists in three persons and yet is one God. The reason the Bible has never mentioned the Trinity is simple because it is not true. The concept of one God with three persons within the one God can only mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each only 1/3 of that one God (1/3 + 1/3 +1/3 = ONE ). Again, logic tells me that God cannot be one and three at the same time. He cannot be both and be real. But it is true that to reject the Trinity as a biblical concept by the Mormons is not the equivalent to rejecting the Bible itself. The Mormons love the Bible, and the Mormons love Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. They are two separate beings, and the Spirit has testified to me that this is true. IMHO

The anti-Mormons and the Trinity...Part 1

The purpose of this post, and the next few, is to enlighten and expose the falsehoods perpetrated by the many anti-Mormons that have found new life now that a Mormon is running for President of the United States. But the primary cause for alarm among these anti-Mormons is not Mitt Romney running for President, but the LDS Church's steady growth through the years. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as viewed by the anti-Mormons, is the new kid on the block, yet the LDS Church has been experiencing constant and steady growth. Since many of the LDS converts come from Evangelical or other Christian backgrounds, the leaders of these denominations not only feel threatened , but they are losing parishioners and with the parishioners, money. That is the real threat to the anti-Mormons. If it was really about converting people to Christ, these anti-Mormons would be called anti-Islams, anti-Jewish, or anti-Hindu. Anti-Mormons have chosen a negative approach to proselytizing and converting others by attacking the beliefs of others. They do not preach what they believe, but what they do not believe.

This brings us to the Trinity. Interestingly, the word "trinity" is found nowhere in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in scripture, but appeared shorty after the Nicene Creed. The following is taken from here, and those who want to learn more about the early church, will find the Nicene Creed quite interesting:

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Nicene_Intro.htm

NICENE CREED - Historical Note

In the first three centuries, the church found itself in a hostile environment. On the one hand, it grappled with the challenge of relating the language of the gospel, developed in a Hebraic and Jewish-Christian context, to a Graeco-Roman world. On the other hand, it was threatened not only by persecution, but also by ideas that were in conflict with the biblical witness.

In A.D. 312, Constantine won control of the Roman Empire in the battle of Milvian Bridge. Attributing his victory to the intervention of Jesus Christ, he elevated Christianity to favored status in the empire. "One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor" became his motto.

The new emperor soon discovered that "one faith and one church" were fractured by theological disputes, especially conflicting understandings of the nature of Christ, long a point of controversy. Arius, a priest of the church in Alexandria, asserted that the divine Christ, the Word through whom all things have their existence, was created by God before the beginning of time. Therefore, the divinity of Christ was similar to the divinity of God, but not of the same essence. Arius was opposed by the bishop, Alexander, together with his associate and successor, Athanasius. They affirmed that the divinity of Christ, the Son, is of the same substance as the divinity of God, the Father. To hold otherwise, they said, was to open the possibility of polytheism, and to imply that knowledge of God in Christ was not final knowledge of God.

To counter a widening rift within the church, Constantine convened a council in Nicaea in A.D. 325. A creed reflecting the position of Alexander and Athanasius was written and signed by a majority of the bishops. Nevertheless, the two parties continued to battle each other. In A.D. 381, a second council met in Constantinople. It adopted a revised and expanded form of the A.D. 325 creed, now known as the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed is the most ecumenical of creeds. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joins with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant churches in affirming it.

It certainly appears that the Trinity concept appeared here, since it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. Even way back then, the nature of Christ was a controversy.

The anti-Mormons will use predominately the following scriptures to support their concept of the Trinity:

Isaiah 44:6; John 10:30; 1 John 5:7; John 14:5-9

The anti-Mormons adhere literally to these scriptures, but will not accept a literal interpretation of a scripture when it does not fit their needs. And there are a ton of those scriptures that the anti-Mormons won't even discuss.

For example, John 10:30 says "I and my Father are one". The anti-Mormons state that this must be taken literally, as one essence. But a problem arises in the same gospel of John 17:11, when the Jesus "part" of God prays to the Father "part" of God. The anti-Mormons want us to actually believe that God actually prays to himself!

Another example. In Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, Jesus Christ spoke of His coming in glory. He said, "that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Using the anti-Mormon belief in the Trinity and the all - in - one - God theory, then I have to believe that the anti-Mormon God is not a truthful God......being the same God as the Father, Jesus had to know the timing of His second coming. Sorry anti-Mormons, but my God is not a liar and He is not the Father in essence, being, person, substance, or anything else.

This is such an interesting subject that I will continue with it tomorrow. IMHO

anti-Mormon $$$

With Mitt Romney running for President of the United States, and with the fact that he just happens to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, AKA, the Mormons, the anti-Mormon literature in the form of pamphlets, books, videos, and blogs has increased proportionately.

Which makes me ponder on why the members of these anti-Mormon churches allow their hard-earned dollars that they give to these churches in good faith, be spent on trying to convert a religious group that already believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

These pamphlets, books, videos, DVDs, etc. cost a TON of many to produce….and I have to ask….why??

These donations could be doing so much more good in feeding and caring for the poor, providing vaccines for the ill, wheel-chairs for those in need, and in doing good works for others. But instead, all of these good-faith $$$ are spent in trying to convert members of the LDS Church to their own religious beliefs.

If you are a member of one of these churches, you have to ask yourselves, why aren’t these pamphlets, videos, etc used to convert others who do not believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. That would include the following religions: Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism to just name a few of the religions of the world who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior. Why are your donation $$$ not spent trying to convert these people to Christianity?

But even a better suggestion for your donation $$$ : give to the needy!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not spend the time and monies on anti-Protestant, or anti-Catholic propaganda. And why is that? Because the LDS members are not donating their $$$ to The Church…..they are donating their money to the Lord. This money is sacred, and only good can come of this money. The LDS Church donates literally millions of $$$ each year to helping the poor and needy.

I just have to believe that this is what Jesus would want His money spent on if He were at the head of His church today. IMHO

The anti-Mormon untruths.........

With a presidential candidate running for president of the United States who just happens to belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the ant-Mormon literature and untruths have been taken to new lows lately. I wish to only tell you what the LDS Church really believes - from someone who attends church weekly and reads the scriptures daily and is grateful to be a member.

The purpose of the following postings over the course of the next couple of weeks or so will be two-fold : 1. to enlighten those who have an interest in learning more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and 2. to expose anti-Mormon false-hoods.

If you are a member of the LDS Church, I'm sure that you are familiar with all the anti-Mormon literature that is out there. If you are not a member, perhaps my postings will help you understand what we believe in and why - from the mouth of a Mormon and not from the mouth of those who are attacking the LDS Church.

Over the next several weeks, I will post and discuss roughly five different items of concern that the anti-Mormons have with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka, the Mormons :

1. I will discuss the rejection of the Trinity by the LDS Church - explain why, and what we as Mormons believe in, and why we do so.

2. I will discuss the total apostasy of Christ's Church as organized by Him and why there was a need for a restoration vs. a reformation.

3. I will discuss the fact that Mormons do not believe that any of the scriptures known to man are absolutely infallible or complete, and explain/show why that is so.

4. I will discuss salvation through faith alone, and finally,

5. I will discuss the beliefs of Mormons concerning the Holy Spirit.

The purpose of these postings are to enlighten, expose, and learn from. I will not debate, argue, agree or disagree with any one's comments, if there be any. That is not my purpose here. I only want to explain what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes about the various five items under discussion.

These postings will be taken primarily from a book entitled "Guess who wants to have you for lunch?", by Alan Denison and D.L. Barksdale. This book can be purchased here:

http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p1893036057.html

This is a wonderful book and well worth the cost. IMHO

Cool Bible look-up site.............

……..where one can look up words, phrases, or verses from five (5) different versions of the Bible. Cool.

I looked up the word “trinity” and it is not found in any of the five versions available………interesting.

http://www.biblelookup.com

Why the lies ?...bogus political cards.

Bogus S.C. Card Cites Mormon Passages Jim Davenport- Associated Press
01/01/2008 04:06 PM MST

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Many South Carolina Republicans got a bogus holiday greeting card this week, purported to be from White House hopeful Mitt Romney, that cites some controversial passages of the Book of Mormon.

"We wish you and your family a happy holiday season and a joyful New Year. The Romney family," the card says.

The last page features a photograph of a temple above a box that says "Paid For By The Boston Massachusetts Temple."

Romney's campaign said it had nothing to do with the cards, postmarked Thursday from Columbia with a 41-cent stamp, and Boston Temple President Ken Hutchins said Saturday he first heard about the mailing Friday from a woman in Charleston.

Hutchins said the temple had nothing to do with sending mail to South Carolina Republicans, who go to the polls on Jan. 19 in a key early primary.

"It is sad and unfortunate that this kind of deception and trickery has been employed," said Will Holley, Romney's South Carolina spokesman. "There is absolutely no place for it in American politics."

South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson said he intends to "contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Elections Fraud Division and other appropriate authorities, provide them the copy of the mail piece delivered to South Carolina Republicans and ask for a thorough investigation into this matter."

There was no indication how many of the cards were mailed, but Dawson said he got calls from several people who reported receiving them.

"I think it would be nice if somebody got to the bottom of this," Hutchins said.

The card contains passages that underscore some differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those of denominations that are prevalent in South Carolina.

"We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His first born, and another being upon the earth by whom he begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as his only begotten in this world," reads one passage from Orson Pratt, cited on the card as an "original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles."

The card also cites a passage on Mary's virgin birth that underscores her race. "And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white." On the card, "fair and white" are in a bolder, larger font and on a separate line.

Hutchins said the mailing hurts his temple, which, like the parent Mormon church, stays out of politics.

"They have no business using that name or referring to the temple," Hutchins said. "It's a very hurtful thing and creates a misleading impression in peoples' minds." Hutchins said he alerted Tagg Romney, one of Romney's sons, and church authorities about the mailings.

Romney's faith has been a recurring issue in South Carolina, where Christian conservatives dominate the GOP primary. Romney overcame some of those doubts this fall when he picked up an endorsement from Bob Jones, the chancellor of Greenville-based, Christian fundamentalist Bob Jones University.

Such a mailing isn't surprising for South Carolina politics, a state known for political mudslinging and backdoor maneuvering.

Those tactics backfire, said Warren Tompkins, a political consultant who ran George Bush's 2000 campaign in South Carolina and now is Romney's top consultant in the state. "Anything this outrageous and childish and nonsensical would have a significant fallout on whoever did it and on whose behalf it was done," Tompkins said.