1/12/23 In response to learning about what Mormons have been using for their teaching and doctrine, and using their website, I started to work bullet point by bullet point down the page (from their website – https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ), and make it the goal to use the Bible and revelation and truth from God’s “church”, that is the true church – the body of Jesus Christ, to help myself out in knowing how to refute Mormonism, and hope to provide edification to show what the truth really is.
Here is the second bullet point straight from the article, “What Latter-day Saints Believe About Jesus Christ”
(Mormons believe the following):
“We believe the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament to be historical and truthful. For us the Jesus of history is indeed the Christ of faith. While we do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, complete or the final word of God, we accept the essential details of the Gospels and more particularly the divine witness of those men who walked and talked with Him or were mentored by His chosen apostles.”
Time to dismantle it!
If I could poke holes in a few things it would be these 2 points,
- When they say they “believe the accounts of Jesus life and ministry recorded” in the 4 gospel accounts – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I would argue the point that if they (Mormons) were to be consistent with saying that they would need the 4 gospels accounted for in Holy Scriptures, then why not regard the entire bible as recognized by the previous canonization of the bible, laid down by earlier church fathers who through mutual accounting and accountable divine coincidence, could confirm what was inspired and what was not. Why would Joseph Smith need to separate themselves from what was there. To me, it seems like Paul and Timothy and John (the beloved), all spoke against “gnosticism”, and I will need to define that word here for this to make sense. “Gnosticism” is best defined, I think by looking at Scriptures, so here’s the definition I think is related by Scripture: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8 ESV So, this means that “revelations” that come by means other than Christ (and what was clearly shown to the apostles with multiple attestation), whether those false “revelations” were based on different philosophies, or an empty idea like Joseph Smith (main founder of Mormonism) had, such as being told by an angel “every church around here is wrong, so Joseph Smith, how bout you start another church, and so make everything right ?(and eventually disregard the other sacred scriptures??! 😦 Paul, Timothy, and John in the rest of the New Testament that we know of in such bibles as NIV, NASV, NLT, KJV, NKJV, ESV, and Berean Bible and so on, speak against “gnosticism” as they parallel one another. It’s super prideful and obviously so to me that Joseph Smith was sure that his revelation should discount everyone’ that was’s being wrong, but eventually, he was so deceived, that angels continue to appear to him, literal ones, and gave him new scriptures on golden plates, which he shared, and so got deceived. I would not doubt that angels came (Satan masquerades an ‘angel’ of light), would not doubt he was shown golden pieces, or that there were new words on them. However, its extremely not likely to me that one revelation or even 5 could outdo about 1800 years of Jesus’ divine doctrine as related, suffered and died for in previous time to be outdone by some visions, or some frustration with local assemblies. It’s extremely narcissistic also, to claim no one else has a hold on God, and that is obvious to me here that that is what he did. Now I understand gnosticism, and there have been other people in history who have claimed to have exclusive knowledge, but steering away from the Scriptures (especially in purposed knowledge of doing so) is the height of foolishness. That’s the first hole I will poke.
- The second statement from this bullet point to address would be the following: (Mormons): “While we do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, complete or the final word of God, we accept the essential details of the Gospels and more particularly the divine witness of those men who walked and talked with Him or were mentored by His chosen apostles.” It seems to me that the thought is inconsistent again that the Bible would have been considered for them, but not the other revelations, such as perhaps Apostle Paul struck blind with his revelation of Jesus Christ, or John the Revelator (writer of Revelation) who introduced the imminency idea of the true church’s saints of the latter days. Why some part of the Bible be accepted but not the others, to me is put into effect because those who followed in Joseph Smith’s way were probably quickly made aware that some of things they were teaching were opposed and objected to in Scripture. Paul and Timothy and John were already facing gnostics before the bible was canonized, and even before they died themselves, that’s why they spoke to these things.
- “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” 2 Timothy 3:16 NIV Paul wrote that to warn Timothy.
- “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. …” 1 Corinthians 15 Paul wrote to the Corinthians, honoring in a God-fearing recollection of sound reasoning to know what God’s inpsired words are
- Colossians 2 (When Paul wrote to Colosse), also states when Paul spoke against “wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism…” in another topic but still address gnostic ideas, he speaks to the thought of self-made religions coming to surface even back then.
Finally, the best Scripture that I can think to wrap up this idea and belaboring the point that divine Scriptures are necessary for our education unto salvation, not relying on one man’s like the Mormon’s most adhere to, and to be wary of anyone (even if they got some angels!) that supposes exclusive access to God but that is not accountable (and does not show earned respect from acknowledging what others have labored for with “the greatest care”), is this Scripture:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8 KJV)
Read all of Galatians 1 if you wish, as much of it pertains to these ideas, and you may be convinced that it is a valid conclusion.
Rebekah's Reflections 