CARM.

org on Mormonism
What Does Mormonism Teach? - by Matt Slick The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the 'odd' ones are not initially taught to potential converts. But they should be. Instead, "they are revealed later as one matures and gains the ability to accept them." The LDS Church tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian but what underlies those Christian sounding terms is far from Christian in meaning. Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers. Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the citations below are not from official Mormon writings, as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them, written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is, the following is what Mormons are taught. Atonement

"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, Sharing Time: The Atonement, Friend, Mar. 1989, p. 39.). Ronnie Bray responds: The line in quotes comes from a story told by Paul H Dunn, one time member of the Quorum of Seventy, now deceased. Dunn is retelling a story about forgiveness and atonement using the words his father used when young Paul sent a baseball through the window of a local churchs stained glass window, and the ministers came to his house to be compensated. This selective use of a third hand quote is typical of AntiMormons that scour Mormon writings and works to find a word or a sentence that they can turn to sinister use. With such a fine ability to track down single words and short phrases it is evident that they pass by perhaps hundreds of substantial theological works that tell how Latter-day Saints [Mormons] actually do view the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This is part of the story used by writer Laurel Rohlfingin an article correctly attributed to Sharing Time: The Atonement, from the childrens LDS Magazine, The Friend, used for 3 to 11 year old children. Since children of that age are unlikely to be able to follow profound theological expositions, any more than Paul Slick seems to be, the stories are intentionally aimed and weighted to the understanding of children. In this story, eleven years old Paul Dunn scored a home run through the window of a nearby churchs stained glass window. The ministers were

in his hiome when Paul went to tell his parents what he had done. The passage to which Slick refers is: Paul admitted to the ministers that he had hit the ball that had broken the window and told them that he was very sorry. Pauls father put his arm around his sons shoulder, patted him on the head, and said, This is a good boy. He, too, apologised [to the two ministers] for the mishap and asked how much it would cost to replace the stained glass window. They told him that it would be about $500. It was then that his father taught young Paul a great lesson. He asked the ministers if they understood the principle of Christs atonement. They seemed a little puzzled. His father said, In our Church, we believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel (third article of faith). He explained that the atonement allows each of us to be forgiven of our sins if we repent. Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. As the only perfect person who ever lived on earth, He was the only one who could do this for us. We could not do it for ourselves. Without His sacrifice, we could never be forgiven of our sins and would not be able to live with Heavenly Father and Jesus again. Pauls father pointed out that although Paul had broken a window, he could never pay for it himself. His allowance of 25 a week would never pay for a $500 window. Taking his

chequebook from his coat pocket, he wrote out a check for the amount needed and said, As Pauls father, and because I love him, I will pay the price that he cannot. This experience helped Paul understand what Jesus did for us when He atoned for our sins. At this Easter time we can be thankful that Heavenly Father loved us enough to send His Son so that we can be forgiven when we do something wrong. Let me expand Mr Slicks understanding of the Mormon view of the Atonement of Jesus Christ by introducing him to authoritative statements made by Latter-day Saints on the subject. Is the cross important to our faith? The answer is an unequivocal yes! The Redeemers suffering on the cross is vitally important to us and is an inseparable part of the Atonement, through which He suffered and died for our sins and thereby provided us with a clear path to salvation and exaltation. [Elder Gregory A. Schwitzer Of the Seventy. Ensign, July 2011] Rich meaning is found in study of the word atonement in the Semitic languages of Old Testament times. In Hebrew, the basic word for atonement is kaphar, a verb that means to cover or to forgive. 19 Closely related is the Aramaic and Arabic word kafat, meaning a close embraceno doubt related to the Egyptian ritual embrace. References to that embrace are evident in the Book of

Mormon. One states that the Lord hath redeemed my soul ; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love. 20 Another proffers the glorious hope of our being clasped in the arms of Jesus. 21 I weep for joy when I contemplate the significance of it all. To be redeemed is to be atonedreceived in the close embrace of God with an expression not only of His forgiveness, but of our oneness of heart and mind. What a privilege! And what a comfort to those of us with loved ones who have already passed from our family circle through the gateway we call death! Scriptures teach us more about the word atonement. The Old Testament has many references to atonement, which called for animal sacrifice. Not any animal would do. Special considerations included: the selection of a firstling of the flock, without blemish, 22 the sacrifice of the animals life by the shedding of its blood, 23 death of the animal without breaking a bone, and 24 one animal could be sacrificed as a vicarious act for another. 25 The Atonement of Christ fulfilled these prototypes of the Old Testament. He was the firstborn Lamb of God, without blemish. His sacrifice occurred by the shedding of blood.

No bones of His body were brokennoteworthy in that both malefactors crucified with the Lord had their legs broken. 26 And His was a vicarious sacrifice for others. While the words atone or atonement, in any of their forms, appear only once in the King James translation of the New Testament, 27 they appear 35 times in the Book of Mormon. 28 As another testament of Jesus Christ, it sheds precious light on His Atonement, as do the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Latter-day revelation has added much to our biblical base of understanding. Infinite Atonement In preparatory times of the Old Testament, the practice of atonement was finitemeaning it had an end. It was a symbolic forecast of the definitive Atonement of Jesus the Christ. His Atonement is infinitewithout an end. 29 It was also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death. It was infinite in terms of His immense suffering. It was infinite in time, putting an end to the preceding prototype of animal sacrifice. It was infinite in scopeit was to be done once for all. 30 And the mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him. 31 It was infinite beyond any human scale of measurement or mortal comprehension. Jesus was the only one who could offer such an infinite atonement, since He was born of a mortal mother and an

immortal Father. Because of that unique birthright, Jesus was an infinite Being. The Ordeal of the Atonement The ordeal of the Atonement centered about the city of Jerusalem. There the greatest single act of love of all recorded history took place. 32 Leaving the upper room, Jesus and His friends crossed the deep ravine east of the city and came to a garden of olive trees on the lower slopes of the Mount of Olives. There in the garden bearing the Hebrew name of Gethsemanemeaning oil-press olives had been beaten and pressed to provide oil and food. There at Gethsemane, the Lord suffered the pain of all men, that all might repent and come unto him. 33 He took upon Himself the weight of the sins of all mankind, bearing its massive load that caused Him to bleed from every pore. 34 Later He was beaten and scourged. A crown of sharp thorns was thrust upon His head as an additional form of torture. 35 He was mocked and jeered. He suffered every indignity at the hands of His own people. I came unto my own, He said, and my own received me not. 36 Instead of their warm embrace, He received their cruel rejection. Then He was required to carry His own cross to the hill of Calvary, where He was nailed to that cross and made to suffer excruciating pain. Later He said, I thirst. 37 To a doctor of medicine, this is a very meaningful expression. Doctors know that when a

patient goes into shock because of blood loss, invariably that patientif still consciouswith parched and shriveled lips cries for water. Even though the Father and the Son knew well in advance what was to be experienced, the actuality of it brought indescribable agony. And [Jesus] said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. 38 Jesus then complied with the will of His Father. 39 Three days later, precisely as prophesied, He rose from the grave. He became the firstfruits of the Resurrection. He had accomplished the Atonement, which could give immortality and eternal life to all obedient human beings. All that the Fall allowed to go awry, the Atonement allowed to go aright. The Saviors gift of immortality comes to all who have ever lived. But His gift of eternal life requires repentance and obedience to specific ordinances and covenants. Essential ordinances of the gospel symbolize the Atonement. Baptism by immersion is symbolic of the death, burial, and Resurrection of the Redeemer. Partaking of the sacrament renews baptismal covenants and also renews our memory of the Saviors broken flesh and of the blood He shed for us. Ordinances of the temple symbolize our reconciliation with the Lord and seal families together forever. Obedience to the sacred covenants made in temples qualifies us for eternal lifethe greatest gift of God to man 40 the object and end of our existence. 41

Footnotes: 19. We might even surmise that if an individual qualifies for the blessings of the Atonement (through obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel), Jesus will cover our past transgressions from the Father. 20. 2 Ne. 1:15. 21. Morm. 5:11; additional examples are in Alma 5:33; Alma 34:16. 22. See Lev. 5:18; Lev. 27:26. 23. See Lev. 9:18. 24. See Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12. 25. See Lev. 16:10. 26. See John 19:3133. 27. See Rom. 5:11. 28. Atonement=24; plus atone, atoning, or atoned=8; plus atoneth=3; total 35 times. 29. See 2 Ne. 9:7; 2 Ne. 25:16; Alma 34:10, 12, 14. 30. See Heb. 10:10. 31. See D&C 76:24; Moses 1:33. 32. See John 3:16. 33. D&C 18:11. 34. See Luke 22:44; D&C 19:18. 35. See Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2, 5. 36. 3 Ne. 9:16; see also D&C 6:21; D&C 10:57; D&C 11:29; D&C 39:3; D&C 45:8; D&C 133:66. 37. John 19:28. 38. Mark 14:36. The word Abba is significant. Ab means father; Abba is an endearing and tender form of that term. The nearest English equivalent might be Daddy.

39. Centuries later, the Lord shared innermost recollections of this experience with the Prophet Joseph Smith, the record of which we read in Doctrine and Covenants 19. 40. See D&C 14:7. 41. Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah (1978), 568. [Elder Russell M. Nelson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Ensign, October 1996] "We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptised, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments." [Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, p. 68.] Baptism Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. II, p. 141). This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven. There is no such thing as Mormon Heaven. The heaven to which Latter-day Saints look is that heaven where God and Christ dwell.

Baptism for the dead leading to Salvation for the unbaptised dead is a Christian teaching traceable to the New Testament Church, and is found in the teachings of the Apostolic and Sub-apostolic fathers. Some scholars suggest that baptism for the dead was practiced by some Early Christian groups, continuing until at least the late fourth century, which must be correct in light of the ruling of the Roman Catholic Church. As part of their Sacraments, the New Apostolic Church and Old Apostolic Church also practices Baptism for the Dead, as well as Communion and Sealing to the Departed. In this practice a proxy or substitute is baptised in the place of an unknown number of deceased person. According to NAC and OAC doctrine the deceased do not enter the body of the substitute.In the Reformed Old Apostolic Church it is believed that all deceased persons that are baptised reside within the body of the substitute. Fourth Century Baptism for the Dead A fourth-century Christian custom of baptizing dead bodies and giving the Eucharist to them as Baptism of the Dead, give support for modern Baptism for the Dead. Hebrew and early Christian scholar Dr John A Tedvetnes formerly of Brigham Young University writes:

That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo, held in 393, declares, "The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them." The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage. John Chrysostom John Chrysostom describes a similar practice among the Marcionites of the same century: if one of their followers who was being prepared for baptism died before receiving baptism, the dead person's corpse was addressed with the question whether he wished to be baptized, whereupon another answered affirmatively and was baptized for the dead person. In the same passage, Chrysostom, a speaker of the language (Koine Greek) in which Paul the Apostle wrote, explained Paul's mention of people being "baptized for the dead" as a reference to the profession of faith in their own future resurrection that Christians made before being baptized. Metaphorical Exegesis

Some interpret "baptized for the dead" as a metaphor for martyrdom, as in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50 baptism is a metaphor for suffering or martyrdom; accordingly they would translate it as "being baptized with a view to death". In this interpretation, the phrase is closely linked with what Paul says immediately afterwards of the suffering that he himself faces and is enabled to endure precisely because of his faith in his resurrection which is similar to John Chrysostom's idea. More Explaining Away Martin Luther regarded the biblical reference to 'baptism for the dead' as a practice of being baptized above [] the tombs of the unconverted dead whereas John Calvin thought it a reference to being immersed when close to death. In Praise of Good Sense The third and for many the most natural interpretation sees the phrase as referring to vicarious baptism on behalf of dead people performed in the belief that the dead were thereby benefitted in some way. This belief is put forward as the reason why, when Paul compares the Corinthians' experience to that of the Israelites in crossing the Red Sea and being fed on manna, he insists that the Israelites were not thereby prevented from sinning.

The Search For Truth Rages The Tyndale Bible Dictionary concludes that Paul probably did not approve the practice of baptism for the dead. He refers to its practitioners as "they", not as "you" (the Corinthian Christians to whom he wrote). The note in the Catholic New American Bible is more cautious: "Baptized for the dead: this practice is not further explained here, nor is it necessarily mentioned with approval, but Paul cites it as something in their experience that attests in one more way to belief in the resurrection." This is similar Tertullian who wrote in 207 CE, that Paul's aim in alluding to the practice of baptism for the dead, "whatever it may have been", was "that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection." Blame It On Gnosticism! The practice of baptism for the dead, according to Professor Elaine Pagels is easily explained by gnostics who argued that the text was an allegory and that, therefore baptism for

the dead refers to pneumatics (i.e. gnostics) taking the place of psychics (i.e. literalists), who were dead to gnosis. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, wrote about the gnostics as being heretical in his work On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis. Or on the Marcionites The doctrines of Marcion were similar enough to those of Gnosticism to cause Irenaeus in the to consider Marcion one of their number. Eventually Marcion was excommunicated for his views. Tertullian wrote about gnostics in his work Against Marcion indicating that there was another aberrant Christian sect who believed in baptism for the dead. Clement of Alexandria in his Excerpta ex Theodoto against paganism and deviations from Christianity, cites baptism for the dead as a doctrine peculiar to Christian gnostics. Although not a ringing endorsement for Christian belief in salvation for the dead through proxy baptism, the noted Christian theologian, Karl Rahner, accepted the notion that without Christ it was impossible to achieve salvation, but he could not accept the notion that people who have never heard of Jesus Christ would be condemned. [see: Stephen Clinton, Peter, Paul, and the Anonymous Christian: A Response to The Mission Theology of Rahner and Vatican

II October, 1998 The Orlando Institute, Leadership Forum November, 1998 Evangelical Theological Society]. Rahner said: "Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity Let us say, a Buddhist monk who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." [see: Todd Wilkin, What is the Catholic Teaching of "Anonymous Christianity"?] Saint Paul's discourse emphasising the reality of the resurrection from the dead of all that have passed from mortality through the door of death is a stirring argument against the position of those that denied the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and likewise taught that none of the dead would be raised either. If their teaching was true,then the hope of salvation as Christians believed would be a futile daydream with no hope of it being realised. Paul makes a fulsome answer to this false teaching in 1 Corinthians chapter fifteen:

15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 15:30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Some Christians posit that Apostle Paul is appealing to a pagan rite to support his belief in the resurrection. Why would a Christian apostle appeal to paganism to buttress the Christian doctrine of resurrection? It makes no sense. Paul was clearly pointing to a well known Christian rite that required no further explanation other than it was linked to the expectation of Christian resurrection and full salvation for those baptised by proxy. Wherever there is a belief in the continued existence of man's personality through and after death, religion naturally concerns itself with the relations between the living and the dead. And where the idea of a future judgment or of Purgatory obtains, prayers are often offered on behalf of the dead to God.

JUDAISM AND THE DEAD Yizkor Prayer for the dead appears in 2 Maccabees where Judas Maccabeus offers a sacrifice as a propitiatory sin-offering and a memorial thank-offering. These prayers and sacrifices were intended to improve the standing of the dead during the resurrection. However, Jews do not regard 2 Maccabees as canonical, possibly because of that are seen as its theological innovations. Yet in Judaism prayers form important elements in Jewish services. The prayers offered on behalf of the deceased consist of: Recitation of Psalms; Reciting a thrice daily communal prayer in Aramaic known as "Kaddish" which actually means "Sanctification" (or "[Prayer of] Making Holy") which is a prayer "In Praise of God"; other special remembrances known as Yizkor; and also a Hazkara said either on the annual commemoration known as the Yahrzeit as well on Jewish holidays. The form of Kaddish in use in England contains the following:

Have mercy upon him; pardon all his transgressions . . . Shelter his soul in the shadow of Thy wings. Make known to him the path of life. But, whether Christian or Jew why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEAD In the New Testament A passage in the New Testament which may refer to a prayer for the dead is found in 2 Timothy 1:16-18, which reads as follows: May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lords mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well. But, why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? As with the verses from 2 Maccabees, these verses refer to prayers that will help the deceased "on that day" (meaning Judgement Day).

It is not stated that Onesiphorus, for whom Saint Paul prayed, was dead, though some scholars infer this, based on the way Paul only refers to him in the past tense, and prays for present blessings on his household, but for him only "on that day". And towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19, Paul sends greetings to "Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus," distinguishing the situation of Onesiphorus from that of the still living Prisca and Aquila. The Historic Christian Tradition Prayer for the dead is well-documented within early Christianity, both among prominent Church Fathers and the Christian community in general. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? In Eastern Orthodox Christianity prayers are raised for "such souls as have departed with faith, but without having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance." Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby?

In Roman Catholic Christianity the assistance that the dead receive by prayer on their behalf is linked with the process of purification known as purgatory. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? While prayer for the dead continues in both these traditions and in those of Oriental Orthodoxy and of the Assyrian Church of the East, many Protestant groups reject the practice. The tomb of the Christian Abercius of Hieropolis in Phrygia (latter part of the 2nd century) bears the inscription: Let every friend who observes this pray for me, i.e. Abercius, who throughout speaks in the first person. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? The inscriptions in the Roman catacombs bear similar witness to the practice, by the occurrence of such phrases as: Mayst thou live among the saints (3rd century); May God refresh the soul of . . . ; Peace be with them.

Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Among Church writers Tertullian ( 230) is the first to mention prayers for the dead, and not as a concession to natural sentiment, but as a duty: The widow who does not pray for her dead husband has as good as divorced him! This passage occurs in one of his later Montanist writings, dating from the beginning of the 3rd century. Subsequent writers similarly make incidental mention of the practice as prevalent, but not as unlawful or even disputed (until Arius challenged it towards the end of the 4th century). The most famous instance is Saint Augustine's prayer for his deceased mother, Monica, at the end of the 9th book of his Confessions, written around 398. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? An important element in the Christian liturgies both East and West consisted of the diptychs, or lists of names of living and dead commemorated at the Eucharist. To be

inserted in these lists was a confirmation of one's orthodoxy, and out of the practice grew the official canonization of saints; on the other hand, removal of a name was a condemnation. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? In the middle of the 3rd century we find St. Cyprian enjoining that there should be no oblation or public prayer made for a deceased layman who had broken the Church's rule by appointing a cleric trustee under his will: "He ought not to be named in the priests prayer who has done his best to detain the clergy from the altar." Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Although it is not possible, as a rule, to name dates for the exact words used in the ancient liturgies, yet the universal occurrence of these diptychs and of definite prayers for the dead in all parts of the Christian Church, East and West, in the 4th and 5th centuries shows how primitive such prayers were. The language used in the prayers for the departed is very reserved, asking only for rest and freedom from pain and

sorrow. We may cite the following from the so-called Liturgy of St James: Remember, O Lord, the God of Spirits and of all Flesh, those whom we have remembered and those whom we have not remembered, men of the true faith, from righteous Abel unto to-day; do thou thyself give them rest there in the land of the living, in thy kingdom, in the delight of Paradise, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our holy fathers, from whence pain and sorrow and sighing have fled away, where the light of thy countenance visiteth them and always shineth upon them. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Public prayers were only offered for those who were believed to have died as faithful members of the Church. But Saint Perpetua, who was martyred in 202, believed herself to have been encouraged in a vision to pray for her brother, who had died in his eighth year, almost certainly unbaptized; and a later vision assured her that her prayer was answered and he had been translated from punishment. St. Augustine thought it needful to point out that the narrative was not canonical Scripture, and contended that the child had perhaps been baptized. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby?

Among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, while there is no doctrine of purgatory, prayer for the dead is encouraged in the belief that it is helpful for them. Specifically how the prayers of the faithful help the departed is not elucidated; Eastern Orthodox simply believe that tradition teaches that prayers should be made for the dead. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Saint Basil the Great ( 379), a saint of undivided Christianity, writes in his Third Kneeling Prayer at Pentecost, O Christ our God...(who) on this all-perfect and saving Feast, art graciously pleased to accept propitiatory prayers for those who are imprisoned in hades, promising unto us who are held in bondage great hope of release from the vilenes that doth hinder us and did hinder them ... send down Thy consolation... and establish their souls in the mansions of the Just; and graciously vouchsafe unto them peace and pardon; for not the dead shall praise thee, O Lord, neither shall they who are in Hell make bold to offer unto thee confession. But we who are living will bless thee, and will pray, and offer unto thee propitiatory prayers and sacrifices for their souls.

Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Saint Gregory Dialogus ( 604) in his famous Dialogues (written in 593) teaches that, "The Holy Sacrifice (Eucharist) of Christ, our saving Victim, brings great benefits to souls even after death, provided their sins (are such as) can be pardoned in the life to come." Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? However, St. Gregory goes on to say, the Church's practice of prayer for the dead must not be an excuse for not living a godly life on earth. "The safer course, naturally, is to do for ourselves during life what we hope others will do for us after death." Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Father Seraphim Rose ( 1982) says,

"the Church's prayer cannot save anyone who does not wish salvation, or who never offered any struggle (podvig) for it himself during his lifetime." Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? The various prayers for the departed have as their purpose to pray for the repose of the departed, to comfort the living, and to remind those who remain of their own mortality. For this reason, memorial services have an air of penitence about them. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Orthodox Christians offer particularly fervent prayers for the departed on the first 40 days after death. Traditionally, in addition to the service on the day of death, the memorial service is performed at the request of the relatives of an individual departed person on the following occasions: Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? The Roman Catholic Church

In the West there is ample evidence of the custom of praying for the dead in the inscriptions of the catacombs, with their constant prayers for the peace and refreshment of the souls of the departed and in the early liturgies, which commonly contain commemorations of the dead; and Tertullian, Cyprian and other early Western Fathers witness to the regular practice of praying for the dead. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? The West felt that it was inappropriate to pray "for" the martyrs, since they were believed to be in no need of such prayers. Theoretically, too, prayer for those in hell would be useless, but since there is no certainty that any particular person is in hell, prayers were and are offered for all the dead, except for those believed to be in heaven. These are prayed to, not for. With the development of the doctrine of purgatory, the dead prayed for were spoken of as being in purgatory, and in view of the certainty that by the process of purification and with the help of the prayers of the faithful they were destined for heaven, they were referred to as the "holy souls". Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Limits were placed on public offering of Mass for the unbaptised and notorious sinners, but prayers and even

Mass in private could be said for them. The present Code of Canon Law states that, unless the person concerned gave some signs of repentance before death, no form of funeral Mass may be offered for notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics; those who for anti-Christian motives chose that their bodies be cremated; and other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? During the slaughter of the First World War, Pope Benedict XV on 10 August 1915, allowed all priests everywhere to say three Masses on All Souls' Day. The two extra Masses were in no way to benefit the priest himself: one was to be offered for all the faithful departed, the other for the Pope's intentions, which at that time were presumed to be for all the victims of that war. The permission remains. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Anglicanism The Church of England's 1549 Book of the Common Prayer still had prayer for the dead, as (in the Communion Service):

"We commend into thy mercy all other thy servants, which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith and now do rest in the sleep of peace: grant unto them, we beseech thee, thy mercy and everlasting peace." Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? But since 1552 the Book of Common Prayer has no express prayers for the dead, and the practice is denounced in the Homily "On Prayer" (part 3). Nonjurors included prayers for the dead, a practice that spread within the Church of England in the mid-nineteenth century, and was authorized in 1900 for forces serving in South Africa and since then in other forms of service. Many jurisdictions and parishes of the Anglo-Catholic tradition continue to practice prayer for the dead, including offering the Sunday liturgy for the peace of named departed Christians and the keeping of All Soul's Day. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Non-Anglican Protestant churches

The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation continued at first the traditional custom of praying for the dead, but before long came to denounce it, partly because they believed it to be without biblical foundation, partly through their rejection of the doctrine of purgatory and the practices associated with it. Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Prayer for the dead is rigorously avoided by those of marked Evangelical belief in keeping with their denial that the mercy and love of God are universally available. "[A]nd they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for

the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 12:43-45] Why pray for the dead if their condition cannot be affected thereby? Bible "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church). "Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God," (1 Nephi 13:28). It is evident that Latter-day Saints are not alone in recognising difficulties and problems with The Holy Bible. Even so, no Latter-day saint will go as far in criticism of biblical texts as the Christian website http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/all_corrupt.htm While Mormons withdraw from such extremism, all Christians must believe it because Mr Slicks reasoning that if a Mormon said it then all Mormons must, perforce,

believe it, so the logical extension of Slicks thinking is that since a Christian said it, then all Christians must believe it! Therefore, this is what all non-Mormon Christians believe about the Bible:

Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous Watch Out For Them!

We must also be aware that the Bible is under attack. Satan, who succeeded in selling the first "revised" edition of God's Word to Eve in the Garden of Eden, has surely been busy in this 20th Century along the same lines. We know about the "population explosion" and the "explosion of scientific knowledge," but we are also in the middle of a "Bible translation explosion"- a veritable flood of new Bible translations, versions, revisions and paraphrases, all claiming to be the "most accurate," the "most readable" and the "most up-to-date." The publishing and sale of these new Bibles has become a highly profitable business, employing all the psychological approaches of modern advertising to sell them to the public. Some think this proliferation of Bible versions is wonderful. But serious-minded, thoughtful people must eventually ask, "Which Bible is the real Bible, the true Word of God?"

In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the Spirit of God warned against the "many which corrupt the word of God " Therefore, it is not surprising in studying church history to discover that such attempts to corrupt the Word of God were clearly evident in the altered, polluted and revised manuscripts purporting to be the Word of God that have existed through the centuries. Unfortunately, many people today fail to see that even greater corruptions of the Word of God are taking place before our very eyes. The purpose of this leaflet is to share with God's people, simply and briefly, some of the important information we have found in studying this important subject. It is impossible in such limited space to trace the history and preservation of the true Word of God down through the centuries. However, in the providence of God, two very important things happened in the 15th and 16th centuries for which we should all be eternally grateful. First, was the invention of the printing press and second, the Protestant Reformation. It was the combination of these two developments that made possible the translation and publication of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible in 1611. From then until now, this wonderful gift of God and its subsequent translation into every known major language in the world has changed the course of history and we enjoy its benefits today. In the latter part of the 19th Century, Satan and his angels of light set out to destroy the Church by undermining its foundation, the Bible. Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species was blindly accepted as "new light on an old

problem" by the scholarship of that day which had become largely obsessed with rationalism and humanism. Theories and methods of "higher criticism" and "textual criticism" were developed and couched in such scholarly language that most people failed to recognize that these were actually attacks upon the Word of God - even though carefully disguised as an effort to "supply the English reader with a more correct text of the New Testament" and to "render the New Testament more generally intelligible." The rush toward new versions was on and though the early progress was slow, we are seeing the results today. Three important issues must be understood and addressed when discussing the translation of the Bible from one language to another: first, the reliability of the document being translated; second, the knowledge and skill of the translators and third, the philosophy of translation (formal or dynamic equivalence). On all counts, the King James Bible still stands supreme. In 1881, influenced by and sympathetic to the Darwinian theory of evolution, two men, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort brought forth a different version of the Greek New Testament - one which differed from the Textus Receptus (the underlying Greek text of the KJV) in over 5,700 places. This Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. It gave great weight to two corrupted manuscripts-the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them, and the Sinaiticus

(Codex Aleph) which was found in a monastery wastebasket at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus appear to have been copied from the same source in the 4th Century and held great weight with Westcott and Hort due to their antiquity. Tischendorf, who discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript, noted at least 12,000 changes that had been made on this manuscript by others than the original copyist. It is difficult to understand why such documents as these could lead one to ignore the simple fact that the Greek text underlying the King James Version, the Textus Receptus, agreed with 90-95% of all known Scripture- related manuscripts, numbering over five thousand. English Revised Version (1885) American Standard Version (1901) The first full-scale frontal attack on the Word of God came with the publication of the ERV in 1885, and its counterpart, the ASV in 1901. Only a few voices of protest were raised. Most staunch defenders of the faith of that day were apparently unaware that the ASV differed from the KJV in over 36,000 places or that the Greek text underlying the translation of the ASV (the Westcott-Hort Text) differed from the Textus Receptus (underlying the KJV) in over 5,700 instances. Possibly it was because the Fundamentalists then were too busy combating the modernists' infiltration of seminaries and churches; or, perhaps it was due to the fact that the ASV never really found great acceptance publicly. It was not until the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1946 and

1952 that many Fundamentalists became aware of how effectively a new Bible version or translation could be used to pervert the truth. Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952) Some of God's people woke up with a start when the Revised Standard Version was published in 1952. This version, supposedly a revision of the ASV of 1901, eliminated the word virgin in the prophecy of Christ's birth in Isaiah 7:14. It was also copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. Protests were heard far and wide! Sadly, many failed to recognize that some of the same changes they found so objectionable in the RSV were also true of the ASV. The furor over the RSV gradually died down. But this was the version which paved the way for future perversions of the Scriptures. It had conditioned people to accept changes in the Bible- changes dictated by modern scholarship. At least the RSV left the word virgin in the New Testament references to the birth of Christ. It remained for the Good News Bible to remove it in both the Old and New Testaments. Good News For Modern Man (1966) Good News Bible (1976) When the first edition of Good News For Modern Man (The New Testament in Today's English) was published in 1966, the word virgin appeared in all the texts in Matthew and Luke referring to the birth of Christ. But, when the 2nd and 3rd editions were published and then the entire Good

News Bible was published in 1976, the word virgin had mysteriously disappeared from Luke 1:27 while remaining in Luke 1:34 and Matthew 1:23. Of course, the latter two verses have no meaning at all if the word virgin is removed or replaced. Also, the blood of Christ, a most important and precious word and theme, was lacking in many key New Testament references. It was replaced by "death" or "costly sacrifice," both good words in their own place but not what the Holy Spirit gave in the original text. The heretical views of the main translator, Dr. Robert Bratcher, help to explain the many places in which the Deity of Christ is played down or omitted. The Good News Bible is one of the worst versions, yet it has been distributed by the millions, largely due to endorsements by Billy Graham, Bill Bright and other evangelical leaders. The Living Bible (1967, 1971) This is neither a translation nor a version - it is a paraphrase. The Living Bible, praised by Billy Graham and other New Evangelical leaders, has reached a publication figure of 37 million copies and has made its author, Ken Taylor, a wealthy man. It is very readable, but at the expense of truth in so many places. Taylor admits that the principle he worked from was not a "word-for-word" translation but rather a "thought-for-thought" paraphrase which he called, "dynamic equivalence." Taylor said he worked for the most part from the ASV of 1901, a corrupt translation to begin with. The Living Bible decimates the Scriptures, almost completely eliminating important and

precious words and truths as grace (see John 1:17; Acts 4:33, 15:11, 20:24; Romans 3:24; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 2:8-9; Jude 4) and repentance (see Matthew 9:13 and Acts 17:30). "Honor" is substituted for "begotten" in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. Significant changes are made regarding such matters as creation in Genesis 1:1-2 and a prophecy of Christ in Zechariah 13:6. The meaning of Romans 8:28 is changed completely. Vulgar language is used in John 9:34, 11:39 and 2 Kings 18:27. The language of 1 Samuel 20:30 in early editions of TLB shocked many but it has now been softened. The author has left the door open for further suggestions, corrections and clarifications. Who knows what future editions may contain? New American Standard Version (1960, 1971) The NASV was to be the Bible for conservatives, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. The foreword states that the NASV "has been produced with the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew and Greek were inspired of God." The basic problem with this translation, however, is revealed in this statement: "This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty." Who gave the ASV such a title? In the Principles of Revision, it is stated: "In revising the ASV consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed." This gets right to the heart of the major problem with the

modern Bible versions - most are patterned after the corrupted Westcott-Hort Greek Text rather than the Textus Receptus. The word virgin does appear in Isaiah 7:14, but a footnote says, "or, young woman"- no doubt a sop to the liberals. Verses like Matthew 18:11 and Matthew 23:14 appear in brackets with a footnote saying, "most ancient manuscripts omit this verse" or, "this verse is not found in earliest manuscripts." A corrupted Greek text thus becomes the basis for raising questions about the entire verse In other instances as in Luke 24:40, the number of the verse appears followed by "see marginal note" which explains that "some ancient Mss. add verse 40." One wonders if the NASV translators were determined to list everything anyone ever added or left out of a manuscript until one discovers that some parts of verses are left out with no explanation whatsoever as in Colossians 1:14 and 1 Timothy 6:5. It is sad to see so many conservatives pushing this version and criticizing the KJV. New International Version ( 1973, 1978) Like the NASV, the NIV was produced by those who are said to "hold a high view of Scripture." Sponsored by the New York Bible Society, they admitted the NIV translators represent a "broad spectrum in evangelical Christianity" and the list of names confirms the broadness of the spectrum. Instead of being a revision of a previous version, the preface says, "It is a completely new translation made by many scholars working directly from the Greek." The Greek text used is an "eclectic one." that is, the translators

mixed different texts supposedly in "accord with sound principles of textual criticism." However, they did not state what those principles were - and much of the previous undermining of the Scripture has been done on the supposed basis of "sound principles of textual criticism." Examining the text, you find that the NIV leaves out many of the same verses and portions that the ASV and the NASV also omit. An added problem, however, stems from the fact that where an entire verse is omitted, even the verse number is missing and only a small letter refers to a footnote of explanation. A careful study of this version confirms what one [unnamed!] Christian leader said several years ago, "For every verse or word clarified in these new translations, two new problems are created." We agree with his statement. In a critique of the New International Version, one Fundamentalist scholar [unnamed!] correctly objected that "words were dropped out; words were added; and key words were sometimes changed." Yet, the same objection must also be raised concerning the New American Standard Version which this same [unnamed] Fundamentalist scholar defends and recommends. This objection - the deletion or addition of words-also applies to all the other modern versions. We still insist on using and recommending only the Authorized Version.

New King James Version (1979,1982) The NKJV translators claim to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" and "improved the purity and beauty" of the original KJV. We disagree that the "purity and beauty" have been improved. Although the NKJV uses the underlying Textus Receptus Greek text, the translators repeatedly use marginal notations to reference the Modem Critical Text upon which all of the modem versions are based. The NKJV advocate opens a door that lends credibility to a perverted underlying text used by all the other versions. Furthermore, changes in the text are made which simply are not warranted. The NKJV primarily uses the 1967/ 1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica and draws from sources which result in a Hebrew text that is different from the Jacob ben Chayyim text underlying the KJV Old Testament. As a result the NKJV preface rightly stated, "significant variations are recorded in footnotes." We believe the potential for most textual problems and variants between the KJV and NKJV will be found in the Old Testament. New Revised Standard Version ( l990) The NRSV is the latest product of ecumenical scholarship and will soon replace the RSV, thus helping to fill the financial coffers of the apostate National Council of

Churches which holds the copyrights on both the RSV and NRSV. Translated by liberal Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars, and eliminating so-called sexist language, the NRSV with the Apocrypha, has already received the Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and may well become the ecumenical Bible of the future. Other Recent Versions In recent years, the proliferation of modem Bible versions has increased tremendously. New versions that are based primarily upon the United Bible Societies' 4th revised edition Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Novum Testamentum Graece include the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV) and Eugene H. Peterson's The Message. Most of these versions and translations are not only based on an inferior Greek text, but are also thought-for-thought translations (which allow for greater interpretive freedom of the text by the translators) rather than literal, word-forword translations. The more we have studied and researched this question of Bible versions, the more convinced we are that many of our dear brethren in the ministry and many Fundamentalist leaders have not taken time to look at the abundant evidence now available that clearly demonstrates the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and confusion that results

from new translations. It is clear that many scholars who consider themselves to be evangelical have been influenced by the apostate scholarship of the past and present. We recognize the difference between "higher criticism" (which would be rejected by most Fundamentalists) and "textual criticism" or "lower criticism" (which is accepted by most Fundamentalists). But many do not see how the whole field of textual criticism has been shaped and moulded by the false premises and conclusions of "higher criticism." The central issue revolves around the acceptance of the Westcott-Hort text rather than the Textus Receptus as the basis for Bible translations, versions and revisions. While recognizing the extreme difficulties involved in translations of any kind and especially of a book as important as the Bible, we are convinced that the King James Bible has been blessed by God for hundreds of years and should be used by believers today. It will be far better for us to expand our vocabulary in order to understand its terminology than to continually rewrite the Bible to suit those who will not be able to understand it anyway apart from the New Birth or to suit those Christians who are too lazy to study. It is true that the meanings of some English words have changed and others are no longer commonly used. Yet such words are comparatively few and can easily be comprehended with the use of a good dictionary; but if the word is missing altogether, what then?

The promotion and use of so many different Bible versions has resulted in great confusion among God's people. Why don't more pastors and Christian leaders see this? Congregational reading is becoming virtually impossible. Bible memorisation is most difficult. Men and women lose confidence in the validity of God's Word when some verses are included, some are bracketed, and some are missing completely. For all of these reasons and many more, we conclude that modem Bible versions are dangerous and that God's people should beware of them. We close with a plea to all who love the Lord and His Word-look into this important question quickly and carefully. Then join us in seeking to alert and warn others concerning these subtle and devastating attacks being made upon God's Holy Word. Our Final Authority The written Word of God is our final authority in all matters of which It speaks, for It is God's final revelation to man. The Bible is God's trustworthy, authoritative Book, and no more is to be added thereto. The Holy Spirit supernaturally inspired the writers of the 39 books of the Old Testament to record the very words God desired His people to possess (2 Pet. 1: 2 1).

Likewise, the prophetic promise Jesus Christ made to His disciples (soon to be the apostles and writers of the 27 books of the New Testament) restated the same divine operation of inspiration, for the Holy Spirit later also guided these men "into all truth" (Jn. 16:12-15). "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), and that inspired Scripture encompasses nothing more, nor anything less, than the 66 books of the Bible, the completed canon of Scripture. [But, the Bible does not say that!] 2 Peter 3:2 tells us that if we want to know God's Word, then we are to look nowhere other than to the "words which were spoken before by the holy prophets [O. T. Scripture], and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour [N.T. Scripture]." God's Word [sic] provides us with all we need to be built up in the faith and to do God's will and work - God gave no additional revelation once the Bible was completed. The inspired writings of the apostles, circulated among the churches and later canonized, were perfect and complete (Lk. 1: 1-4; 1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13; Rev. 22:18, 19). The internal evidence of the Word of God states without equivocation that believers today have a final authority God's Written Word. [But the Bible does not say that!] Since the completion of the canon of Scripture, no additional divine revelation has come through any "latter day prophets," charismatic dreamers, cult authorities or the

tradition/Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, as Pope John Paul II has reinforced in a recent encyclical. With the passing of the original disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (the apostles who penned the 27 books of the New Testament) [Some NT writers were NOT Apostles!, for example, Luke and Mark], the partial revelation ceased and "that which is perfect"-the Written Word of the Living God-was come. "That which is in part" was done away (1 Cor. 13:8-12). With the passing of the apostles and the subsequent completion of the canon, no more revelation came from God. It is essential, therefore, that we earnestly contend for the faith "once delivered" (past tense) and against any attempt to claim an authority for faith and practice other than God's Word, the 66 books of the Bible. Remember, Timothy's household did not have the "original autographs," but the copies they had were designated by God as "the holy scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:14, 15). Likewise, Paul commended the Ephesian elders to the "word of his grace, which is able to build you up..." (Acts 20:27, 32). We can have confidence today that we have a Bible that is the holy Word of God in the Authorized (King James) Version. A problem developed, however, with the 20th century's proliferation of new Bible versions. It became necessary to study the history of the English Bible and the Greek text

which had been used down through the centuries and compare that text with the claims of the "higher critics" who championed the minority text upon which the new versions are based. After careful study of the subject, the FEA concluded that the Textus Receptus, the underlying text upon which the Authorized King James Version is based, is the providentially preserved Greek text. The Textus Receptus was derived from the majority family of manuscripts used in the Greek-speaking church down through the centuries. This text was the divinely preserved text - an accurate rendition of the very originals (miraculously inspired by the Holy Spirit) written by the apostles, and, in the Hebrew tongue, by the Old Testament prophets. The Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are, in reality, the divinely preserved texts of the divinely inspired original writings. [Apparently God has miraculously preserved no fewer that 2400 variants of Marks Gospel!] But now, another problem has arisen within the last few decades. An element of those who were strong defenders of the inerrancy and veracity of the Authorized Version, used and blessed by God in the English-speaking world for well over 300 years, began to advance the idea that the KJV English translation is superior to the Greek and Hebrew texts and that the King James translators were themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit in producing their translation.

As a result of this proposal, they claim that the English King James translation has been miraculously inspired just as the original autographs themselves were inspired. This false teaching even assumed the newly ascribed authority to correct the underlying Greek and Hebrew text from which it was translated. What we have by this proposed phenomenon is what is often known as "double inspiration" - the original writings of the prophets and the apostles consist of the first "inspiration," and the second work of "inspiration" occurred when the King James translators produced the English Authorized Version in 1611. Certainly the King James translators were the best scholars ever assembled to produce a translation that we can hold up today as our authoritative, trustworthy translation; but were those esteemed translators "inspired" in the biblical sense? Absolutely not! We cannot accept this conjecture, for the- concept of a superior English text or of "double inspiration" completely denies what the Bible Itself teaches about its own initial inspiration by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit and its promised preservation through each successive generation. No, the English-speaking world is not the sole proprietor of the Word of God. Other nations and languages can also boast an accurate, trustworthy translation of the Word of God from the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic text.

It is the conviction of the FEA that the Authorized Version should be the standard and final authority for the English speaking world for two reasons: First, because it is based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, and second, because it, is an accurate, literal (formal, word-forword) translation of the aforementioned Greek and Hebrew texts (that is, the translation of the text is literal, as much as is possible of any translation from one language to another). We must reject the teaching of those who claim the KJV is full of errors, [Even when these can be clearly and unequivocally demonstrated?] yet we must also reject the teaching of those "KJV-only" proponents who claim that the KJV is in itself inspired and superior to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. Notice the following timely words by Pastor M. H. Reynolds, Jr., which accurately sum up the Biblical position regarding inspiration and preservation: We are sometimes accused of believing in "double inspiration" or "continuing revelation," i.e., that the King James translators were divinely inspired in the same way as were the original human writers of the books of the Bible. Not so! The use of these terms amounts to a dishonest misrepresentation of what we believe. The miracle of inspiration applies only to the initial giving of the Word of God to the writers of the autographs (all of which are no longer in existence). But we also believe that the Bible Itself teaches and the history of manuscript evidence

supports the contention that the miracle of initial inspiration extends to the divinely superintended preservation of a pure text to this day. We have, therefore, an inspired Bible today in the sense that it is the accurate translation of the text once and finally inspired by God and recorded in the "original autographs," the majority text used down through the centuries in the Greek church. Be wary of any opponent of the KJV who contrives impressive sounding buzz words to misrepresent what the defenders of the Authorized Version actually believe. From the FEA publication Modern Bibles-the Dark Secret by Pastor Moorman, wonderfully used of God to defend the Authorized Version and to debunk the credibility of the other versions, the concluding paragraph reads: It is not impossible that in the providence of God another universally accepted standard translation could be produced. However, given the lateness of the hour, the lack of spiritual scholarship, and the fact that our language no longer has the depth and vitality it once had, this seems most unlikely. All indications point to the KJV as the Bible God would have His people use in these last days before the Second Coming of Christ. The Old Testament Scriptures were to accomplish one central purpose-to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24:25-27). The same is true of the New Testament as well (John 16:14). Those who undermine the authority and accuracy of the Authorized Version only cause God's people to lack a confidence in His Message and the

impeccability of Christ and His finished Work. This certainly does not advance the purpose of God-to glorify His dear Son and to cause His children to have absolute confidence in His final and complete Revelation. Praise God, He has given to us His Word, and we have before us in the English language the Authorized King James Bible, a literal, accurate translation of the very words God breathed in His Revelation to man. [Marion H. Reynolds, Jr. and Dennis W. Costella 2000 Fundamental Evangelistic Association] This now, according to the logic of Mr Slick of CARMS.org is what ALL non-Mormon Christians actually believe. Yeah, right, Mtr Slick! Book of Mormon The [B]ook of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461). Readers are to note that this statement is not made in The History of The Church, 4:461, nor in any other Mormon writing. It is the conclusion of Mr Slick! Note the following abstract from an article by Monte Nyman, a Latter-day Saint. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by

its precepts, than by any other book. (History of the Church, 4:461.) The most correct of any book on earth was a bold statement to make in Joseph Smiths day, let alone in our day of sophisticated publication. The statement is still applicable, for the Lord has never rescinded it nor cast doubt upon it. An analysis of the statement reveals important principles that are significant to readers of the Book of Mormon and especially to members of the Church. Its correctness must be attributed to the Lords hand operative in its translation, an event that was, as Isaiah described it, a marvelous work and a wonder. (Isa. 29:1314.) There is irrefutable evidence to show both the correctness of the translation and the Lords hand in it. The Three Witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, bore record that the voice of God declared unto them that the book had been translated by his power. Their testimony still appears at the front of each copy of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, in a June 1829 revelation given to the three men through the Prophet, the Lord confirmed that Joseph had translated all that he had been commanded to do and that it was a true translation. (See D&C 17:6.) However, the most correct book implies that it may not be absolutely correct, and in light of the Lords declaration, this may seem contradictory. But herein lies

another significant principle: if there be any errors, they should not be attributed to the translation. An example from the Book of Mormon itself supports this principle. The prophet Moroni concluded his fathers record by excusing the errors, if there were any, to the faults of men (see Morm. 8:17) and to the necessity of writing in what was termed reformed Egyptian rather than in Hebrew (see Morm. 9:3233). Therefore, the qualification on the absolute correctness of the Book of Mormon may be imposed because of language limitation. A second example in the Book of Mormon of mans inability to record the principles of the gospel perfectly is found in 3 Nephi 19:3134 [3 Ne. 19:3134]. Here the Saviors prayer to the Father was described as being one that could not be spoken or written by man. Yet the prayer was heard and understood by the Nephites as their hearts were opened. It seems logical, then, that the correctness of the Book of Mormon was not limited so much by the translation process as by the inadequacy of present languages. Joseph Smith taught that the Savior would adapt his language to the capacity of a little child (see History of the Church, 3:383), and undoubtedly he had to adapt the language of the Book of Mormon to our linguistic capacity.

Until the time arrives when the Lord will restore a pure language to fill the earth with sacred knowledge, the Book of Mormon represents the gospel teachings in the most correct form available to man. Furthermore, the book acts as a catalyst in obtaining even greater understanding of the gospel. As a person studies the written text with real intent, the power of the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of what he reads. The Prophet Josephs declaration of the Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion underlines its importance in uniting the Church. As the keystone holds the rest of the stones in place, so the Book of Mormon upholds the principles and ordinances of the gospel. (See History of the Church, 2:52.) Jewish scribes have known for more than a thousand years that the Bible is not a perfect book, but has some textual difficulties, and many Christian scholars readily admit the same. While Latter-day Saints hold to a qualification as to the correctness of the Bible as we have it today, they embrace it as the word of God, but cannot embrace any of the errors it is shown to contain. The Mormon position is that when the original monographs were made they were perfect, but that over time and in the course of manual transmission by imperfect scribes making copies of copies of copies, etc, errors crept in accidentally, and other changes were made by redactors and haggadists that altered what was originally written. Nevertheless, the Mormon position is that it is inspired of God except where is holds errors. No Bible believer should be put to the necessity of

believing that God requires them to embrace the obvious errors as inspired, for God is not the author of confusion. Devil, the The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192). According to the Holy Bible, God the Father is the father of spirits. Lucifer, the Devil, or Satan as he is variously called, is a personage of spirit, and therefore, was created by the God that created all spirits. [see Hebrews 12:9] Mormons reject the notion that Satan was created by a demi-god. One Christian, Cris Coleman, speaks for all Christians, that is if one Mormon speaks for all Mormons as Slick insists. Of the origin of Satan he closely parallels Latter-day Saint belief that: Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163). This is what Cris Coleman says: [W]e have to go back before the physical creation of the earth, for that is where we first meet the one we call Satan, otherwise known as Lucifer, or the Devil.

Theres a curious verse in the epistle of Jude (KJV) that refers to the first estate. Nothing further is mentioned, nor is there any other reference to it in the entire Bible. Even so, I think we can make some assumptions regarding this verse. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 6). Assumption one: While the first estate is not common knowledge among us today, it may have been during the time of the apostles, or else Jude would likely have elaborated upon it. Assumption two: If there were a first estate, it follows that there is also a second state, or why mention it in the first place? Assumption three: If there were angels who didnt keep their first estate, it follows there were angels who did keep their first estate. Assumption four: If there were angels who did keep their first estate, it follows they would be allowed the opportunity to progress into their second estate, whatever that consisted of.

Assumption five: Habitation refers to a place of residence. Wherever this habitation was, this is where all these angels lived before they left. Assumption six: Estate doesnt refer to land holdings, but to a conditionmental, emotional, spiritual and/or material, or even location, or a combination of these things. Assumption seven: There are at least three specific conditions or estates I can imagine: 1. our pre-mortal habitation (existence in heaven), wherever that was; 2. our present earth-life existence on earth; and 3. our post-mortal existence, wherever that will be. Each of these conditions, or estates, are different in the following ways: 1. In our pre-mortal existence we were endowed with spirit bodieswhat we were before that is not given; 2. In our present earth-life existence, we are given physical bodies of flesh and blood; 3. In our post-mortal existence, we will be given resurrected bodiesglorified and perfected. Assumption eight: We dont know what everlasting chains refer to, but I do not believe it stands for everlasting torture, as so much of our classical art depicts. Unfortunately, a lot of this classical art has become part of

Christian thinking with regards to hell. I choose to believe Jude is referring to something other than Godadministered torture, whatever that may be. Assumption nine: The angels who did not keep their first estate were Satan and his followers. Assumption ten: Satan and his angels left their habitation in heaven. And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And [Jesus] said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (Luke 10:17-18). Thus, Satan and his angels fell from heaven. That was the first fall; Adam and Eve represented the second fall. (Im sure Satan didnt fall like we would fall down the stairs. More likely, he fell from Gods grace and was removed from heaven, apparently with great speedas lightning probably through teleportation. Im sure God can do that.) Isaiah had an interesting way to put it: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be

brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15). Here, the Lord is uttering a proverb against the latter-day king of Babylon (verse 4). The Hebrew suggests a simile or a parable, comparing the kings arrogance with the arrogance of Lucifer when, in heaven, he sought to exalt himself above even God, so it would seem. In his arrogance, this latter-day king also seems to exalt himself above even God. Could this be the Beast of the Book of Revelation? The Anti-Christ? Lucifer, now known as Satan or the Devil, is the source of power of this last king of Babylon, which city, signifies the seat or central place of evil. This king shall follow Lucifer down to whatever hell is. These verses give us a clue as to why Lucifer was cast out of heaven. However, its hard to imagine how anyone could be so brazen as to think he could exalt himself above the very God who created himand to his face, no less! Yet, these verses certainly suggest this. Still, it seemed to go far beyond this arrogance: And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth,

and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (Revelation 12:7-12). Its apparent that Lucifer wasnt satisfied with merely having a differing opinion. It would seem he wanted to force his opinion on the rest of the children of God. Yes, Lucifer was as much a pre-mortal child of God as you and I were and are. Hard to imagine, isnt it? Yet, its true. We all come from the same place. We all have the same Father, else heaven was invaded by Satan and his angels. Right? [http://biblicalapologist.blogspot.com/2010/05/whencecometh-satan-part-1-of-3.html] A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Saviour of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8).

God God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333). How short-sighted of Slick not to include the actual quotations from these alleged sources. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans..." (D&C 130:22). Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have [Luke 24:39 God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3). Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have [Luke 24:39 "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I

will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have [Luke 24:39 God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105). Jesus had a Father! Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [John 20:17] God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428). If Gods dwelling is not near Kolob, then where, exactly, is it? God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, 1857, p. 218; vol. 8, p. 115). - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the second prophet of the Mormon Church taught it.

God called Jesus mine only begotten Son. The Gospel, that Slick claims to believe in 101% gives this account: And the angel answered and said unto her,
1. 2. 3.

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. [Luke 1:35]

Is Jesus the Son of God or not? Did the Highest overshadow Mary or not? Was she found to be with child after being overshadowed by the Highest? Did God the Father call Jesus his Only Begotten Son? How was Jesus Christ begotten by the Father, the Highest? Did Jesus call God the Father his father? Did Jesus call God the Father his God? Are we safe believing that what the Bible says about the conception and incarnation of the Son of God, or not?

"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38). God, becoming a god

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.) "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them," (D&C 132:20). God, many gods There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163). "And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light," (Book of Abraham 4:3). God, mother goddess There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443). God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516). God, Trinity The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is

demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35). Gospel, the The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 182-185.) Consists of laws and ordinances: "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,'" (Articles of Faith, p. 79) Heaven There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348). Holy Ghost, the The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, (Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, p. 118; Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 179). Jesus

The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129). Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163; Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15). Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247). "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38). "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115). "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 547). "Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).

"Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh..." (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, "God the Father," compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150). Joseph Smith If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670). Pre-existence We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, (Journal of Discourse, vol. 4, p. 218). The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129). The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192). Prophets

We need prophets today, the same as in the Old Testament, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 444445). Salvation "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," (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206). A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8). Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247). Good works are necessary for salvation (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 92). There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).

"The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79). "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,'" (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 79). "This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts," (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697). "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do," (2 Nephi 25:23). Trinity, the The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God-he would be a giant or a monster," (Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 372). Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing of the Mormon church.