Does the Temple Need To Be Rebuilt To Fulfill Bible Prophecy

I came across the following article on the internet. It's interesting.

ANALYSIS: Rebuild the Temple
By Lawrence J. Joyce
www.LighthousePrayerLine.org


A common belief among Evangelical Christians is that the Jews have to rebuild their temple in order for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled. But a closer examination of the Scriptures suggests that perhaps this is not necessarily the case.

The prophecies in question are: 1.) The Antichrist or his False Prophet setting up the Antichrist's image in the temple; 2.) The Abomination of Desolation taking place; and 3.) The Antichrist setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God.

As to the first prophecy, it is a myth. The Bible simply does not say that the image of the Beast is set up in the temple, or indeed in any other specific location. (Rev. 13:15). (Nor does the Bible say that there were three wise men, for that matter. It simply says that there were wise men with three gifts. See, Matt 2:1-16.)

As to the Abomination of Desolation, the only thing needed for that prophecy to be fulfilled is the existence of the Holy of Holies. (Matt. 24: 15-22; Dan. 9:27 and 12:11). But the Holy of Holies can exist as it did prior to the construction of the first temple: in the Tabernacle. Many Orthodox Jews today believe that only Messiah can rebuild the temple. Perhaps they are right after all. And many Christians who follow Bible prophecy have noted that the progression of events in the Middle East right now seems out of sync with the idea of rebuilding the temple, which could take many years to finish. Also, rebuilding the temple could be violently explosive in the Middle East right now, whereas erecting a temporary structure, the Tabernacle, would not be nearly so. And erecting the Tabernacle on the site of the ancient temples could be a convenient compromise among Orthodox Jews who wish to rebuild the temple and those who insist that they do not do so.

The third prophecy---found in II Thess. 2:4, concerning the "son of perdition" setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God---seems to be the major obstacle to a Tabernacle theory of end-times prophecy. Yet looks, especially first looks, can be deceiving.

The New Testament uses two Greek words for "temple": hieron, which refers to the temple grounds and building, and naos, which refers to the sanctuary. Hieron is used 71 times in the New Testament. Naos is used 44 times therein. II Thess. 2:4 uses the word naos. (All uses of the word "temple" in Revelation use the word naos.)

The uses of these two words illustrates their different meanings. For instance, when the Word says that Satan brought Jesus up to the roof of the temple, it uses hieron. (Luke 4:9). Likewise, when it says Jesus taught in the temple (Luke 20:1), or states that He was on Solomon's porch (John 10:23), it uses hieron. The same holds true when it says Peter and John went to the temple to pray. (Acts 3:1). But when it quotes Jesus as saying that upon the religious rulers who opposed Him would come the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, "... whom ye slew between the temple and the altar," it uses the word naos for "temple", denoting the sanctuary itself. (Matt. 23:35). Indeed, it would not make sense to use hieron, the word for the temple building, in that context, for the altar itself was actually inside the temple building.

Likewise, when Jesus told his opponents that if they destroyed "this temple" he would raise it back up in three days (John 2:19), the word naos is used. The same applies to the references to the veil in the temple being torn when Jesus died. (Matt.27:51, Mark 15:38, and Luke 23:45). Similarly, when Paul tells the Corinthians that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the word naos is used. (I Cor. 3:16-17; II Cor. 6:16). The same is true when he tells the Ephesians that we are being built as a holy temple unto the Lord. (Eph. 2:21). Thus, the word naos can refer to things either physical or spiritual in nature; but it always refers, in any case, to some form of sanctuary, and is not the word used to specify the temple building and grounds generally. The word hieron is reserved for that.

Particularly noteworthy in this context is the wording of the travails mentioned in Daniel in and around the time of the Abomination of Desolation. There the prophet speaks of desecration and resanctification taking place in the "sanctuary", using two Hebrew words for sanctuary (miqdash and qodesh), but not one of the Hebrew words for "temple"---bavith or heykal. (Dan. 8:11, 8:13-14, 9:17, 9:26, and 11:31). Significantly, Daniel himself uses a Chaldean version of heykal when relating the story of how Belshazzar took the golden and silver vessels from Solomon's temple to drink from at his feast for his pagan gods. (Dan. 5: 2-3). So it is not as if Daniel would not have used a specific word for the temple building itself when the time came to do so.

Given the usage of hieron and naos in the Scripture, then, we must recognize that the statement in II Thess. 2:4 need not mean the temple building. The word naos consistently refers to the sanctuary itself---the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies---either in a physical or a spiritual context. The writings in Daniel likewise resonate with this meaning of the word naos. And the sanctuary, we must remember, can be present in the Tabernacle every bit as much as in the temple building.

................................

**More on this topic can be found at these sites:

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Antichrist

http://www.nobodyleftbehind.net/issues.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Pre-Tribulation,-Mid-Tribulation,-Or-Post-Tribulation---Why-I-Am-Mid-Trib&id=1892370

http://ezinearticles.com/?Whoever-Shuts-His-Ears-to-the-Cry-of-the-Poor-Will-One-Day-Suffer-Also!-Proverbs-21:13&id=2076813

http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/24842-what-church-fathers-said-about-rapture.html

................................

Great Book! Check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0931608066?ie=UTF8&tag=lighprayline-20

This article is good and all. There is only one scripture I would like to raise to the author to see if they can explain why Jesus said that there will be an "abomination that causes desolation" in the Holy of Holies. If this has not happened yet, then how will it unless the temple is rebuilt? Matthew 24:15-17 says:

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house."

"ex nihilo" vs "ex materia"

I have recently written a post in which there has been dialog discussing differences in Mormon and Christian theologies. On my post called

More Dialog on Mormonism Part 1 - Responses

I was pointed to the following article by Blake T. Ostler. The article is supposed to be a refutation to a work by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig in which they argue that Mormons are wrong and that God created the universe out of nothing. It turns out that many Mormons believe that God made the universe out of pre-existing chaos. Who knew? What amazed me at the article was the professional polish and detail displayed in it. Craig and Copan argue that the Bible and Physics teach that all of the universe was created out of nothing - "creatio ex nihilo" in latin. Ostler takes offense. He argued that the Bible teaches "creatio ex materia"- latin for creation out of material. I think Ostler fails to prove his case for five reasons:
1. He asserts that "creates" in Genesis 1:1 does not mean "out of nothing" but never explains why. Instead he spend his time in the New Testament trying to show that the earth was created out something. Genesis 1:1 says

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. Craig and Copan, and for that matter myself, do not argue that the earth was created out of nothing -- no all of matter, time, and space was created out of nothing. Using scripture pointing out that those things were organized into the configurations we see today is moot
3. He seems to confuse "make" with "create". There is a difference. You "make" something out of what's available. You create something that is new.
4. There was no refutation of the "ex nihilo" argument from the ground of Physics as William Lane Craig always uses when he defends the truth of God's existence against atheists and skeptics.
5. Ostler never explained where the "chaos" out of which the Heavens and earth were made came from.

From what I understand "ex nihilo" undermines Mormon Theology because it automatically points to a transcendent and timeless God...while Joseph Smith had taught that God was once a man who had a god but became a god himself - infinitely regressed backward.

LDS Prophet Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal man:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,...

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6).

Here is the article

Open publication - Free publishing - More theology

Another Transformers 2 Trailer!

2009 White House Correspondents' Dinner President Obama Speech

I'm amazed how events such as the White House Correspondents' Dinner takes on some significance with the Obama Administration more than any previous President. Here is some video from Obama's speech. He made fun of some of his critics.





Here is comedian Wanda Sykes' comments. She was the first African-American woman to speak at the venue. And the first open lesbian. She drew fire because of the jokes she mad about some conservative, who's name I will not mention right now, hoping that he will get sick and die. I think, from a Christian point of view, it was over the line. However she is not professing to be a Christian.

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13

This post is the tenth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13

Old Earth Young Earth Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

There is a debate among Christians concerning how old the earth really is. "Young Earth" Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis in which the "Six Days of Creation" is interpreted as six 24-hour days. Many of these people also use the information contained in Genesis to calculate the age of the earth to be somewhere between 4000 to 6 thousand years. "Old Earth" Creationists interpret the "Six Days of Creation" think of "Day" as being several thousands to millions of years each. It seems that many of them accept the evidences of geology and science as to the age of the earth. I don't think the Bible gives us enough information to calculate the age of the earth. It's not that God could not make all there is in six 24-hour days. He is all-powerful. He could have done it in 6 seconds had he chosen. Even if you grant that the "day" of creation is 24 hours, we can't be certain of the geneologies because in Hebrew geneologies not every one is guaranteed to be mentioned - just the important people. Therefore we can't really use Genesis to calculate the age of the earth. So I'm gonna say that when it comes to this issue I have no idea. But checkout this debate to see what you come up with.

Old Earth Young Earth Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Jay Richards Vs Christopher Hitchens - Intelligent Design

I am so excited that I have finally found the full video for this debate. I've been waiting for more than a year! It's Christopher Hitchens (right) debating Jay Richards (left) on Intelligent Design. The debate took place Sunday, January 27th at 4pm PST, Stanford University.



Watch Christopher Hitchens vs Jay Richards Debate in Educational & How-To  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com


The debate was really good. Unfortunately, Christopher Hitchens have not changed. I think he completely understands what the Bible says about what and who God is and Hitchens rejects that. He believes that the Bible says that God is in control of everything and Hitchens does not want to be controlled or be accountable to anyone or anything other than himself and what he thinks is right. He wants to call God "to the carpet" and call his design and purposes into question. The fact that in the Bible says "I am boss and you are not." This is what Hitchens is not.

I am also very amazed about Hitchens interpretation of what the Gospel is. He says its that about God stacking all the odds against people and then demand that we behave in a certain way when it's impossible. He does not understand what Jesus did for us. Because of His love and kindness, God regenerates us so that we can obey Him and follow Him - have a real relationship with God. The trick is that God does it himself through us. We can't do it without him. Something else Hitchens hates.

One point that I think Richards did loose on is on the question of free-will. He's right if someone gives you free will it is not libertarian free will. I think Richards skunked Hitchens on the matter about "infinite regression." If I ever am challenged with the proposition to refute the point that a designer must himself have a designer, I want to use his argument. Hitchens misses the point that Theists do not argue that God ever came into existence...He always was. Always is. Always will be. This is why Richards and William Lane Craig use words so carefully: "that which begins to exist must have a cause."

Another point I think is worth mentioning is the argument for design called "Fine-tuning". It says that the all the natural constants, force, physical laws and properties are set just right so that life exists on earth. Jay Richards and his partners pushes the point farther by saying that the universe is set up just right so that we can perform scientific inquiry. God not only designed the universe to support life on earth but put us in the perfect place so we can measure and observe what He did. I reject Hitchens' and other's attempt to criticize that design because they are assuming to know what God's purposes are are for why things are like they are. If you don't know what the intent was, assuming that there is a design, how did you know there was a failure? Reminds me of the Justice League cartoons when Batman throws a batarang at an opponent and we think he missed until a second later we see see that he was actually aiming for something else entirely - winning the confrontation. What Batman says in those circumstances is what I believe God is saying to us when we don't know what He's doing and why: "Wait for it."

The Gospel According to Star Trek

I saw the new Star Trek Film this last weekend and I was blown away. I don't want to give away the movie in case you have not seen it, but there is one major idea from the film that I must bring up. The movie is action-packed but it does have great philosophical implications concerning Free-Will and Destiny. Are you who you are just because of the culmination of your choices, genetics, and the circumstances you live through? Or are you who you are because you were meant to be who you are and where you are? Let me explain how the movie bring this up.

The main plot of the Movie is that Spock and the Romulans accidentally go back-in-time (from the time of the Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager series) to the time that Captain Kirk was born and many things changed creating a parallel Universe. However in this universe Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Scottie, and Checkov still became the people we remember in the Original Series although they took different paths to the roles they end up in. Even their personalities and who they are as people did not change. What does this mean?

In the universe depicted in Star Trek, there is still the idea of destiny. Kirk and crew of the Enterprise have a destiny to greatness. I doubt that the film makers are making a claim of God's soveriegnty, but the question does come up: Who dictated that Captain Kirk would be captain of the Enterprise? For that matter who determines your destiny. The Bible has an answer in Acts 17:22-31 -

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Some great reviews for the Movie:
What NOW For "Star Trek" Warning Full-Of-Spoilers


A Movie Review

Predestination in Islam: Dr. Norman Geisler's Critique

Colin Smith has written a very great article about Norman Geisler's critique of the ideas of Predestination in Islam. It's important not just because it helps to understand how to witness to Muslims but it sheds a lot of light in discussing the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. I have comments following Colin Smiths in red.

In the previous blog, we looked at what the Qur'an and the Hadith teach with regard to the doctrine of Predestination (Qadar), and we saw that the notion of God's absolute sovereignty is, indeed, supported there. Further, we saw that Islam teaches that God's decree extends to all creation and all that happens, even down to the final destination of each human soul; and God will so direct the paths of each man's life so that he will earn the destiny to which he has been ordained.
In his book Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, co-written with Abdul Saleeb, Dr. Norman Geisler provides a critique of this teaching (pp. 140-145 of the first edition). Norman Geisler is well-known to listeners of The Dividing Line and those who have followed this website over the years, since it was his criticism of Sproul's book Chosen by God, entitled Chosen But Free, that provoked Dr. White to write The Potter's Freedom. Geisler is solidly Arminian in his theology, and has attacked Reformed doctrine, particularly Calvin's Five Points, in various fora, always with the same misunderstandings and misrepresentations as detailed in Dr. White's book. As with most Arminians, Geisler holds to the idea that God has chosen an undefined group of people that will be saved, but, even though He loves all men equally and desires each one to be saved, He has given each man the ability to choose whether or not he will belong to that number. God provides His Church, His Word, and many evidences of His existence to all creation, and extends the offer of salvation to all of fallen mankind through the shed blood of His final and greatest gift: His Son, who sacrificed Himself on the cross for every person who has and ever will live. However, it is up to each sinful man to accept God's offer in order to be saved. If man does not accept, then he will have consigned himself to eternal punishment, despite God's loving efforts to save him. If he does accept, that man is welcomed into Heaven when he dies.
After seeing what Islam teaches with regard to Predestination, it comes as no surprise to learn that Dr. Geisler takes issue with the Muslim view. In this blog, I want to take a few moments to see how Geisler goes about critiquing the doctrine of Qadar, and to provide a counter-critique. My counter-critique is by no means in defense of the Muslim position, but to illustrate how Geisler's own theological position has weakened his apologetic response.


Critiquing Qadar: The Geisler Approach
Dr. Geisler breaks his critique of the doctrine of Qadar into four categories: the logical problem, the moral problem, the theological problem, and the metaphysical problem. The logical problem he sees with Qadar is the fact that the Qur'an depicts God acting in contradictory ways, and describing Him in contradictory terms. "For example, God is 'the One Who leads astray,' as well as 'the One Who guides.' He is 'the One Who brings damage,' as also does Satan" (p. 141). He finds the Muslim response that these contradictions are not part of God's essence but expressions of His will to be "inadequate." As Geisler points out, one's actions flow from one's essence. In other words, a rational person acts in a way that is in character with who he is. That being the case, the God of Islam would be a God of contradictory essence.
The moral problem, according to Dr. Geisler, is simply that Islam's "extreme determinism" robs man of moral responsibility for his actions. Since God ordains a man's path, and causes him to act in ways that lead to either Heaven or Hell, God is unjust to condemn man for sin over which man has no power. He claims that the attempts by Muslims to deny this only work if they are willing to distort what the Qur'an plainly teaches.
Geisler's theological problem with Qadar is that, since in Islam God wills both the faith of the believer and the unbelief of the unbeliever, God is thus made to be the author of evil.
Finally, the metaphysical problem Geisler sees is in the fact that this concept of absolute sovereignty has led to the idea that since God's will is the only will, then God is the only one who actually acts: the rest of creation is passive, waiting for God to move. Further, some have suggested that if no-one but God has the ability to act, then nothing else has true being but God. This has led some mystical Islamic sects to seek the annihilation of one's individuality.



Problems with Geisler's Critique
Logical: I had the mixed blessing of studying Hebrew under a professor who was clearly very adept in Semitic languages, but was also quite virulently anti-Christian. As a result, he was able to give an accurate presentation of the structure and rules of Hebrew grammar, and yet present us with passages to translate that were, at least as far as I could see, chosen because of their "problematic" nature with regard to Christian theology. One such passage was Isaiah 45. Indeed, well I remember verse 7, [r_' arEAbW ~Alv' hf,[o , and how my professor gave a little half smile as he reminded us that the Hebrew literally means "making peace and creating evil." He was quite correct, though. There is no getting around the fact that the Hebrew text is attributing to God the ability to form all that is good and all that is bad, and if we believe the Bible to be God's Word, we have to accept this fact, and not try to avoid it. The first half of the verse also attributes to God the creation of both light and darkness. What the prophet is communicating here is precisely what Dr. Geisler is objecting to: the all-encompassing and all-pervasiveness of God's sovereignty. If God did not bring about both good and bad, if He is only responsible for all that is good, then where did the other come from? Is there a creator other than God? The Bible firmly insists that there is not. I will deal with this passage more fully in the next blog installment, but suffice it to say that the Muslim could easily counter Geisler's logical objection by citing this and other passages in the Old Testament that show God's sovereign control extending to opposite extremes, and asking him to explain the contradictory nature of his God. If God only leads people to do good things, then why did He cause Joseph's brothers to sell Joseph into slavery (Genesis 50:20), and harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 7:3)? Can Dr. Geisler offer a more satisfactory explanation than the Muslim?
Moral: Again, the Muslim could object to this criticism by pointing Dr. Geisler to passages where God claims that sinful men have acted according to His plan (Genesis 50:20; Exodus 7:3; Isaiah 10:5-14; John 19:11; Acts 4:27-28). While Geisler loves to give man the ability to exercise free will outside of God's direct influence, he does so contrary to the testimony of Scripture. Man does not, and indeed cannot act outside of God's purposes. When discussing the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled as proof of His divinity, Geisler makes the following statement:


But what are we to say about the prophecies involving miracles? He just happened to make the blind man see? He just happened to be resurrected from the dead? These hardly seem like chance events. If there is a God who is in control of the universe, as we have said, then chance is ruled out... But it is not just a logical improbability that rules out this theory; it is the moral implausibility of an all-powerful and all-knowing God letting things get out of control so that all his plans for prophetic fulfillment are ruined by someone who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. (pp. 249-250)


I wonder if Dr. Geisler really grasps the level of control that God has to have over the universe to be sure that prophecy is fulfilled precisely as He intends? Imagine a chess game, and you have worked out a strategy for moving one of your pawns to your opponent's end in order that it might become a queen. Your strategy may be first-class, but you cannot guarantee your opponent has not discerned your intentions and has devised a number of measures to hinder and possibly thwart your progress. How can you be sure that you won't be distracted by something and forget the strategy, or perhaps a sudden need for the bathroom might take you away from the game and give your unscrupulous opponent opportunity to rig the game? No, to be infallibly certain that your pawn will reach its intended destination, you must have complete control over all factors, including your opponent's strategy and all of his pieces (not to mention your bladder, too!). R. C. Sproul has well said that there is no such thing as a maverick molecule in the universe. If there was, there would be a chance that a prophecy may fail to come to pass, or a decree of God might not stand. It seems, therefore, that Dr. Geisler does not grasp how important it is for God to have complete control even over the seemingly free-will actions of men, otherwise Moses might not have gone to Egypt, Judas might not have betrayed Jesus, or Pilate may have decided not to have Jesus crucified.
Theological: The idea that if God ordains evil He becomes the author of evil has already been addressed to some extent. For now, it is enough to re-state that the Bible plainly teaches that God is behind all of the actions of men, whether good or bad. The question is not, therefore, "does the Bible gives God the ability to ordain evil?" but rather, how do you deal with the fact that God does ordain both good and evil actions. Again, I don't believe Geisler has any better response to this than the Muslims.
Metaphysical: While it may be true that mystical Islamic groups have taken this doctrine to an extreme and formed outrageous belief systems as a result, that is hardly an argument against the doctrine itself. The existence of Gnosticism does not make the doctrine of Christ's deity suspect, nor does the existence of Arianism invalidate the doctrine of Christ's humanity. While this might be a danger of the doctrine, it is by no means a refutation of it.


Having briefly surveyed Dr. Geisler's critique of Qadar and pointed out the failings of his critique, in the final installment of this series I will point out the fundamental flaws in the Islamic understanding of God's sovereignty, and show how only a Reformed view of God can properly address the problems raised, and offer real hope and comfort.

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 9 of 13

This post is the nineth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 9 of 13

Bernie Mac's Funeral

I know it has been a while since this happened, but I just found out the some of Bernie Mac's funeral is on YouTube. I wasn't able to go. I enjoyed the man's work and it would have been nice to have attended but this is the next best thing. There may be more clips on YouTube but these are the one's I'm most interested in.

GI Joe Movie Widget

Makayla and Mathias Pictures

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 8 of 13

This post is the eighth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 8 of 13

Enterprise Destroyed By Death Star

Ok, so fans of Star Trek and fans of Star Wars are sometimes at odd with each other. This video is funny!

What Are Inalienable Rights?

Has God really given all people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Thomas Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence that God has given us "certain inalienable rights...among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson was not a Christian. He was a Deist, but not an Atheist. I think we need to ask is this thought, which is part-and-parcel of what many of us consider what it means to be an American and a Christian, make us a nation founded on Christianity? Does it?
I have to answer, "No". The problem is that we tend to think that we have the right to live life on our own terms. We think liberty means to be able to be free to do what we want to do. We tell each other to "follow your heart" and to pursue what makes you happy. In our churches we even go as far to say to one another that it is God's goal to help us do those very things. But what does scripture say? God tells us, those who are believers and put their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, exactly what our situation is in fact:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. - Romans 8: 28,29

More Dialog on Mormonism Part 1 - Responses

I appreciate Ryan, aka Buyog, taking the time to read and answer my questions about Mormonism. He has shown himself to be real friend. And I appreciate that he has attempted to use scripture to base his responses. His answers are the most honest answers I have ever heard for these questions. He hasn't responded to my list in one setting. To be fair...it is lengthy. I have some follow up comments and questions on his part one. His comments are in green mine are in red. In black are the original questions and official answers given by the Mormon church. For more background check out the relevant links:
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/04/mormon-q.html
http://www.buyog.com/2009/05/lds-q-part-1.html

Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?

A: For the most part, this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the Church and its core doctrines and beliefs. Under those circumstances it is too easy to label a religion or other organization that is not well-known with an inflammatory term like 'cult.' Famed scholar of religion Martin Marty has said a cult means a church you don't personally happen to like. We don't believe any organization should be subjected to a label that has come to be as pejorative as that one.

While I have to agree that no one wants to be labeled a "cult", the word does not historically mean "a religion that I don't like." It has been watered down culturally because no one cares about truth much anymore. I would define "cult" in this context:

a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Basically, leaving aside the question of if Mormomism matches this definition for minute I'm sure most people would agree that The "Charles Mansion Family", "Jim Jones' People Temple", and "David Koresh's Branch Davidians" all fit the definition I'm using. These were all false, living outside of conventional society under a charismatic leader. I'd rather not get into if Mormonism if false in the writing, but I'd like to use this definition to answer the question because the Church didn't answer the question in this article. I invite anyone to tell me where I can find a a better answer to this question.

This is being rather disingenuous, I think. First, I see the definition you site comes from dictionary.com, which contains several other definitions for the term, some of which apply equally to evangelical Christianity (e.g. "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies."). The point isn't if we meet such a definition; I would argue that you and I both belong to cults in the "historical" meaning of the term, as you put it. Rather, the point is that the term itself has come to be used as a perjorative epithet, particularly since the definition you cite is a relative one, subject to the belief system of the person employing it (that is, what is "unorthodox" to you, may not be to someone else). The question was why some call us a cult, and the answer, I think, adequately addresses that.

Going a little further, perhaps a more complete answer would be that evangelical Christians believe us to be a cult because we have a different conception of who God the Father and Jesus Christ are, a conception that is outside the typical parameters of modern Christian sects, but is quite in harmony with what many primitive Christian churches believed (for a discussion of this, see chapter 3 of Barry Bickmore's book, Restoring the Ancient Church:

Joseph Smith and Early Christianity).

Disingenuous? I think that's misses my point. I agree that historically, that the term "cult" has changed and any one who belongs to any church would fit "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." I was merely suggesting that an agreement to what is meant by "cult" should be established. The thing is "unorthodox" is not relative. If we have an agreed upon characteristic of Christianity, the question that was asked was desiring to know if the LDS church is in line with those core characteristics. You admitted that the LDS church holds a different concept of who God the Father and who Jesus Christ are. The thing I'm not quite sure of is why you say that the LDS view is in harmony with what primitive Christian churches believed? Do you mean first century Christians: ie Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude - the writers of the New Testament? I understand what you mean that this a major question and so I will be looking up the reference you mentioned because it is exactly what I have heard that Joseph Smith taught - that he was restoring Christianity.

---

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?
Q: Does the Church believe in the divinity of Jesus?
Q: Does the Church believe that God is a physical being?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

The problem I have is with the words "literally" and "God, the Father, also has an immortal body." Does this mean that Mormons believe in Jesus' virgin birth, as Christians have preached for 2000 years? Or do they believe that Jesus was conceived in a sex-act between God, the Father, and Mary? If so, where do they have proof for that? Where is the proof that God, the Father, has an immortal body? Can you show that from the Bible? John 4 :24 says:

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

Is Jesus God made flesh or not? Is it true that Mormons believe that Jesus is Lucifer's older spirit brother? If so where do find that in the Bible?

I've already answered the question about the physical nature of God and the divinity of Christ by pointing to Bickmore's book (the topic is much longer than I can tackle in this setting). Your question about Lucifer is interesting to me, because I never realized anyone had a problem with this doctrine... from my childhood I have always accepted the idea that we lived with God the Father before being born into mortality, but in researching mainstream Christian thought, I see that this belief (common among early Christians; see Bickmore's book again, the section titled "The Pre-Existence in Early Christianity") was abolished several centuries after Christ's ascension, and would therefore not be found among Protestant teachings.

Perhaps a simpler statement of LDS belief is this: if God created all things, then it follows that He also created Lucifer, yes? We believe that all spirits are creations (and therefore children) of our Heavenly Father:

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Hebrews 12:9)

In that sense, then, Lucifer and Jesus are siblings... just as Christ is our Elder Brother as well (He being the Firstborn). Notwithstanding this shared spiritual heritage, however, Lucifer elected to rebel against the Father, was cast out of Heaven, and became Satan:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 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.

10 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.(Revelation 12:7-12)

As to where in the Bible we find support for this doctrine of a pre-mortal existence, look no further than Jeremiah (I believe this scripture is commonly cited by those who oppose abortion):

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)

What is your understanding of this verse, if not that God knew us before our entrance into mortality?

I agree that Lucifer was indeed created by God. The thing is that I have heard that Mormons believe that these spirits were created through sex. Is this true? And the Bible does not teach that Jesus is a created being. Look at John 1:1-18

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning.

³Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴In him was life, and that life was the light of men. ⁵The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood^a]">[a] it.

⁶There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. ⁷He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. ⁸He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. ⁹The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.^b]">[b]

¹⁰He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ¹¹He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. ¹²Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— ¹³children born not of natural descent,^c]">[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,^d]">[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

¹⁵John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " ¹⁶From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. ¹⁷For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,^e]">[e]^f]">[f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

And Colossians 1:15-20

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Don't forget Phillippians 2:5-11

⁵Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
⁶Who, being in very nature^a]">[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
⁷but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature^b]">[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
⁸And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
⁹Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

And there are many other scriptures I could site. However, If these scriptures are true, then Jesus is God and one of his creations cannot be his "spirit" brothers. You referenced one of the same scriptures I did calling Jesus "the Firstborn of creation" - that does not mean created first but that He is over everything and everything is subjected to him. As for Jeremiah 1:5, I don't see how we can say it's saying that we exist as spirits before we are born. I can find no scripture that points to that. We don't have to exist in order for God to know us. For if he has predetermined everything that does not mean that we would have had to exist before hand too.

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2:10

²⁴"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. ²⁵And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. ²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

²⁹"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. ³⁰In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."- Acts 17:24-31

---

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

Funny Apostle Bruce R. McConkie seemed to think he knew how Jesus was conceived. Does this mean that Mormons no longer believe this?

Just because Elder McConkie's book was titled "Mormon Doctrine" doesn't mean that everything he wrote is, in fact, revealed doctrine. We believe that man is flawed and fallible, and even when holding prophetic office is subject to error (see, for example, Jonah's refusal to understand God's plan for the people of Nineveh). I can tell you that we do not have a definitive answer as to how Christ was conceived, only speculation from McConkie and others, but ultimately it doesn't matter. The scriptural account tells us only that Mary was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost (see Luke 1:35), and that's enough -- as you said yourself, there are some things (such as the knowledge of how God enacted the virgin birth) that simply are not pertinent to our salvation.

Fair enough. McConkie and all Prophets and teachers who said that it was sexual are wrong. Right?

---

I hope this helps clarify some things. I think it's important to state that all of this comes not of intellectual discourse or scholarly research, but from thoughtful, prayerful communication with the Lord through the Holy Spirit. My testimony of the Lord's reality and my understanding of these principles comes not from scientific proof (Douglas Adams once famously said that any such proof would cause God to vanish in a "puff of logic"), but from the revelation and confirming power of His Holy Spirit. I have felt it powerfully move my life in countless, undeniable ways. I know He lives.

Well, Ryan, I understand what you are saying and I am humbled and honored that you chose to spend some precious time to explain more about what you believe and why. You have used scripture and have been extremely honest. What I am wondering after reading your words is what do you think about the difference between reason and faith? I get the feeling that you look at them as separate. I have heard Mormons express much the same thoughts you have in your conclusion to part 1. I have to respectfully disagree. All religions make "truth" claims. They all can be wrong but they can't all be right. I believe that God is logical and reasonable...althought I don't always understand what He's doing. The Bible tells us that everything He does is good and works out for good (see Romans 8:28,29). Sometimes we disagree because we don't know what the "big picture" is. I too have seen the power of the Holy Spirit at work in my life so I know you are right...He is at work. He does indeed live! The thing is I keep in mind is that if I an idea or thought that I can prove is not true then I must let it go. One of the things I like about the Bible is that I can find no falsehood. No contradiction. Either I can confirm some of the things it says, or it is unconfirmable. True...faith comes in. But I think faith contradicting evidence is something to look closely into. The Bible even tells us to probe...to investigate...to search.

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. - Acts 17:11

²⁰do not treat prophecies with contempt. ²¹Test everything. Hold on to the good. ²²Avoid every kind of evil. - 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22

Truthbomb Apologetics: Book Excerpt: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson

This post has an excerpt from an important book (pictured on the right). This isn't the first place I have seen this information presented but it sure is easiest to bring it up now. Here is the part of the excerpt I want to point to:

According to research conducted by the political scientist Rudolph Rummel at the University of Hawaii, the officially atheist states of the Communist bloc committed more acts of genocide than any societies in governments in the twentieth century-communist, socialist, fascist-equals about 170 million.

* USSR: 61 million people murdered 1917-1987
* Communist China: 35,2 million people murdered 1949-present
* Mao's army: 3.4 million people murdered 1923-1949
* Nazi Germany: 20 million people murdered 1932-1945
* Communist Poland: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1948
* Communist Cambodia: 2 million people murdered 1975-1979
* Communist Vietnam: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1975
* Communist Yugoslavia: 1 million people murdered 1944-1987
* Anti-Christian Mexican Revolution: 1.4 million people murdered 1900-1920
* Turkey:1.8 million people murdered 1900-1918
* Pakistan: 1.5 million people murdered 1958-1987
* Japan: 5.9 million people murdered 1936-1945

...Rummel's conclusion is as shocking as it is inescapable: War wasn't the most deadly evil to afflict humanity in the twentieth century. Government was! And not just any government, but atheist government.

This information flies in the face of accusations from atheists like Dan Barker, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins who seem to think that more people have died over religion than have been killed by Atheistic regimes. The same book also gives an estimate of the number of people who died because of religious wars and persecutions waged by theists.

Historical demographers estimate that, in the 350 years between 1478 and 1834, the Spanish Inquisition was responsible for the execution of between 2,000 (Encyclopedia Britannica) and 32,000 people (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1987.)

That works out to about ninety-seven people a year- a ghastly number, to be sure, but a far cry from the "millions" routinely cited by secular fundamentalists.

By the way, no one is suggesting that all atheists are evil or any worse than anyone else!


Truthbomb Apologetics: Book Excerpt: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson

Comic By Comic: Friday Awesome: Star Trek

I found the picture posted here a this link. I couldn't resist...it's funny to me. It's also a great swipe at Star Wars.

Comic By Comic: Friday Awesome: Star Trek

Celebrating Star Trek

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 7 of 13

This post is the seventh in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!


Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 7 of 13

Heroes Webisodes "Nowhere Man" Part 3

Here is the 3rd part of "Nowhere Man" called Pulling the Strings.

Mormon Q & A

I was pointed to the following link that attempts to answer charges against Mormonism: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,317272,00.html. It does little to answer some questions that I still have. The article says:

"Many of these questions are typically found on anti-Mormon blogs or Web sites which aim to misrepresent or distort Mormon doctrines," the Church said in a statement. "Several of these questions do not represent ... any serious attempt to depict the core values and beliefs of its members."

What follows are questions and answers is black normal font, with my questions and comments following in red font.

Here are the questions and how the Church responded:

Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?

A: For the most part, this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the Church and its core doctrines and beliefs. Under those circumstances it is too easy to label a religion or other organization that is not well-known with an inflammatory term like 'cult.' Famed scholar of religion Martin Marty has said a cult means a church you don't personally happen to like. We don't believe any organization should be subjected to a label that has come to be as pejorative as that one.

While I have to agree that no one wants to be labeled a "cult", the word does not historically mean "a religion that I don't like." It has been watered down culturally because no one cares about truth much anymore. I would define "cult" in this context:

a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Basically, leaving aside the question of if Mormomism matches this definition for minute I'm sure most people would agree that The "Charles Mansion Family", "Jim Jones' People Temple", and "David Koresh's Branch Davidians" all fit the definition I'm using. These were all false, living outside of conventional society under a charismatic leader. I'd rather not get into if Mormonism if false in the writing, but I'd like to use this definition to answer the question because the Church didn't answer the question in this article. I invite anyone to tell me where I can find a a better answer to this question.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

The problem I have is with the words "literally" and "God, the Father, also has an immortal body." Does this mean that Mormons believe in Jesus' virgin birth, as Christians have preached for 2000 years? Or do they believe that Jesus was conceived in a sex-act between God, the Father, and Mary? If so, where do they have proof for that? Where is the proof that God, the Father, has an immortal body? Can you show that from the Bible? John 4 :24 says

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

Q: Does the Church believe in the divinity of Jesus?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

Same comments as above. This answer does not answer the question. Is Jesus God made flesh or not? Is it true that Mormons believe that Jesus is Lucifer's older spirit brother? If so where do find that in the Bible?

Q: Does the Church believe that God is a physical being?

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

I'll take that as a "yes". So where do Mormons find that information in the Bible?

Q: If so, does the Church believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob?

A: 'Kolob' is a term found in ancient records translated by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not provide a full description or explanation of Kolob nor did he assign the idea particular significance in relation to the Church’s core doctrines.

Q: Where is the planet Kolob? What significance does the planet have to Mormons?

A: 'Kolob' is a term found in ancient records translated by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not provide a full description or explanation of Kolob nor did he assign the idea particular significance in relation to the Church’s core doctrines.

I'll take that as "no comment"? What is Kolob? In my research it's either a star or a planet. The only mention I can find of it is in Abr. 3: 3-4, 9, 16; Abr. 5: 13. So What is it?

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?

A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

Funny Apostle Bruce R. McConkie seemed to think he knew how Jesus was conceived. Doe this mean that Mormons no longer believe this?

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained:

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742)

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe Jesus appeared in North America after his crucifixion and resurrection?

A: The appearance of Jesus in the Western Hemisphere shortly after his resurrection is described in the Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that when Christ told his disciples in the Bible He had other 'sheep' who should receive his message he was referring to those people in the Western Hemisphere.

Q: If so, when did this happen? And under what circumstances?

A: The appearance of Jesus in the Western Hemisphere shortly after his resurrection is described in the Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that when Christ told his disciples in the Bible He had other 'sheep' who should receive his message he was referring to those people in the Western Hemisphere.

What proof is there that the Book of Mormon is reliable?

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become "gods and goddesses" after death?

A: We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being 'joint heirs with Christ' reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.

Does this mean that Mormons no longer believe that:

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women can only gain access to heaven with a special pass or codewords?

A: No.

According to Mary Ettie Smith, a former Mormon,

The priesthood, in some form, is understood to be necessary to the salvation of a male, or at least, to his exaltation; and a female cannot be saved without being "sealed" to some male who is a Priest. Hence all true Mormons are Priests, and women really do not amount to much in themselves, . . . Hence women are often "sealed," that is married to men, when they do not intend to live with them as an earthly wife, but merely that they may be saved by them: in that case they are "sealed" for eternity, as it termed. But when they are married for the natural purposes of a wife, i.e. to have children, they are then said to be "sealed" for time; and they may be "sealed" for one alone, or for both [Thus they can be married for time only, for time and eternity or for just eternity.] If a woman's husband is dead, she need not be sealed again, unless she chooses, and when she does marry again, she is "sealed" only for time, as when she dies, her first husband will "resurrect," i.e. save her; and she will be his in the next world. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 154 )

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that women must serve men on both Earth and in heaven?

A: Absolutely not. Mormons believe that women and men are complete equals before God and in relation to the blessings available in the Church.

Please see above.

Q: Is there such a thing as Mormon "underwear"? if so, are all Mormons required to wear it? What does it symbolize?

A: Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.

Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.

Not crucial.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?

A: No.

So, does this mean that Joseph Smith was wrong? He said in

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

Q: What specifically does the Mormon Church say about African-Americans and Native Americans?

A: Mormons believe that all mankind are sons and daughters of God and should be loved and respected as such. The blessings of the gospel are available to all.

So, does this mean that the Mormon prophet Bringham Young was wrong when he said:

Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privelege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot hold one partical of power in Government. The the subjects, the rightfull servants of the resedue of the children of Adam, and the resedue of the children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will they should receive the spirit of God by Baptism; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.

Q: What are or were the "Golden Plates"?

A: The Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from records made on plates of gold, similar to metal plates that have been found in other ancient cultures. It contained a history of peoples in the Western Hemisphere including an appearance by the Savior to them. As such, the Book of Mormon is considered a second testimony of Jesus Christ.

Where are they?

Q: Are consumption of alcohol and tobacco prohibited or simply discouraged?

A: It is against the teachings of the Church to use alcohol and tobacco or to drink tea and coffee.

Nothing wrong with teaching that. But it is not a salvation issue.

Q: Does the Church also ban the consumption of "hot drinks"? And does that apply specifically to caffeinated drinks?

A: It is against the teachings of the Church to use alcohol and tobacco or to drink tea and coffee.

Nothing wrong with teaching that. But it is not a salvation issue.

Q: Why do Mormons go from door to door?

A: Christ admonished his disciples to take the gospel to the world. The Church follows that admonition and sends missionaries throughout the world.

Jesus did say that. The question is when we go...do we say what he taught us to say?

Q: What do the Mormons believe about the family?

A: Mormons believe that the family is the foundation for this life and the life to come.

I agree that the family is important! The question is about the life to come. Jesus said
in Matthew 22:30

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

This means no marriage in heaven. How do Mormons understand this verse.

Q: Can someone who may never marry in life have eternal marriage?

A: God will not withhold blessings from any of his children who may not have the opportunity to marry in this life.

If a woman does not have a husband, who will raise her up? What does mormonism say about that?

One last question, do Mormons believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? If the Bible and the Book of Mormon conflict, which do you follow?

James White Vs Dan Barker

Last week, April 30, 2009, Dr. James White debated Dan Barker. I wish I had heard all of it. The topic was Does the Triune God Exist. Dr. White has been kind enough to comment on the debate and he posted about 25 minutes of it on YouTube. Dan Barker is an apostate and an atheist. So he set himself up against God. Here is the video.






Here are the comments Dr. White had to say about this debate.

Just a quick note to thank everyone who made tonight such a wonderful success. A group of "channel rats" pitched in to do a lot of work in getting the debate video taped, including ENielsen, Dale, Algo, and brigand. We also had DaveHewitt and Celticman and wonky in attendance, too (and SN was there....in command of it all). Thanks to all who helped! I even got to meet one of the folks who has helped encourage me so much by supporting us through the Ministry Resource list.
I am working on importing video and the like, so I should have at least one section posted to YouTube tomorrow morning. It is processing too slowly to get anything up tonight.
Basically, once again, I did all the homework, my opponent had not, as far as I could tell, even Googled my name. He went through the exact same notes he had used in the Kyle Butts debate, including the exact same alleged contradictions, in the exact same order. Yes, the very items I had covered, in depth, on the DL over the past few weeks. There was not a single surprise from Dan Barker. Everything was exactly as I had expected it to be. Which means my opening presentation was zeroed in exactly where it needed to be, and I could not have been more pleased with the outcome. I have the video recording with me (the one from our professional camera), so we should have audio and video fairly quickly.
Again, thanks to everyone who made this a great evening!

I have had a chance to hear Dan Barker debate a few times. The problem is that Dr. White is right in his comments. I have never heard him do anything different. He always uses the same arguments. Arguments that have already been thoroughly and completely rebutted and defeated. In the video, Dr. White referred to one of Dan Barker's previous debates against Dr. Douglas Wilson. Barker lost that one too. You will see what Dr. White means if you listen to that debate. I will hopefully do a post in the future where I can post on how to get the full debate and make comments.

I just found out that the debate is for sale in audio format by going to http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=873. Video will be released soon.