When I was 20 years old…my religion was more about surfing and baseball than it was about anything else. For some odd reason…I still wasn’t happy. A couple important people in my life suggested that I ought to research Mormonism and determine whether it was true or not.
One of the most important decisions a person makes in their life is their choosing of a religion or church to join. It’ll shape the way they think, determine the things they do, and impact their overall happiness.
At 20, I began to seriously consider the doctrines of the Mormon Church. Those doctrines started making me a better person. That was the first real and tangible evidence for me. But lots of people challenged me to stop being delusional and look at the facts about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the LDS Church. The Bible says “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Prov 18:13) so I try to be open and consider the things that people have sent me. As I consider each of the various arguments against Mormonism, my mind always comes back to the many questions that Mormon doctrine seems to answer with ease. These questions….and their answers form what I consider to be a doctrinal “Mormon Superstructure”.
I haven’t found any other religion that can logically answer these basic questions. This fact alone keeps my interest in the Mormon faith piqued.
So here are 51 questions that have helped me form that superstructure . You don’t have to read them all. Pick one or two or ten…and it might just make you want to stop and talk with those missionaries just a little longer next time.
1. There are 50,000+ Christian denominations. Why are they not one church? (Eph 4:5)
2. If the Bible has obvious contradictions, then how can it be viewed as the final and infallible word of God by Christians? (Acts 9:7, Acts 22:9)
[adinserter block=1]3. Does the Bible say anywhere in it that there will not be any more prophets or any additional scriptures?
4. There are various letters from Paul and others that were not included in the Bible. Who gets to decide what goes into the Bible and what gets left out?
5. Did we live as pre mortal spirits before we came to earth? (Jer 1:5, Job 38:7)
6. Who was “God” talking to when He said “Let us” make man in “our” image and after “our” likeness? (Genesis 1:26-27)
7. Why do people believe God the Father and Jesus Christ are one being when Christ refers to himself and His Father as two men? (John 8:17-18)
8. The first Hebrew word for “God” renders the word “God” in the plural. Is there more than one god?
9. Why does Paul say that there are lots of gods? (1 Cor 8:5)
10. Why do so many of the “Early Christian Fathers” (those that were closest to the New Testament church) and respected Christian scholars such as C.S. Lewis speak of there being multiple gods?
11. The word “God” is a title. It’s not the actual name of Christ and it’s not the name of Heavenly Father. So could others like you and I be called using that same title someday if we are faithful children of a being with the title of “God”? (John 10:30-36) (Romans 8:16-17)
12. Christ tells us to become perfect. God is perfect. Does that mean we can become like God? (Matt 5:48)
13. Why would Christ be resurrected with his actual body if he was only just a manifestation of the Father?
14. You must accept Christ in order to be saved. But what if you never even heard of the name of Christ while in your lifetime?
15. Would a just God condemn someone merely because of the space of time in which they lived on the earth?
16. If baptism is required for salvation as taught by Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5), what happens to those that never had the chance to be baptized such as infants that died near child birth?
17. Why would Paul speak to the Corinthians about baptism for the dead, and why is this concept overlooked in mainstream Christianity? (1 Cor 15:29)
18. Why would Christ preach to the dead if the people that had died without confessing Christ had no chance in the after life? (1 Peter 3:18-19) (1 Pet 4:6)
19. Many pastors get paid big bucks to be pastors when Paul says we should minister for free? Should a church have a paid or unpaid ministry? (1 Cor 9:18)
20. What does Paul mean when he says we can become an heir of God and a joint-heir with Jesus Christ? (Romans 8:16-17)
21. Why do many Christians say that our works don’t matter, but Jesus says that we are required to repent and keep the commandments?
22. The Bible specifically says that we’ll be judged according to our works. Where is the cutoff line for heaven and hell? If you said 20 lies and I said 19, will you go to hell while I go to heaven?
23. Why do people believe in one heaven and one hell when the Bible teaches that there are various “degrees of glory” after the resurrection? (1 Cor 15:40-42)
24. What was Paul talking about when he said he saw in vision a “third heaven”? (2 Cor 12:2-4)
25. Why does Christ say that there are many “mansions” or if you prefer the Greek, “residences, stopping places, degrees” in heaven? (John 14:2)
26. What does the scripture in Acts 3:19-21 mean when Peter talks about the need for a future restoration?
27. What was Christ teaching his apostles during the “40 day ministry”? What did He need an entire 40 days for after he was resurrected when he was with them everyday for the last 3 years? (Acts 1)
28. Why don’t Christian denominations build temples?
29. Revelation 7:15 say that in the last days, disciples wearing white clothes would be working “day and night” in the temple. What church does that?
30. The last chapter of the Old Testament seems kind of important. Does anyone have any idea what it means to “turn the hearts of the the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers?” (Malachi 4:5-6)
31. The Jews prepare for Elijah’s return every year during passover. On April 3, 1836 Elijah returned to the earth and appeared in the Kirtland temple on the exact day that Jews around the world had prepared an empty chair for Elijah at their Passover meal? Is that a coincidence? [More]
32. Why was there a sudden global interest in genealogical research and why were these genealogical societies formed immediately following Elijah’s appearance in the temple in 1836?
33. The New Testament apostles had the ability to bind and seal on earth and in heaven. Who today claims the ability to bind and seal things on earth and in heaven?
34. Will we know our family and friends in the afterlife or do we lose our identities?
35. Joseph Smith “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter” according to his wife and many others. Could he have written the Book of Mormon?
36. If he did write the Book of Mormon, where or how did he accumulate so much wisdom in under 22 years of life?
37. Could Joseph Smith have been capable of plagiarizing from other books to write the Book of Mormon?
[adinserter block=2]38. If you say he plagiarized from a book that was popular and well known in his area, then how come no one called him out on it when he released the Book of Mormon?
39. Every scribe for Joseph Smith said he used no other manuscript or third party source material. Do you think Joseph Smith could have curated, memorized, and dictated Jacob 5 “The Allegory of the Olive Tree”, let alone the entire Book of Mormon?
40. Eleven plus people testified that they saw or handled the Book of Mormon plates. Many of these people became mad at Joseph Smith. Is it feasible that none of them would have “spilled the beans” if it was a calculated fraud in order to destroy Joseph Smith?
41. Who are the “other sheep that are not of this fold” referred to by Christ in (John 10:16) Hint: It’s not the Gentiles.
42. Why do so many ancient North, Central, and South American Indian traditions cite the appearance and ministration of a “Great God” that visited their ancestors many years ago and promised to return again?
43. Why do the explorers and conquistadors credit their ability to conquer the indians of the America’s to their belief that the conquistadors were that “Great God” returning?
44. If the polygamous history of Mormonism is a deal breaker, then why do you still believe in the Bible? Remember Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others that are esteemed from the Bible?
45. Joseph Smith was free and clear from the mob and on the other side of the Mississippi river when he was summoned to go to Carthage to die. If you were an evil villain imposter…would you go back to Carthage, or would you save your own skin?
46. They found the Book of Mormon that Joseph and Hyrum had in Carthage jail with the page turned down that they read from before they died. Hyrum, other than Joseph, would have known best if it was a fraud. If you were Hyrum, would you read from a fraudulent book in your last days?
47. Would there be that many people that would lie about Joseph Smith’s prophetic qualities and the many miracles that surrounded the restoration? If so…why?
48. Is God capable of sending a prophet to the earth today? If yes, how do you think that prophet would be received?
49. What Christian denomination most closely resembles the New Testament church of the Bible?
50. According to Christian beliefs, Mormons would be saved based on their confession of Christ. So…what is wrong with being Mormon?
Many of these questions have been asked by truth seekers over hundreds of years. It’s amazing to me that we live in a day that these questions can be answered. I personally go back to this “superstructure” whenever my faith is challenged intellectually. I can’t logically discredit the restoration of the gospel while the answers to these timeless questions have been given to me and are in plain view.
But then there’s question 51:
The Bible tells us that we should “ask God” and that the Holy Ghost will show us whether something is true or not. So after realizing that there is no other institution (that I know of) that answers these questions…I can do only one other thing to solidify my faith. I’ve got to ask the ultimate question.
51. “God…has Your church been restored?”
All of the previous 50 questions pale in importance to question 51. The Church of Jesus Christ in these latter days arose out of just one simple prayer to God from a small town farm boy in Palmyra New York.
So…I followed the Bible. I studied, I asked, I learned for myself that it’s true. I can only speak for myself.
A sermon could be given on each of these questions, but simply asking these questions is cause enough to at least give Mormonism a long stare down.
Every of these verses were taken out of context. The idea that there are multiple gods is absurd. You shouldn’t pick and choose verses from the bible that support your idea of what you should do. You should study the bible as a whole and understand the story it tells.
That is my exact point. No one has ever been able to give me an explanation on those verses. People will say the verse is taken out of context but then they never proceed to put them into context for me.
Regarding multiple gods…the Bible is full of this teaching. The problem is with our limited understanding of what the word “God” even means. God is a title of a heavenly creature just as “human” is a title or label of an earthly creature. We are at our core, heavenly creatures and according to the Bible, the actual offspring of God. Therefore, to be a human is nothing but a temporary assignment or station. Our divine destiny is to become what God is.
The early Christian fathers back up this notion in case you’re interested:
We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods. – Iraneus Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 94.
But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.” To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the “adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.” – Irenaus
yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god. – Origin Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks
…if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God…His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.” – Clement Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 see also Clement, Stromateis, 23
Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of “gods” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are ranked next below the savior. Clement – Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956),243–244. ISBN 0192830090.; Stromata 7:10 (55–56).
Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis says we “live in a world with possible gods and goddesses.”
Greg – Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were Catholics; C.S. Lewis was Anglican. None of them believed what Mormons believe about what it means for men to become God. Mormons abuse these sources by quoting them out of context and twisting their meaning. I suggest you quit reading scholars like Bettenson and go read everything that Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen actually wrote. You’ll find that although they talked about men becoming gods they did NOT mean what Mormons mean by men becoming gods. Why on earth would Mormons quote and abuse Catholic writers to defend their unique views of eternal progression? If the purpose is to point to lost doctrines in need of restoration by pointing to ancient writers who believed what Mormons believe, then I’d think you’d actually find and quote someone who believed what Mormons believe, and NOT quote Catholics! It’s very strange that Mormons do this. It only shows that they don’t do their homework before they speak and write.
perfect, I to searched many years to find or make sense of these scriptures. The LDS church is where I found the fullness of what I needed. This is just my story and my families …thanks for this 🙂
Excellent article. One of my favorite questions is your question #1. One of my favorite scriptures to back that up (One True and Living Church) is 1 Cor. 10-13.
Additional thoughts:
In John 6 we read of the disciples who heard Jesus’ “hard teaching” about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and then concluded something along the lines of “that is so weird!! not to mention unclean!!” — and walked with him no more. On the flip side, there are truth-seekers — like Jesus’ apostles, who — despite “hard teachings” that they ALSO did not understand — remained faithful to their Master because they allowed the Spirit to help them discern truth. The LDS church has some hard and mysterious teachings as seen by others — modern day prophets, additional scripture, temples, etc. But those giving it a chance (IN THE SAME WAY that Jesus’ apostles gave his teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood a second chance and soon discovered the true beauty of the symbolism of the the Lord’s sacrament or communion) — will find the true beauty in symbolic meanings of the temple, the true beauty in how abundant God is to his children to provide the voice of a prophet in today’s sinful world, and the true beauty in additional scripture.
We worship God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ as the most ABUNDANT GIVERS OF TRUTH who are the same yesterday, today and forever, and we benefit from that with MORE of their words… MORE access to prophets… MORE ordinances and covenants that draw us closer to God the Father and to Jesus Christ. Always MORE! And I just can’t imagine giving that up by listening to a bunch of people calling me “deceived” for wanting more of God’s abundant gifts.
I was reading in Luke 24 the other day, and was reminded of some details from the account of the 2 disciples as they walked the road to Emmaus. They had just heard the good news from the women who had been visited by 2 angels at the empty tomb that Jesus had risen from the dead. Yet, “their words seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not.” Jesus joins the 2 disciples as they’re walking, but “their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” Jesus asks them what they’re talking about “as ye walk, and are sad…”
So, from this story I understand that these disciples, these believers in Christ — these Christians — were NOT able to believe such a fantastical story that Jesus was now living again. Despite the eye-witness account from several women of the angels’ declaration and Peter and John’s discovery of the empty tomb. Then, by verse 31, their eyes are opened and the recognize Christ, they said to one another “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” Which led me to the conclusion that a witness by the Spirit can testify of truth to something that is wholly incomprehensible and doesn’t make sense.
Anti-Mormon advocates often mock the testimony of LDS converts who say that the Spirit is such a large part of why we join, why we stay, why we continue to believe and it shouldn’t be valid reason to do so amidst all the obvious evidence to the contrary of LDS doctrines. Did not the Spirit convey to the apostles that there was more to the story when they were taught the hard saying “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood shall have eternal life” ? And didn’t the Spirit convey to the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus that the “impossible” story that Jesus was alive could be something other than impossible?
As far as the “One True [and Living] Church” idea goes, I always imagine those disgruntled disciples from John chapter 6 — having now left Jesus after rejecting his “hard teaching … and walking no more with him” — gathered together a couple of days later and talking amongst themselves. One of them says, “You know, we liked about 98% of what Jesus taught — how ’bout we form a church and just focus on that 98% and just leave out that bit about eating his flesh and blood?” And then from there, the next group breaks off and takes 96% of the last group, and so on… that’s how you end up with 50,000+ different Christian denominations… which, according to biblical teachings, just does not work.
Excellent article. One of my favorite questions is your question #1. One of my favorite scriptures to back that up (One True and Living Church) is 1 Cor. 10-13.
Additional thoughts:
In John 6 we read of the disciples who heard Jesus’ “hard teaching” about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and then concluded something along the lines of “that is so weird!! not to mention unclean!!” — and walked with him no more. On the flip side, there are truth-seekers — like Jesus’ apostles, who — despite “hard teachings” that they ALSO did not understand — remained faithful to their Master because they allowed the Spirit to help them discern truth. The LDS church has some hard and mysterious teachings as seen by others — modern day prophets, additional scripture, temples, etc. But those giving it a chance (IN THE SAME WAY that Jesus’ apostles gave his teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood a second chance and soon discovered the true beauty of the symbolism of the the Lord’s sacrament or communion) — will find the true beauty in symbolic meanings of the temple, the true beauty in how abundant God is to his children to provide the voice of a prophet in today’s sinful world, and the true beauty in additional scripture.
We worship God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ as the most ABUNDANT GIVERS OF TRUTH who are the same yesterday, today and forever, and we benefit from that with MORE of their words… MORE access to prophets… MORE ordinances and covenants that draw us closer to God the Father and to Jesus Christ. Always MORE! And I just can’t imagine giving that up by listening to a bunch of people calling me “deceived” for wanting more of God’s abundant gifts.
I was reading in Luke 24 the other day, and was reminded of some details from the account of the 2 disciples as they walked the road to Emmaus. They had just heard the good news from the women who had been visited by 2 angels at the empty tomb that Jesus had risen from the dead. Yet, “their words seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not.” Jesus joins the 2 disciples as they’re walking, but “their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” Jesus asks them what they’re talking about “as ye walk, and are sad…”
So, from this story I understand that these disciples, these believers in Christ — these Christians — were NOT able to believe such a fantastical story that Jesus was now living again. Despite the eye-witness account from several women of the angels’ declaration and Peter and John’s discovery of the empty tomb. Then, by verse 31, their eyes are opened and the recognize Christ, they said to one another “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” Which led me to the conclusion that a witness by the Spirit can testify of truth to something that is wholly incomprehensible and doesn’t make sense.
Anti-Mormon advocates often mock the testimony of LDS converts who say that the Spirit is such a large part of why we join, why we stay, why we continue to believe and it shouldn’t be valid reason to do so amidst all the obvious evidence to the contrary of LDS doctrines. Did not the Spirit convey to the apostles that there was more to the story when they were taught the hard saying “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood shall have eternal life” ? And didn’t the Spirit convey to the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus that the “impossible” story that Jesus was alive could be something other than impossible?
As far as the “One True [and Living] Church” idea goes, I always imagine those disgruntled disciples from John chapter 6 — having now left Jesus after rejecting his “hard teaching … and walking no more with him” — gathered together a couple of days later and talking amongst themselves. One of them says, “You know, we liked about 98% of what Jesus taught — how ‘bout we form a church and just focus on that 98% and just leave out that bit about eating his flesh and blood?” And then from there, the next group breaks off and takes 96% of the last group, and so on… that’s how you end up with 50,000+ different Christian denominations… which, according to biblical teachings, just does not work.
I think you should step back and ask more fundamental questions about the foundations of Judeo-Christian-Islam (an good well grounded starting point: http://amzn.com/0060630353)
These are great questions. I have taught gospel principles for years and also know that question 51 provides the best of all questions. In the scriptures we are encouraged often to take it to the Lord in prayer, believing that if we ask we shall receive. He has told us this and if we believe His provided word, surely we can start there. But like I have told my students, be willing and ready to receive an answer.
Thank you for your article and the comments that provide for good discussion that follows.
Nice list. Many questions are redundant so it can really be reduced to about 20 topics with multiple angles. But nicely done nonetheless.
I studied to be a military chaplain and took courses for a master’s in Divinity from Liberty University. I can see the “Christian” answer to many of the verses listed as being just as logical as your position. It’s important to not mock each other’s understanding of the same verses.
I think you ought to be cautious of this one:
19. Many pastors get paid big bucks to be pastors when Paul says we
should minister for free? Should a church have a paid or unpaid
ministry? (1 Cor 9:18)
While the majority of those that serve as “pastors” in the LDS church do it for free, there are many that do get paid.
The LDS Church employs full-time pastors that minister to the youth and young adults. The Church Educational System’s teachers are doing the work that youth pastors do in most churches. And they are paid much better than a public school teacher for doing so. Also, all general authorities and mission presidents receive a living stipend which is not exactly chump change.
Keep writing amigo…
Poqui…Great comment.
Sounds like you are aware of how things work in the LDS Church. There are in fact some who are paid. You mentioned the CES employees and the General Authorities which is accurate.
This is very common to hear this from those who want to point out we do have paid employees.
I think we make a distinction that is tricky to understand to many outside the Church.
Basically a CES employee who teaches Seminary or Institute is working in a scholastic/education profession rather than an ecclesiastical role.
The best way I can think of to illustrate this is if a student were to come to a seminary teacher with a personal, financial, family or moral issue the typical response from the teacher would be to get the student’s parents and or Bishop involved with helping them. They would not do much ministering in that instance, they would find the unpaid clergy that has stewardship over this student and encourage them to get help there.
These same CES teachers actually have ecclesiastical callings of their own. Many are Bishop’s, Sunday School teachers, etc. as well. For this service they are unpaid, like the rest of us.
For example, I am an Early Morning Seminary Teacher myself. I teach one class a day to 10 high school Juniors. For this I am allowed a reimbursement of $50 annually for class supplies and $4 per student per year for activities if I fill out the proper forms. This is not exactly a big money maker considering I prepare a lesson everyday, and present it at 6:30 every school day. I love it though. It is an awesome deal!
As for the General Authorities. They do receive a stipend. The key here is these folks are asked to leave their own professions to dedicate the rest of their lives to the Lord. The professions they typically are in pay far more than the stipend for living expenses they receive from the Church. I recall driving in Salt Lake one time and seeing a member of the 12 Apostles driving by me. He was in a white Pontiac Bonneville. He didn’t look like he was being too spoiled to me. I am guessing had he stayed in his career as a successful businessman he would have been in something a bit nicer.
The vast majority of one on one ministering is done in the LDS Church by one of the more than 29,000 Bishops, Relief Society Presidents, Youth/Primary leaders, Sunday School Teachers or one the the many other millions of other volunteers.
In our eyes the power of the truly unpaid clergy is no one is tempted to cater the message to those in the congregation that will bring in the larger contributions. The hope is to keep the doctrine pure. We see it working from the inside. It is always interesting to get other opinions from those who don’t see it the way we do.
Sounds like you are out doing His work too. God Bless!
Those Acts verses have nothing to do with contradictions in the bible. Certainly no explanations as to why something with a contradiction can be infallible.
Ditto
Nothing pompous about it at all. All churches have SOME truth. Only one has ALL the truth. It’s not a factor of being pompous or better than anyone else. It also doesn’t make anyone else wrong, just not all the way where they need to be. If you read through the list, you can clearly see the differences…temples, modern-day prophet, multiple glories, etc. etc. etc. All of these are taught in the Bible and some faiths teach some versions of some of those things. But only the LDS church teaches all of them.
Yes Michael, even though you don’t intend to act pompous, you really are. Christians believe they have everything that is needed to be saved with God. It’s not that we have a little, we have it All and it’s Jesus.
I agree that it is somewhat pompous to claim that one church has ALL truth.
The Church of Jesus Christ even claims in Article of Faith 9 that they will receive more truth.
To say that the LDS church has all truth is doing everyone around you a huge disfavor.
The simple answer without wading into doctrinal debate over misunderstood and differing views on biblical passages is this, that when Christ sought baptism to be obedient to the Father in all things and “to fulfill all righteousness” he didn’t go seek out the local Rabbi, or just any “faction” that believed on the scriptures in their own personal way. He went into the desert and sought out the “hermit” John the Baptist. The man Jesus knew held the proper authority to legitimize the act of baptism. All other arguments and biblical interpretations are moot when considering the actions the actions of the Savior himself. He’s the example we must follow, and in doing so we must act as he did and seek the proper authority and not just anyone who professes to believe and follow. Does he love anyone less? No, but that doesn’t mean just anyone defines the path we must follow to do as he did.
Ender, Again read the Bible, learn about the Bride, the Body of Christ, His Believers…It’s not Mormonism, it’s the Body of Christ that is His Church, His followers. Please consider that, please open your mind to the truth of the Body…
My comment didn’t claim “Mormonism” to be what you were referencing. I’m quite comfortable with the analogy of the church as the Body of Christ. How comfortable are you with the realization that Christ sought out proper priesthood authority to perform his baptism legitimately? How do you reconcile proper priesthood authority to the generalization you’re making to Christianity as a whole being the Body of Christ?
This has actually helped reinforce my atheism and anti~organized religion stance!
I am glad I read this
This helped strengthen my atheism
me 2.
Mormonism? I thought was a nickname used for non members. Why you insist to use it when refer to anything about the Church Of Jesus Christ? I respect Mormon but he’s just a man, and I don’t belong his church. Even he knows who the church belongs..
So, in light of Paul’s pleading in 1 Cor. 10-13, about not having divisions and contentions among the members of the early (and organized) church, how do you think the following hypothetical scenario would play out: We build a time machine today and take back with us to the time when Paul wrote that letter (or, possibly to 32 AD in Jerusalem) several congregations of Christians. For example, 200 Methodists, 200 Catholics, 200 Anglicans, 200 Lutherans, 200 Baptists (etc, etc). Leave the Mormons out of it. My question is, do you think they would all remain in their separate congregations with their differing doctrinal beliefs, or would they, over a short period of time, become one church under the direction of apostles?
LDS teaching would say that the Body of Christ is His Church, but that each individual person within that Body (Church) is the hands and eyes and feet — with different talents coming together to bless the whole, but not interpret the hands / eyes / feet to mean different religious denominations.
You are 100% correct to say that Jesus does not love less believers of
different churches. That is in line 100% with LDS doctrine.
Different ministries do bring people to Christ in how they speak to people’s hearts and understanding and we applaud their dedication and I believe that God looks upon each heart at Judgement day over any particular church membership, while at the same time encouraging all to be ONE. All the different religious denominations DO contend with each other. They DO have divisions one from another. And according to 1 Cor. 10, that is contrary to the Lord’s church, the church which instructs us to “be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.”
Sorry I fully disagree with your belief on the denominations and Christian body. How many Christian Churches have you attended? I go to all different Christian churches and I believe each one is mine. It makes no difference how and where I worship. They all speak of the same biblical God and Jesus that I believe in and the Good news, the gospel of Christ. Please get off your high horse and visit and experience the Body of Christ.
I like it and I believe it. That’s why I joined 5 years ago. I asked these questions for years and did pray and got answer.
I think this same list was in the JW Watchtower as well…or could be.
I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) and I believe that Jesus Christ and Buddha are best friends. I’ve never understood the argument about finding truth. If you want to know you will seek with an open mind and if you don’t, you won’t. The great thing about “Mormonism” is we are not going to force anybody to ask God. God isn’t going to force you either. He’s not going to force to you listen either. We invite anyone to ask and so does God. So relax. Do what you want to do. God gave every son and daughter of His that agency. Life is good.
Thanks Russell!
Reviewing these questions reinforced an opinion I’ve had for a long time, that is that Mormon beliefs have some interesting solutions to common “problems” with bible based religions that other christian faiths don’t. If you are a believer in christianity, you may find some of these questions compelling.
That being said, these questions do nothing but reinforce the non-believers that it’s all nonsense. As a non-believer, it’s like a fan of Harry Potter trying to convince a Hunger Games fan that Harry Potter is the one true series.
And yet the belief in a Supreme Being (in one form or another) has existed throughout man’s existence heedless of climate, race, or origin. Seems a strange thing for every single man since the beginning of time to reach for without there being some truth behind it…Personally I’m a fan of both J.K. Rowling and Suzanne Collins, but that doesn’t mean all of humanity respects the scope of their writings as is the case with religious works (religion non-specific). You may claim to be a “non-believer” but that means one of two things: either you’ve chosen to believe that things happen on their own without divine intervention, or you haven’t chosen a belief to call you own because none you’ve found fit your personal path; in either case (or one I missed) you believe in something, you’ve just decided to separate your views from others with the non sequitur “non-believer”. Cheers.
Your claims need some revision. “Superstition” has probably existed ever since our brain evolved to the levels of intellect we have now. Not all superstitious belief sets involved “Supreme Beings”.
The action of belief does not imply the reality of the thing believed in. That folks had superstitions for probably forever, therefor there must be some basis to the superstition is nothing more than an appeal to popularity.
My point is that they are all sets of fiction. Mormonism does deal well with some doctrinal problems in christianity (generally speaking) but falls short when it comes to critical thinking and logic.
I did not chose to reject superstitious belief sets. I was “convinced” that the belief set I had (which was Mormonism and in the greater picture, all the Abrahamic myths) was false. I am a non-believer of any superstition when I recognize it as superstition.
Non-believer in myth and superstition is what I am. If you want to equivocate “Non-Believer” on a forum discussing religion as one who is absent of ANY belief, then you are only confusing the issue. I believe it will rain today. I am a believer then.
What is it about the LDS church that lead you to mark it superstition?
Its one thing to believe that we are, as Christians and disciples of Christ, all the BOC, its quite another to copy the authority to act in God’s name and paste it onto the BOC as some sort of extra-biblical belief. Throughout the OT the priesthood authority was vested in the tribe of Levi. It was an mantle laid on them and a service they provided (passed from father to son). Those outside the tribe of Levi relied on their service to perform the necessary sacrifices and other services. In the NT the apostles had that authority given them to lead the church Christ established, and through various scriptures its shown that priesthood isn’t something you take, but rather something that is bestowed on you by those who have it. Merely believing in Christ and following his teachings has never, throughout all scripture, been sufficient justification to claim authority to act in his name. Do you ignore passages such as Hebrews 5 and the sealing power given to Peter? Or do you choose to believe that you are simply the glove and God is the hand filling that glove and that the profession that you follow Christ gives you the his authority “on loan” from him?
Greg…sincere question…
Are you aware that all GAs from the Mission President up make money?
Lets take a mission president for example:
According to the MP handbook, they get all of their expenses paid for. This includes but is not limited to (according to the handbook):
Housekeeping (inside and outside)
Vehicles for personal use
Gifts yearround for family and friends (birthdays, christmas, etc)
Extracurricular activies such as sports, gymnastics, etc for the kids
All travel expenses
The cost of children going on missions
College tuition for any accredited university (not to exceed the BYU’s tuition)
Airfare for adult children to visit the mission once per year
All medical expenses except for braces and cosmetic surgery
All household supplies
All food
Dry Cleaning
Long Distance calling
Internet
…the list goes on
On top of all of this, at the very end of the entry in the handbook it tell the MP to tell no one about this including Family, friends, and CPA/ACCOUNTANT.
Now, MPs are at the bottom of the rung….so imagine the perks the rest of them get.
Let me be clear…i am ok with them getting these benefits. There are leaving their jobs and providing a service for the church….
What I am not ok with is them acting like there is no paid clergy. Seriously…it is a bold-faced lie.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Greg, I found so many of your questions interesting. Many of which I have come across during the past 2 years I have spent dedicated to finding truth. I am interested to know what your thoughts are. I have chosen just one as the very nature of God and Jesus is essential: I am happy to provide additional information if you would like to know my thoughts on other questions…….
Question #7 Please see the Joseph Smith Translation of Luke 10:22 and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to who the Son will reveal it”
Additionally, Alma11:38-39 Now Zeerom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Additionally, Mosiah 15:1-2 And now Abinadi said unto them; I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-
Ether 3:14…… Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son……. I do have a question for you …..
How does an lds know when it is okay to use the bible to support an lds point of view such as baptism for the dead, and how do you know which parts of the bible to avoid that have been translated incorrectly or where a truth has been lost?
Hey Greg. I just finished answering ALL 51 questions. Thanks for the good times.
https://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/answering-greg-trimbles-51-questions-part-1/
You’re welcome to come up with any explanation you see fit, doesn’t make it correct. Instead, the fact that you did come up with “reasonable” explanations for these questions points to the fact that any dogma (or the teachings one personally decideds to aspire to) must fit everything the Bible says–either to explain, or to explain away. The belief that we are literal sons and daughters of God has, over time, been eroded away from its simple beauty to the distortion that we are somehow “adopted” in as a separate species incapable of receiving anything but “gifts”. This is incorrect. The concept of being a “joint-heir” with Christ entitled to all that he receives from the Father is not limited as you illustrated in your 51-responses summary. To claim such would declare God’s motivations as nothing more than a “generous benefactor”, not the loving Father the Bible makes him out to be.
Put yourself in the adversary’s position. If you could distort only one single doctrine and no others, which would it be. You may have guessed my opinion (based on this post) but I’ll explain it anyway. To distort the purpose of life itself. Christ said “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3) Christ teaches us that our pursuit, our end goal, is to know God and Jesus Christ. Thus if the adversary can distort our knowledge and understanding of God, he also destroys our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe and God’s Plan. This one “simple” action diverts our course off the path Christ established for us to follow. Your “Nature of God” page on which you depict differing God belief structures shows just how effective the adversary has managed to distort the truth. For simplicity I’m referring only to the Christian interpretations, but as we are all children of God (on like footing with God regardless of our belief or station) you could also include the other religious beliefs on deity and our origin/destination path through and after life.
Its interesting to me that during these times when the entire world is struggling with the concept of “who is God, and who am I” that the prevailing Christian belief (Catholicism excluded) is that we must slug it out for ourselves through scripture study and relying on our interpretation of spiritual promptings, rather than, as depicted throughout the Bible’s entirety, that God would send a prophet to set his people straight. That it is largely believed that “all that (prophet stuff) was done away with and won’t happen again”–regardless of need I would add.
In your 51-responses you gave the short answer to Greg’s profound question rather than show the weakness in your dogma. #3 “Does the Bible say anywhere in it that there will not be any more prophets or any additional scriptures?” to which you responded “No. Next question”. Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you, but the underlying unspoken statement here (that I’ve personally heard from many Christians worldwide) is “no prophets since the Apostles were killed 1st century A.D., no reason that should change anytime soon–I guess we’re just responsible for doing the best we can with our situation”. Again I apologize if I’m off base, but this seems to be the over-arching theme throughout your 51-responses; the belief that we just have to do the best we can with what we have left, and after losing the line of prophetic leadership (existing throughout the Bible) and the canon of scripture being truncated (after the deaths of the Apostles and Prophets), we’ll just adapt and God will judge us justly at the end regardless of which Christian dogma we subscribe to.
If that were really the “path” Christ described so “narrowly” (specifically) during his ministry I’d have to say that the adversary has the upper-hand. There’s nothing “strait and narrow” about the “everyone’s path to Christ is acceptable” belief.
And now, because I don’t know any better, I’ll offer a short and informal response.
1) It’s one church nonetheless. Or, I suppose we should all be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Incidentally, there are countless denominations of Mormon churches as well. This is a non-point.
2) Oh, no! The Bible contains factual errors. The horror! I’m not an ardent inerrantist, so I have no beef with pointing out such things. Even so, I’m not sure what a Mormon would gain by presenting this.
3) Hebrews 1:1-2. I admit that it doesn’t explicitly preclude the office of prophet, and the compilation of scripture we know as the Bible wouldn’t be set in stone for a while afterwards. Indeed, not all Christian traditions even hold the same canons.
4) The formation of the canon was a reflection of the texts that Christians circulated and agreed upon in a loose sense, before proclaiming an organized consensus on “The Bible” in the fourth century. However, connection to the original apostles was a key value, as I understand it.
5) Why, no. Trimble appropriates Jeremiah 1:5 as if this suggests a doctrine of premortal existence. I admit that it could be interpreted in a way consistent with such a belief, but it certainly does not imply it. I’ll save Job 38:7 for answering #6.
6) Oh, that was quick, it’s #6 already! In Genesis 1, God is addressing the divine council, or his heavenly cohort. This is the divine courtroom setting also seen in Job 1, Psalm 82, 1 Kings 22:19, and Ezekiel 1. In Job 38:7, the “sons of God” are the angels. Flip back to earlier in Job, to chapter 1 and look at verse 6. It’s angels, in this context. The burden is on the one trying to make the text refer to pre-embodied humans.
7) Jesus in the cited passage is addressing the Pharisees in the context of the Jewish law. He’s likening Himself and the Father to “two men” required to bear valid testimony. It’s irresponsible eisegesis to suggest that Jesus was claiming that He and the Father were men.
8) Depends on what you mean. Elohim functions in Hebrew as singular or plural depending on grammatical context. “I’m going down to feed the fish.” In the preceding sentence, the grammar isn’t enough to tell you whether I am referring to one or more than one fish. “This is where the fish lives.” In this case, the grammar makes it clear that there is only one fish. So it is with this particular Hebrew word. There can be more than one elohim. Not a problem. It just doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s like the English word “god,” being a title moreso than an identifier of one unique being. There is only one creator Yahweh, even if the word “god” lends itself to being applied to other things as well. Angels are sometimes referred to by this title, as is even a human spirit in 1 Samuel 28:13. Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim are Yahweh. He alone is the ‘species unique’ creator.
9) Paul is acknowledging in 1 Corinthians 8:5 that other divine beings are worshipped as gods. As I alluded to earlier, the Jews even acknowledged the existence of other divine beings or elohim (like in Psalm 82), but regarded them as inferior and subject to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 32:8-9). Trimble isn’t rustling me with these questions about multiple “gods.”
10) See above. Without specific citations I can’t really comment further. I’d probably just interpret them in light of my above comments.
11) Yes, the word “God” is indeed a title. Indeed, there is scriptural precedent to referring to humans as “elohim.” See the above citation of 1 Samuel 28:13. The predominant Christian interpretation of Psalm 82 is to see the divine courtroom setting as being a metaphor for human government. If that’s the case, you have humans metaphorically being referred to as “elohim.” Jesus quotes Psalm 82 in John 10:34, rhetorically calling the Pharisees “gods.” As to the verses Trimble cites from Romans 8, there’s nothing there to suggest anyone being given the title of “god.” Rather, God’s people are described as being “children” and “heirs” of God. I can readily acknowledge the broad and diverse use of the title of “god/elohim” in scripture, but there’s zero to imply that we become gods. I shouldn’t go here, but I’ll say it conjures up a mental image of the serpent in Genesis 3 promising the man and woman would “become like gods.”
Becoming like God through Christ is to be joined with Him forever and does not mean we become “gods” in our own right. It certainly does nothing to imply that we were such prior to being born. I looked up some quotations of the early church fathers who use the term “gods” to refer to how believers end up, and it’s clear they’re paraphrasing the biblical picture of God reconciling us to himself and glorifying (or exalting, if you like) us in resurrection. No hint is there, however, about any sort of divine preexistence whatsoever.
12) Yes, through the person of Christ. You have to realize that Jesus was tasking us with the impossible here. We become like God through the sanctification process, and we can only do so in conjunction with Christ. God’s people are brought into Christ, not elevated as His equal.
13) I don’t understand the point here. Jesus was a flesh and blood human being. The Son emptied Himself (Philippians 2) and took on human nature. The doctrine of the Incarnation is of paramount importance. Jesus was nothing short of God incarnate, not merely God appearing to have been there bodily. Again, I’m really not sure what Trimble’s point is here; it’s not like Christians would have called Christ “only just a manifestation of the Father.”
14) A valid question that Christians differ in addressing.
15) Trimble knows he’s being flippant here. God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and Romans 1:18 and onwards describes to us that God makes a certain amount of provision for all men in this regard. It’s not spelled out in nearly enough detail for my curiosity, but there it is. That’s already enough to overturn Trimble’s implied point in this question. He’s setting up a Mormon doctrine by implying that otherwise God condemns people arbitrarily based on geopolitical placement. It’s silly.
16) See answer to number 14, and to a lesser extent 15. David expressed hope that he would see his dead child again, albeit in OT pre-Christian revelation (2 Samuel 12:23). (I realize that he’s probably making a less optimistic statement than some people appropriate this verse to imply; he’s more likely saying something to the effect of “I will eventually die and join him in Sheol.”)
17) As I understand it, Paul was referencing a practice being performed in order to make a larger point. His point is this: if those dead people are not raised with Christ, what good is baptism going to do them at that point? The baptism of the dead is incidental to his point. This is the one and only verse in scripture to (vaguely) allude to this practice. Even if I were to grant that it was a legitimate practice, all it would do is point to the significance of the resurrection. It’d be symbolic, or at most it would be as effective as praying for someone. In other words, there is less than zero in scripture to suggest that a dead person can be saved via vicarious baptism by a living person.
18) As I understand it, some of the early church fathers believed people could respond in faith to Christ after death, and that death as the point at which one’s eternal fate is sealed wouldn’t enter into the picture until later in Christian history. Orthodox Christianity need not preclude this possibility.
19) Get bent.
20) By allowing God to positionally place us in Christ, we are graciously joined in His position. I could say more, but I’m sincerely unsure why Trimble brought it up. In short, believers are positioned in and identified with Christ, and so enter God’s kingdom. I’d say more about how this differs from Trimble’s understanding if I knew what his was.
21) Good question!
22) Not how it works, and you know it. Matthew 7:20 and Luke 6:44 suggest that we are judged according to our ‘fruits.’ Matthew 12:33 does as well, but includes something that gets at the heart of my response: “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good.” Jesus redeems us by ridding us of sin’s penalty and power, and good works should follow.
23) I fail to see how the cited verse has anything to do with degrees of heaven or hell. I was expecting him to cite things like Matthew 6:19-21 or 5:19. In which case, I’d agree. But since all he cited was a verse that says the resurrection will be superior to one’s earthly body… I don’t know what to say. “Duh,” I guess.
24) Allusion to Paul’s ancient Jewish view of cosmology. Third heaven = what we mean when we say “heaven.” This is distinct from the “heavens,” or skies. At least, that seems most likely to me. Anything more elaborate is placing the text in a vice and mutilating it into teaching something that isn’t there.
25) I suspect there’s a Mormon understanding of that text that I’m unfamiliar with. Why does John 14:2 say that there are many mansions? I suppose it’s because there are. I should point out, however, that the verse states that these mansions are “in” His Father’s house. Sort of a mixed metaphor, it seems. But it’s clear that all these mansions are united “in” the Father’s house.
26) The restoration spoken of in Acts 3 refers to what was going on right then and there, and continues on until the bodily return of Christ who is still in heaven. Look at the immediately prior verse, verse 18, where Peter clearly clarifies what he’s talking about: the advent of Christ as heralded by the OT prophets. It’s the salvific plan of God that was rolling from the time of the prophets through Christ’s first advent and culminating in His second.
27) D’oh! You got me. I guess the only possible answer is that Jesus must have taught them esoteric knowledge that was not in keeping with what the gospels or epistles taught. Those forty days must have been necessary to give a crash course for things totally foreign to what He’d been teaching them during his three year ministry. But seriously, it seems like He was giving them instruction for their apostolic ministry as described in Acts and the epistles. There’s no way to build a case from this piece of data for Jesus unloading proto-Mormon doctrine without invoking a novel source.
28) The Temple(s) in the OT period are understood by NT authors and Christians as a sign or illustration of Christ. Matthew 12:6 gives us a hint that the Temple’s purpose is ending as Christ is revealed. In John 2, Jesus likens His body to the Temple. Believers are positionally in Christ, and 1 Corinthians 6:19 teaches that our bodies are God’s temple now. It’s fulfilled in the person of Christ, and we join that by becoming joined to Him.
29) Revelation is very, very nonliteral in its imagery. It’s irresponsible eisegesis to interpret 7:15 as prescribing the use of a temple in Christian practice. Look at Revelation 11:19 for clarification about what John refers to as the temple. It’s not an earthly temple (as if referring to a church building); it’s “the temple of God in heaven.”
30) This language of turning hearts of fathers to children and vice versa refers to repentance. Look a few chapters back, at 3:7 and you’ll see similar language clearly referring to repentance. I’m honestly ignorant of what Mormon teaching Trimble is alluding to, so I can’t talk specifically about that. However, there’s nothing here to remotely suggest or imply anything other than that Elijah is spoken of as promoting repentance.
31) Probably wasn’t a coincidence. If one was going to claim to be Elijah, that’d be a good day and time to choose to jump on out. I guess.
32) Now we reach the part of Trimble’s list where my ignorance will show itself regarding Mormonism. It won’t be as much fun from here on out.
33) Who claims it? I don’t really care who claims it, though I agree that the NT apostles were given that authority quite explicitly. That being the case, I’m not convinced others have that authority. The heavy burden of evidence is on the one making such a claim.
34) I don’t know of any biblical reason to believe we’d lose our identities. On the contrary, the Bible is replete with evidence that we will know one another after death. The very doctrine of the resurrection of believers ought to be enough to let us know that. How could I be bodily resurrected and not have a unique identity? I’m probably missing Trimble’s angle here out of ignorance of Mormonism.
35) His wife, eh? Yeah. Even so, it could have been plagiarized from contemporaries.
36) See below.
37) Sure. Why not? The question literally asks whether he was “capable of plagiarizing.” Sure, he was capable of doing so.
38) Maybe Walters the magician cast a silence spell. But seriously, a cursory glance suggests that non-Mormons describe the referenced book as obscure and unpublished. Rather than being “well known,” it wouldn’t be something people would have known well enough to call out when seen being cannibalized.
39) Well, if they said it. I’m sure they wouldn’t lie to me.
40) Didn’t at least some of these people use language like seeing them with their “spiritual eyes,” rather than physically? I wouldn’t count that. It’s a cop out of cop outs.
41) The gentiles. Lol, why does Trimble state that it’s not the gentiles?
42) Do they? I’m sure there’s some things there that can be conflated, but I’m not very knowledgeable about this.
43) See #42.
44) It’s not a dealbreaker in terms of looking back in history. I would not at all agree with advocating its practice today, but I wouldn’t criticize a modern-day Mormon for patriarchy practiced by an ancestor or anything like that. But you gotta admit, countercultural polygamy in nineteenth century America is radically a different question than ubiquitous polygamy in the ancient near east.
45 and 46) I don’t know.
47) Sure, especially if they were already taken in by them by that point. Joseph Smith was a known con man from youth, practicing divination. No surprise when it’s done on a much grander scale. Perhaps some of his early adopters were sincere; it’s not important to me in evaluating the truth of it.
48) Sure he could. See #3. That sure doesn’t mean that Smith was a prophet, and the burden of proof is surely on him. I wouldn’t expect that prophet to live a lush life of affluence and comfort; most of the prophets were treated horribly and martyred. But I’m just answering the question; it’s neither here nor there.
49) Probably house churches, particularly in oppressive parts of the world.
50) Radical misunderstandings of most of the terminology involved, such that it’s not the same message at any point. Even so, there can be things wrong with something without it necessarily precluding salvation. I could turn this question on its head and posit that by the same logic Mormonism’s evangelism isn’t important either.
51) The NT doesn’t speak about a restoration of the church as seen in Mormonism. Nor does it speak about the Protestant Reformation, or any other schisms or movements. So, what? We are all, corporately as the invisible catholic/universal church, being restored to the image of God as seen clearly in Christ.
Mormon is the best wrong identifier to the Church, I have lost many opportunities to teach homes when this nickname was pronounced. I talk like as the Church like this nickname while I still remember Pres. Hinckley asking to use the correct name when refers to the church.
Michael, I agree with what you are saying, in principle, however, the realities of these atheists defies what you or I would believe to be a common sense approach by them. You see, we foolishly believe when they announce they are atheists (don’t believe or acknowledge that God exists) that being so actually defines them. Those who come to sites like this are more than atheists. They are anti-God and anti-faith in God. Many of them, at some point in their lives, were at least brought up with some religious background, and having later turned their backs on God, try to justify their anti-faith (apostasy) by attacking or at least arguing with or poking fun at anyone who demonstrates their faith in God to others. These atheists have a point to make by always coming on sites like this one; to try and make believers look foolish. They LOVE doing this! They are true haters. They may occasionally have ethical leanings, and perhaps be almost polite, but make not mistake about it – they really hate you and what you stand for. You see, if they can’t have faith in God, then NO ONE can.
This is a case of “frying pan and fire”, as one amateur apologist for baloney on white attempts to teach his crowd the proper holy way to convert the heretic baloney on wheat believers. The tactic of the open question is hardly new, and its premise is to “simply make people think” , and bring them along just a little bit further from the denominational and un-restored frying pan and into the Mormon fire. Either way, on white or wheat, rubbish is as rubbish is.
Here’s one for you Greg, “Does it ever seem silly when you consider that you believe a convicted con-man and lecherous pedophile used a magic rock in his hat to translate invisible golden plates into a new bible that claims Native Americans are really Jewish?”
Can someone explain what #2 means when Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 are listed? Thanks!