SEARCH

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 15:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Miller <the_jam16@yahoo.com>
Subject: and then there were three
To: dcp6@email.byu.edu

hey, dan
hows it going
i would like to graciously inform you that there are many more members of the ANTI mORMON (or moron...same difference) CRUSADE. I am the secretary of comphiscations and recruiting. i would really like to talk bible with you someday. read up on the trinity...you dont believe in it, do you... well its true...i have biblical proof that even you morons cant bend into a lie. memorize the verse Gen. 1:1 and mail me back...oh and I DARE you to print my messages on your little page seeing as how you will embarass yourself seriously if you do.. \\

mail me back

Mr. Miller:

I have read a considerable amount on the doctrine of the Trinity and related subjects.  I have even visited Nicea.  I cannot see much point, however, in debating someone on the subject who (a) seems at best marginally literate, (b) is probably, judging by the nature of his associations, not overly scrupulous, and (c) comes at me, from the start, with offensive and juvenile insults.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. Peterson

I apologize for any insults I gave you.  I have come to the realization that if I am to witness to you in any way, insulting you can only damage the process.  Therefore I will keep insults to only a minimum of sarcasm if possible.

You, however, have misjudged me if you at all think that I did not intend to back up my claims.  I back up almost everything I say, and am willing to answer up to it after that.

Unfortunately, however, I did a short research document on the mormon faith and its flaws last night; however, I do not have access to the computer I did that on.  I might be able to get to the information tonight via email, but it is doubtful.  I will send it tomorrow night.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank YOU, for the massive change in tone.  It is possible to engage in religious discussions, and even disagreements, without being disrespectful.

I would be happy to look at your document on the "flaws" in the restored gospel -- and, of course, to comment upon it.

I have to tell you, though, that I will probably be going out of state for more than a week, leaving on Friday, and will be away from e-mail for that period.  In fact, we were planning to leave tomorrow (Thursday), but an illness in the family has obliged us to delay our departure for at least a day.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. Peterson:

Thank you for the letter, and again, I apologize for my tone in the first letter.

This is the evidence against the mormons I have found:

First of all, the mormons seem to disregard the concept of the Trinity, seeing that they view Jesus as a teacher.  This makes mormonism a cult.  The fundamental doctrine of Christianity is belief in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior (as stated throughout the book of Romans and many times in the Gospel), not as a wise teacher who lies about being divine (as ignored, yet implied by mormon beliefs).  Also, there is inarguable proof that the Trinity is in fact a real concept. Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."  The italicization of the word God is for the purpose of its definition.  The Hebrew word used is elohiym (without any phonetic markings), which is defined as God in a sense of more than two (in this case three).  This is one of the reasons, as well as many numerous examples from the New Testament of the Bible (the ONLY gospel of Jesus Christ), that we Christians believe in the concept of the Trinity.  That is a belief in God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of which are divine, and are three in one and one in three.

Secondly, and refocusing on the divinity of Jesus Christ, let us move to John 1:1.  This verse states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  The Greek word used here was logos, meaning intelligence (mind power), but it refers specifically to Jesus Christ in this particular verse.  It says the word was with God.  Surely no teacher was with God in the beginning of time; otherwise, he is significantly older than my dead great, great, great, great, etc. grandpa.  However, Jesus Christ, who is God in the sense that we think of him in, was with God in the beginning of time, an expression used by John to relate to as far back as our feeble minds can comprehend.  We continue reading to verse 14 where we read that he was made to be flesh, while retaining his divinity.  Keep reading the book of John until you come to chapter 3 and you will certainly see that in verses 16 through 19 Jesus came to save those who believe in him from sin.  There is another specific piece of evidence that I will cite from the Bible.  In John 10:30 we read that Jesus stated "I and my father are one."  This is a commonly argued phrase due to the narrow-mindedness of those who read it.  Many people say that this is Jesus saying he and the father are buddies.  That is a rather stupid argument, considering in verse 31 the people took up stones so they could kill him.  Also, if we need to be technical, the Greek word for one used was heis.  This is translated as in the same essence, so the argument that Jesus was declaring his friendship to God is completely useless and has made me dumber for wasting two seconds of my time for pondering it.  No, this indeed means that he is a part of God, and God of him, therefore he is divine (unless of course Jesus was into New Age).

Just a thought to ponder before we move to the next and final topic:  where in the Book of mormon or the Bible is there any endorsement of secret temple worship, divinely approved plural marriages, or denial of priesthood to colored people?  Think on that one for as long as you need to.

Finally, another way to disprove mormonism is to disprove the inaccuracy of the text that they use, the Book of mormon.  First Peter 1:25 clearly states, "But the word of the Lord endureth forever.  And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."  Also, Second Timothy 3:15 says, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy Sciptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."  Note of course that these scriptures Timothy talks of are ones proclaiming salvation through faith, NOT THROUGH WORKS OR ANYTHING ELSE!  Compare these verses to Second Nephi 29:3-6, which says only a fool would accept the Bible as God’s only scripture.  God himself must be a fool to the ingenious mormons then.

On the same topic, how about moving to the beloved mormon passage of Ezekiel 37:15-20.  It isn’t really necessary to quote since any devout mormon would know it and you only use the King James Version of the Bible (a.k.a. the one and only true word of God).  However, there are two proofs against the Book of Mormon here.  One of these proofs is that in the entire Bible, the Hebrew word used for stick means stick, not scroll (Numbers 15:32, 1 Kings 17:10, 2 Kings 6:6, there are others).  There is an entirely different word for scroll, and God knows his grammar well enough to not confuse his vocabulary.  Secondly, even if it did mean scroll (which it doesn’t), God uses the words "Thou Son of Man" when speaking to Ezekiel.  In the 91 instances that this is used in the book of Ezekiel, it ALWAYS referred to Ezekiel alone.  Therefore if mormon beliefs are true Ezekiel wrote your entire book of mormons, and it was blown by a heavy draft to the Atlantic Ocean, and then washed all the way up to the American shore.  Another example of the sort is Isaiah 29:1-4.  You take the words "voices from the dust with a familiar spirit" out of context to explain the ‘discovered’ texts.  There is only one serious problem with that, although it certainly does justify the mormon CULT.  The word for familiar spirit in Hebrew is ob, which means demon.  Therefore the mormon cult is a cult created from the fiery wrath of hell.

Something else to think about on the way: the mormons claim the Bible is fallible and imperfect; yet they base all of their claims on it when it is convenient to do so.

Now let us move on to Isaiah 29:10-11.  This says a learned man will not read a book of prophecy brought to him by the people because it is sealed.  However, the mormons cannot link Dr. Anthon to this verse very easily considering he denounced the inscriptions, Joseph Smith, all the lies about him, and mormonism in general.

Last but not least let us go to John 10:16 and Matthew 10:24, where Jesus talks about his lost sheep in other places (presumably America according to mormon custom).  These people, according to mormons, must be Jews.  However, Jesus once ministered to a Gentile who listened and repented of his sins.  Also, he said he would BRING us, not visit, not watch us receive the Holy Spirit in his presence (John 16:7 vs. Nephi 19:20-22), and definitely not endorse the false teachings of the Book of mormon [sic].

Mr. Miller:

As it turns out, I did not leave when I expected to, and, so, am still in town and able to answer your message right away.  I will, however, be leaving early tomorrow (Sunday) and will be gone all week, without access to E-mail.

With a few exceptions, I appreciate the tone of your letter.  It is far, far better to attempt to argue a position than merely to call names.  You might point that out to the Scotts.

Unfortunately, your arguments seem to rest very heavily on misunderstandings.  I will take them in order:

"First of all," you say, "the mormons seem to disregard the concept of the Trinity, seeing that they view Jesus as a teacher.  This makes mormonism a cult."

It isn't precisely clear why such belief would make Mormonism a "cult."  I haven't ever seen a good definition of the word "cult" as it is routinely used by fundamentalists and evangelicals -- one, that is, that made any real historical sense.  It seems to me just a standard four-letter insult, with not much real content.

But that is largely beside the point, because you are wrong about what Latter-day Saints believe.

It is true, of course, that we reject the traditional concept of the Trinity as non-biblical, and as something that is drawn almost as much from Greek philosophy as from the scriptures.  But that does not mean that we reject the deity of Christ, nor that we discard the idea of a Godhead composed of a divine Father, a divine Son, and a divine Holy Spirit.  Yes, we regard Jesus as a teacher.  So do you, I suspect.  But we do not regard him ONLY as a teacher.  He was and is the Son of God, whose primary and unique mission was not only to teach -- others can do and have done that -- but to atone for our sins, to ensure our resurrection from the dead, and to open the path for us to enter into the presence of God.  As the Book of Mormon says, on its title page, it was written for "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God."

"The fundamental doctrine of Christianity," you quite correctly point out, "is belief in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior (as stated throughout the book of Romans and many times in the Gospel), not as a wise teacher who lies about being divine."

So far, so good.  Any believing Latter-day Saint would agree with you completely.  Unfortunately, though, you proceed to say that precisely such a notion -- that Jesus is NOT our personal savior, and that he lied about being divine -- is "implied by mormon beliefs."

This is simply not true.  Any Latter-day Saint who taught such things would be excommunicated from the Church.  (Some anti-Mormons have claimed, quite falsely, that Latter-day Saints do not speak of Jesus as their personal savior.  I have some notes on that in my lengthy critique of the materials on Mormonism recently produced and distributed by the Southern Baptist Convention.  This critique can be found here.)

Your argument from Genesis 1:1 is, thus, beside the point, because I, like all Latter-day Saints, believe in a Godhead containing more than one person.  (Still, to be perfectly honest, although I am sympathetic with what you are attempting to prove, I am not sure that your argument would convince many scholars of Hebrew.  There is a very long-standing debate over the significance of the name or term "Elohim," which is admittedly a masculine plural in form, but which may not always actually signify a plural.  Still, if your argument were found to be true, it would be perfectly fine with Latter-day Saints.  In fact, I have heard a few of them make exactly the same argument.)

The only area where I might be tempted to quibble with you here is in your definition of the Trinity:  "That is a belief in God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of which are divine, and are three in one and one in three."

I agree that they are clearly three, and in another sense one.  But I think we would disagree about precisely HOW they are one.  And it is at that point that I and other Latter-day Saints see the influence of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers coming into the traditional trinitarian doctrine.  Words like "substance" and even "person," which are foundational to the classical doctrine of the Trinity, come not from the Bible but from ancient Greek philosophy.

Likewise, most of your argument from the gospel of John is irrelevant, because I agree with it, as would any believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We believe Jesus is divine.  Period.  Always have, and always will.  The only area here where I do not completely agree with you would be in your comments on the tenth chapter of John.  You say, "In John 10:30 we read that Jesus stated 'I and my father are one.'  This is a commonly argued phrase due to the narrow-mindedness of those who read it.  Many people say that this is Jesus saying he and the father are buddies.  That is a rather stupid argument, considering in verse 31 the people took up stones so they could kill him.  Also, if we need to be technical, the Greek word for one used was heis.  This is translated as in the same essence, so the argument that Jesus was declaring his friendship to God is completely useless and has made me dumber for wasting two seconds of my time for pondering it.  No, this indeed means that he is a part of God, and God of him, therefore he is divine (unless of course Jesus was into New Age)."

Latter-day Saints certainly believe that Jesus was far, far more than merely God's "buddy," so our agreement with you on this point is, I think, much more significant than our disagreement.  But you put too much weight on the Greek word "heis."  You say it means "in the same essence," but that is a theological interpretation, not a dictionary meaning.  And it is a rather QUESTIONABLE theological interpretation, since "essence" is another of those terms that belongs to Aristotle more than to the Bible.  "Heis" is simply the masculine form of the Greek numeral "one."  I would suggest that a key passage for understanding the oneness of the Father and the Son is not to be found in Aristotle's Metaphysics or the Enneads of Plotinus, nor in the post-biblical Nicene Creed, but in the high priestly prayer recorded in John 17, where the Savior prays that his disciples will enjoy the same kind of unity that he enjoys with his Father.  Read that passage carefully, and think about it and what it implies.

You suggest a subject for future discussion:  "Just a thought to ponder before we move to the next and final topic:  where in the Book of mormon or the Bible is there any endorsement of secret temple worship, divinely approved plural marriages, or denial of priesthood to colored people?  Think on that one for as long as you need to."

I don't need to think about it for very long.  I do not expect to find every doctrine of the gospel in every book of scripture.  I cannot find the doctrine of the atonement of Christ in Ezekiel, for example, or the notion of a three-member Godhead in Obadiah, or the doctrine of the virgin birth in the epistles of Paul.  I certainly cannot find anywhere in the Old Testament the idea that circumcision would be done away with -- quite the contrary, in fact -- but I find it in the New Testament.  The notion that the priesthood would be limited to a certain line of the family of Levi is quite prominent in various parts of the Old Testament, but almost entirely invisible, if not entirely so, in the New.  I can't think of anything in the five books of Moses that teaches salvation by grace alone, and, in fact, can't really think of a single passage in the entire Old Testament that teaches it with any real clarity.  As a matter of fact, though, among the issues you mention, there is a clear suggestion in the Book of Mormon that the time might come when the Lord commanded plural marriage.  (See Jacob 2:30, in the context of that chapter's discussion of unauthorized polygamy.)  The law of Moses gives rules for plural marriages (as at Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15-17), which seems, at the least, to imply no divine disapproval.  Abraham ("the friend of God," "the father of the faithful") was a polygamist, as was his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob, or Israel, as was David, through whose divinely-blessed line came not only the kings of Israel and Judah but the Messiah.  The restriction of the priesthood to the Aaronites among the tribe of Levi was far, far more severe than Latter-day Saint restriction of priesthood prior to 1978.  Secrecy runs throughout the New Testament.  The Lord repeatedly refuses to tell everything to everybody.  And there is a mountain of evidence for secret ritual, etc., in the earliest Christian church.  You may wish to read a book I wrote, entitled Offenders for a Word, which contains a section on that question with extensive references.

I am afraid that I don't really follow your next argument.  I will try to break it down into its component parts:  "Finally," you say, "another way to disprove mormonism is to disprove the inaccuracy [sic; I assume you mean "accuracy"] of the text that they use, the Book of mormon.  First Peter 1:25 clearly states, 'But the word of the Lord endureth forever.  And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.'"

There is nothing in 1 Peter 1:25 that I or any other Latter-day Saint would disagree with.  The word of the Lord does endure forever.  I'm not quite sure how you think this damages the Latter-day Saints.

You then direct my attention to another passage:  "Also, Second Timothy 3:15 says, 'And that from a child thou hast known the holy Sciptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.'  Note of course that these scriptures Timothy talks of are ones proclaiming salvation through faith, NOT THROUGH WORKS OR ANYTHING ELSE!"

Candidly, I don't see anything in 2 Timothy 3:15 about faith or works.  And I think, too, that you need to keep in mind that the scriptures that Timothy had known from childhood have to be those of the Old Testament.  The New Testament, of course, had not been written when he was a child, so he could not possibly have known it then.  Thus, if you are taking 2 Timothy 3:15 as a prohibition against further scripture, on the grounds that the scriptures Timothy knew as a child were sufficient to save him, you will have to reject the New Testament.  I am reasonably certain that is not what you intended to say, so you had better rethink this one.

You say, "Compare these verses to Second Nephi 29:3-6, which says only a fool would accept the Bible as God’s only scripture.  God himself must be a fool to the ingenious mormons then."

But, of course, neither of the verses you have cited has the slightest thing to do with the issue raised in 2 Nephi 29:3-6.  And, no, we do not believe God to be a fool, though we think some of our critics are.

The question of salvation by works versus salvation by grace alone is an interesting one, of course, even though the passages you cited to me have nothing to do with it.  You may be operating under the mistaken impression that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think they earn their salvation, that, when they arrive at the judgment bar of God, they can demand salvation from God as their right, because they have paid for it.  This is not true.  To put it another way, it is completely false.  We believe that salvation can only come through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Continuing with your comments on the sole-sufficiency of the Protestant Bible, you say, "On the same topic, how about moving to the beloved mormon passage of Ezekiel 37:15-20.  It isn’t really necessary to quote since any devout mormon would know it and you only use the King James Version of the Bible (a.k.a. the one and only true word of God)."

I assume that you are not a King-James-Only devotee, and that your last comment was an attempt to mock Latter-day Saint belief.  But it was misguided.  It is true that the King James Bible is the version officially used by English-speaking Latter-day Saints.  Nobody has ever called it "the one and only true word of God," however, nor anything close to that.  In fact, German-speaking Latter-day Saints use the Lutherbibel, or the Einheitsübersetzung.  Spanish-speaking Latter-day Saints use the Bible common to their area, as do Latter-day Saints throughout the world.  I myself make it a daily practice to read at least a little bit of the Bible in German, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic, and quite often look at it in other languages, as well.  I haven't counted, but would guess that I own at least thirty different translations of the Bible in various languages.

But back to your remarks on Ezekiel 37:

"However," you say, "there are two proofs against the Book of Mormon here.  One of these proofs is that in the entire Bible, the Hebrew word used for stick means stick, not scroll (Numbers 15:32, 1 Kings 17:10, 2 Kings 6:6, there are others).  There is an entirely different word for scroll, and God knows his grammar well enough to not confuse his vocabulary.  Secondly, even if it did mean scroll (which it doesn’t), God uses the words "Thou Son of Man" when speaking to Ezekiel.  In the 91 instances that this is used in the book of Ezekiel, it ALWAYS referred to Ezekiel alone.  Therefore if mormon beliefs are true Ezekiel wrote your entire book of mormons, and it was blown by a heavy draft to the Atlantic Ocean, and then washed all the way up to the American shore."

There are several scholarly examinations of Ezekiel 37 by Latter-day Saints.  It is rather obvious that you aren't familiar with them.  But even if your argument on this matter were true, it wouldn't be a "proof against the Book of Mormon," since the typical Latter-day Saint use of Ezekiel 37 comes not from the Book of Mormon itself but from nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint authors seeking to demonstrate the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  So at the very most, your argument, if true, would nullify one of the common arguments for the Book of Mormon.  But that is very different from being, itself, an argument AGAINST the Book of Mormon.  Do you understand the distinction?  If I contended that California is on the Pacific coast, and, as proof of this, claimed that Californians can see Japan on a clear day, you could easily come back and demonstrate that nobody has ever seen Japan from California, no matter how clear the weather.  You would, thereby, have discredited a bogus argument for California's being located on the Pacific coast, but you would certainly not have disproved that California lies on the Pacific -- for it DOES, no matter how stupid an argument somebody may present for that fact.

Unfortunately, you begin to slip back into your old insulting and mean-spirited ways with your next argument:  "Another example of the sort is Isaiah 29:1-4.  You take the words 'voices from the dust with a familiar spirit' out of context to explain the ‘discovered’ texts.  There is only one serious problem with that, although it certainly does justify the mormon CULT.  The word for familiar spirit in Hebrew is ob, which means demon.  Therefore the mormon cult is a cult created from the fiery wrath of hell."

But insults do not, unfortunately, improve the quality of your argument.  Again, we could discuss the proper use of Isaiah 29:1-4.  There is a scholarly literature on this question which, once more, it seems you have not read.  But let's move on.  First, even if the argument from Isaiah 29 could be shown not to support the Book of Mormon, the fact that it did not -- which I am simply assuming here for purposes of argument -- would not constitute evidence AGAINST the Book of Mormon, but only against certain arguments that have been offered on behalf of that book.  Second, you say that we misunderstand Isaiah 29:1-4 and take it out of context.  Surely that suggests that Latter-day Saints do not intend to take "ob" in the sense of a "demon," so it is not clear how the passage counts against them, since you seem otherwise to be claiming that the verses have nothing to do with Mormonism, and that we misapply them if we claim they do.  So how can YOU then legitimately apply them to us?  Third, if you want to see scriptural prophecies taken out of context and misapplied -- by our modern standards -- take a look at the way the gospel of Matthew twists the meaning of Old Testament prophecies to make them apply to Christ.  Do I think he was wrong to do so?  No, not by ancient standards and rules.  But he does not use them in a way we would think proper today.  If you are willing to accept Matthew as scripture despite his twisting of such passages, on what grounds can you condemn the Latter-day Saints for allegedly misusing scriptures in a way that turns out to be very much like his?  Fourth, the word "cult," as I noted above, has little or no meaningful content, but is merely an insult, by which you say that you do not like my religion.  I reject the term.  And I resent the nastiness.  You may want to consult, on this point, a book that I wrote, entitled Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints.

You go on to write:  "Something else to think about on the way:  the mormons claim the Bible is fallible and imperfect; yet they base all of their claims on it when it is convenient to do so."

We think the Bible is fallible and imperfect, as we think all things are that have come through human hands.  That does not mean, however, that we do not see it as very, very largely true.  Why should we not seek to justify our beliefs according to the Bible, since (a) it is the only scripture that we share with non-Mormons, with whom we seek to communicate, and (b) since we believe it to be a record of true revelations and of God's genuine dealings with earlier peoples?  We have every bit as much of a right to the Bible as does the recent northwest European minority faction of Christendom that calls itself "evangelical" or "fundamentalist."  (Your word "convenient" is merely an insult.  I will pass it by.)

"Now," you say, "let us move on to Isaiah 29:10-11.  This says a learned man will not read a book of prophecy brought to him by the people because it is sealed.  However, the mormons cannot link Dr. Anthon to this verse very easily considering he denounced the inscriptions, Joseph Smith, all the lies about him, and mormonism in general."

Prof. Anthon is not a very credible witness.  I mentioned this, in passing, in a review that I did some time ago of an anti-Mormon book by Rev. Kurt Van Gorden.  More importantly, I gave a couple of references for further reading.
You can have a look at this at http://www.farmsresearch.com/review/10_1/dcp.html.

"Last but not least," you write, "let us go to John 10:16 and Matthew 10:24, where Jesus talks about his lost sheep in other places (presumably America according to mormon custom).  These people, according to mormons, must be Jews.  However, Jesus once ministered to a Gentile who listened and repented of his sins.  Also, he said he would BRING us, not visit, not watch us receive the Holy Spirit in his presence (John 16:7 vs. Nephi 19:20-22), and definitely not endorse the false teachings of the Book of mormon."

I have several observations on this paragraph of yours.  (a) I don't see what Matthew 10:24 has to do with this subject, so I will not discuss it further.  (b) Latter-day Saints, you ought to know, regard the process of conversion as a "gathering" of God's people, always ina spiritual sense and, occasionally and ultimately, in a physical or geographical sense.  So the verb "bring" is entirely appropriate.  (c) John 10:16 most definitely does NOT denounce "the false teachings of the Book of Mormon," nor does it "definitely" refuse to "endorse" the Book of Mormon.  That is purely your insertion.  You should not tamper with scripture.  Nor should you stick your own prejudices illegitimately into your evidence, and then triumphantly point to your prejudices as proof of your conclusions, which turn out to be nothing more than your prejudices restated.  That is what students of logic call "circular reasoning," and it is logically invalid.  (d) I gather that you are claiming that Jesus's encounter with the repentant Gentile is the real fulfillment of John 10:16.  It is interesting that you think so, but your thinking so does not make it right.  It would seem odd, for one thing, that a prophecy that speaks of plural "sheep" could be fulfilled by a single individual.  (e) I don't know specifically which repentant Gentile you might be referring to.  There is the Syro-Phoenician woman of Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30, but she doesn't seem to "repent," as you say, she doesn't appear to have converted, and, besides, you used a masculine pronoun to refer to this individual.  There is the centurion of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, but, again, there seems to be no mention either of repentance or conversion.  (f) Even if one of these two is the repentant Gentile to whom you refer, it appears doubtful that he (or she) could be the fulfillment of Jesus's prophecy in John 10:16, since that prophecy, predicting an event yet to come, was made AFTER the events involving these two.  (See the mainstream gospel harmony of Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels [N.pl.: United Bible Societies, 1982]; also the evangelical A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels [New York: Harper and Row, 1922].)  (g) Perhaps you have some other repentant Gentile in mind.  It would help if you would specify him, although even that will still not convince me that I should abandon my faith simply because you have a private interpretation of John 10:16 that is different from mine.

You seem, frankly, not to know very much about "Mormonism," and certainly not very much about the kinds of arguments Latter-day Saints can use and have used to support their position.  A good place for you to begin learning more would be the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or FARMS, which can be reached on the internet at http://farmsresearch.com/main.htm.  Another interesting site is that maintained by a group calling itself SHIELDS, at http://www.shields-research.org/index.html.  (You already know this site, I suspect, because some of the earlier contributions of the "Anti-Mormon Crusade" are on display there.)  The best thing for you to do, of course, would be to listen to the Spirit, and to seriously consider what the restored gospel of Jesus Christ really teaches -- not what some probably ill-informed and hostile enemy of the gospel has told you.

God lives, Jesus is the Christ, they have restored their Church in these latter days, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that Church continues to be led, as it was in ancient times, by genuine prophets and apostles.  It is very, very good news.

Cordially,

Daniel Peterson

Dr. Peterson;
It appears as if I was mistaken about some of the mormon doctrines (although I still believe it to be a cult (non-christian religion claiming to be christian).  I have found a site that outlines some of the beliefs of mormonism, and I would like for you to examine it and make any necessary corrections or additions.  I will then use what you send me as my basis for everything I believe about mormonism before I continue my investigation.
Thank you for your time, and I apoligize for my lack of timeliness.
Joel Miller

Dear Mr. Miller:

I will be happy, when I can find the time, to take a look at the site that, you say, outlines some of the doctrines of Mormonism.  I will let you know whether I think it accurate or not.  However, you will have to tell me what it is, and how to find it.

I am mildly curious as to why you persist in your notion that we are a "cult."  I would like to see your definition of that term, and your justification for proposing such a definition.  Then I would like to see your evidence that it applies to the Latter-day Saints.

I personally find the terms "cult" and "cultist" deeply insulting and offensive, and am always rather astonished that professed Christians toss them around so cavalierly.

Daniel Peterson

I just realized that I forgot to give you the address for that site.  Here it is.  http://www.angelfire.com/biz/ccri/qrglds.html [Note: no longer exists].
Thank you again;
Joel Miller

Mr. Miller:

Thanks for sending the address.  I had unfortunately already responded to you before I got to this posting.

But I also have something to add:  I would like to see your reasoning for claiming that the Latter-day Saints, who accept the four gospels as historically accurate, who believe that the earthly life of Jesus Christ is the center of human history, who declare that no one can be saved except through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, who believe him to be the divine Son of God, who regard him as sinless, who revere him as their Lord and Master, are not Christians.  I would like to see your definition of the term "Christian," with the biblical justification for it, and I want to know the biblical basis upon which you claim the right to exclude me, my family, my friends, and my fellow believers from the saving grace of Jesus.

Daniel Peterson

Mr. Miller:

I have looked over the site you recommended to me, and will comment on its assertions in the order they occurred:

*** “OFFICIAL NAME:  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”

True.  Except that the word “day” is written in lower case, not capitalized.

*** “HEADQUARTERS:  Salt Lake City, Utah
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Public Programs
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
1-800-453-3860”

True, so far as I know.  (Except, again, for the capitalization of the word “day.”)

*** “FOUNDER: Joseph Smith Jr. 1805-1844”

True.

*** “In 1820 Smith claimed Jesus told him he should not join any established church because they were ‘all wrong’ . . .”

True, as long as one understands the “all” to mean that every one of them was incorrect to a greater or lesser degree, and NOT that they were all TOTALLY incorrect.  There are many, many doctrines -- the existence of God, for example, and the role of Jesus as redeemer and divine Son of the Father -- on which the restored Church of Jesus Christ certainly agrees with other Christian denominations.

*** “. . . and the Christian church's doctrines ‘were an abomination.’”

Misleading.  We most definitely do not regard the doctrines of “the Christian church” as an abomination.  What the Prophet Joseph Smith was told in his First Vision was that the CREEDS of mainstream Christendom were an abomination.  It would be helpful if our critics would attempt to be precise, and would not play fast and loose with the facts.

*** “FOUNDED: In 1830 on April 6, less than two weeks after the Book of Mormon went on sale, the church was organized as the Church of Christ.”

True.

*** “OTHER KEY FIGURES:  
Brigham Young (1801-1877)
Young became the second president of the Mormon Church after Joseph Smith Jr.'s murder in Carthage, IL.  At the time of Young's death there were 140,000 Mormons.”

True.  Joseph was murdered by an anti-Mormon mob.

*** “John Taylor (1808-1887)
Third president of the Church of Mormon following the death of Brigham Young.

“Wilford Woodruff (1807-1898)
Became the fourth president of the Mormon Church.  Under his leadership plural marriage was banned and the Utah Territory became a state.”

A pretty accurate summary, thus far.

*** “Lorenzo Snow (1814-1901)
Snow was the fifth president of the Mormon Church.  Snow had a divine revelation that man can become God.  Snow is best known for his statement ‘As man now is, God once was, as God now is, man may be.’”

Somewhat distorted.  As the actual quotation from him indicates, President Snow did not teach that humans can become God, but that we can become LIKE God.  And to say that he is “best known” for that statement may be misleading.  He is known for many things, including a famous revelation on tithing.

*** “Joseph F. Smith (1838-1918)
Smith became the sixth president of the Mormon Church.  He was convicted of polygamy in 1906.  Joseph F. Smith was a nephew of Joseph Smith Jr.”

Slightly distorted.  He wasn’t convicted of polygamy in 1906.  The subject of polygamy came up in that year during the Senate hearings on the election of Reed Smoot.  President Smith was asked to testify before the Senate, and he did so.

By the way, President Smith’s father was also murdered by an anti-Mormon mob.

*** “Herber J. Grant (1856-1945)
Grant was the seventh president of the Mormon Church after the death of Joseph F. Smith.  Grant became president in 1918.”

It’s “Heber,” not “Herber.

” *** “George Albert Smith (1870-1951)
In 1945 Smith became the eighth president of the Mormon Church following the death of Herber [sic] J. Grant.

“David O. McKay (1873-1970)
McKay became the ninth president of the Mormon Church after the death of George Albert Smith.”

Unobjectionable.

*** “Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972)
Became the tenth president of the Mormon Church.  He is the first president to be classified as a theologian by the Mormon Church.”

“The Mormon Church” doesn’t “classify” people as “theologians.”  Whoever wrote this seems to think there is some Church committee that issues certificates or diplomas officially recognizing people as “theologians.”  There isn’t.

*** “Harold B. Lee (1899-1973)
In 1972 Lee takes over as the eleventh president of the Mormon Church.

“Spencer W. Kimball (1895-1985)
Kimball was the twelth president of the Mormon Church.  During his administration he opened sixteen temples, offered priesthood to blacks and American Indians, and brought in over 2,250,000 new members.  He was president from 1973-1985.”

American Indians had always had the right to the priesthood.  There was no change in 1978.  This error comes from Kurt Van Gorden’s book, listed in the bibliography.  It should be a lesson to would-be critics of the Church of Jesus Christ, that they should not depend on anti-Mormon literature for their facts.

*** “Ezra Taft Benson (1899-1994)
Benson became the thirteenth president of the Mormon Church.  It was under his leadership that more emphasis was put on the book of Mormon.  He is credited witht he worldwide distribution campaign of the Book of Mormon.

“Howard F. Hunter (1907-1995)
Just nine months after becoming the fourteenth president of the Mormon Church, Hunter dies in March of 1995.  He was the first Mormon president born in the twentieth century.

“Gordon B. Hinckley (1910- )”

No particular objection to this, except that President Hunter’s middle initial was “W,” not “F.”

*** “EXTRA BIBLICAL AUTHORITY:  The Mormon Church has three authoritative books other than the Bible.  They are The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.”

Not too bad.  I would have written “alongside the Bible,” rather than “other than the Bible.”  And the proper title is “Doctrine and Covenants,” not “DoctrineS and Covenants.”

*** “DOCTRINE:

“God:  Polytheistic.  God was once a man and man can become God.  God has a physical body, as does his wife the Heavenly Mother.  Worthy men may become gods themselves.”

Here is probably where we are going to get into the most trouble.  Virtually all Latter-day Saints would reject the term “polytheistic.”  Although we, like the Bible, sometimes affirm the existence of “Gods” or “gods,” so that the term “polytheism” would be appropriate to describe both us and the Bible if one concentrated on its root meaning of “many” [poly-] “gods” [theoi], its connotations, which summon up memories of the squabbling deities of Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology, are utterly inappropriate and objectionable.

Besides, Latter-day Saints also affirm the ONENESS of God, while they do not lose sight of a plurality.  (This is also true, although in a somewhat different way, of mainstream, trinitarian Christianity.  I am sure that trinitarians would object to being called “polytheists,” but Muslims, who are very strict monotheists, often look at the Trinity and call them precisely that.  If you object to being called “polytheistic” by Muslims, you will perhaps have some inkling of why we object to being called “polytheists” by our Protestant critics.)

And, as I noted above, we do NOT teach that “man can become God.”  We can become LIKE God, but we will never supplant him, replace him, nor be equal in rank with him.

*** “Jesus Christ:  Jesus is a separate god from the Father.”

In one sense that is true.  In another sense, it is false.  We believe what Jesus said in the New Testament about the oneness that exists between him and his Father.

*** “Jesus was created a spirit child by the Father and Mother in heaven, and is the ‘elder brother’ of all men and spirit beings.”

True.  I believe the Bible calls him the “Son” of God, and I suspect that means something.

*** “Jesus' body was created through sexual union between Elohim and Mary.”

That has NEVER been an official doctrine of the Church, although some have believed it.  Many, including very many who are well informed and completely devoted members of the Church, do not believe it.  We do not know the precise mode of the conception of Jesus.  The scriptures are silent, and draw a veil over the subject.  We very seldom even mention the subject.  It is a far more popular topic among anti-Mormons than among the Latter-day Saints.

*** “Jesus was married to several women.”

This is pure speculation, largely restricted to a very few people in the nineteenth century.  It has NEVER been taught as a doctrine of the Church.  We grow tired, sometimes, of anti-Mormons telling people untruths about what we believe.

*** “His death on the cross does not provide full atonement for all sin, but does provide everyone with resurrecton.”

Deeply misleading.  It is true that Christ’s death and resurrection ensure the universal resurrection of all mankind.  But sins can only be forgiven on the basis of Christ’s atonement.  There is no other way, and no other name given under heaven, whereby we can be saved.  Our scriptures and modern prophets and apostles have been unanimous on this subject.

*** “Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.  The Holy Spirit is a fluid-like substance by which the Father exercises his influence.”

Misleading.  This was an occasional nineteenth century speculation.  It is scarcely ever mentioned, if at all, among Latter-day Saints.

*** “The Holy Ghost is different that the Holy Spirit.”

Misleading.  Actually, most Latter-day Saints -- myself included -- use the terms “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” interchangeably.  They are, after all, identical in meaning.  The German “Geist” [= “Ghost”] is precisely equivalent to the Latin “Spiritus.”  In Germanic languages, the Latter-day Saints tend to use “Ghost” or its equivalent.  In Latinate languages such as French, Portuguese, and Spanish, the Latter-day Saints tend to use an equivalent of “Spirit.”  In other languages, such as Korean, Japanese, Finnish, Russian, and Chinese, the distinction doesn’t exist.

*** “The Holy Ghost is a spirit-child, born of Heavenly Parents, and the Holy Ghost can only be in one place at one time.

Misleading.  We believe that the influence of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit extends everywhere, at all times, and is excluded only by our own spiritual deafness and blindness, or by our wickedness.

*** “The Holy Ghost is one of the three Gods in the Godhead.”

We would tend to say that the Holy Ghost is one of the three PERSONAGES in the Godhead.  The language is rather like that of classical trinitarianism.

*** “Trinity:  There is no Trinity.”

Misleading.  We believe in a Godhead composed of three persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  While we reject the classical ontological and metaphysical Trinity as being more Hellenistic-philosophical than biblical, I have no particular objection to the term if its meaning is clearly understood.

*** “The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods.”

Well, yes and no.  They are also ONE God, and we would generally prefer the language of “persons” or “personages.”

*** “The phrase Trinity relates to the purpose of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, not to their nature.”

I am not precisely sure what the author means here.  I am not sure that HE knows, exactly.

*** “Resurrection:  Jesus was resurected and after His resurection He received the fullness of the Godhead.”

This is deeply misleading.  We believe that Jesus, before his birth into mortality, was the Jehovah or Yahweh of the Old Testament.  It was he who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, and to and through all of the other Hebrew prophets.  He created the earth.  He went before the children of Israel in the pillar of smoke and flame.  He was God before he came to earth.

*** “Salvation:  Believe you are resurected by grace, but saved by works, including faithfulness to church leaders, Mormon baptism, tithing, ordination, marriage, and secret temple rituals.  There is no eternal life without Mormon membership.  There are three levels of heaven, Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial.  People will go to one of these levels according to their works.”

Very misleading.  Yes, we are resurrected by the grace of God.  But the Latter-day Saints do not believe that we are saved by works.  Nobody “earns” salvation.  It is only available through the grace of Christ.

However, we do believe that, in order to be saved, one must accept Jesus as one’s Lord.  And that means obeying and serving him.  If we say he is our Lord, but tell him to take a flying leap when he asks us to do something, we are lying. (See, among the many relevant passages of scripture on this point, Matthew 7:21.)  We will not be judged by the quantity of our works, but by our willingness to do them, by the sincerity of our declaration that Jesus is our Lord and Master.  That is, if I were a new convert who dropped dead of a heart attack immediately after my acceptance of the gospel, I would be at no disadvantage on the Judgment Day compared to a person who could claim ninety years of devoted service.  For, if I was truly converted, if I truly accepted Jesus as my Lord, I would have served him had I been permitted to do so.  On the other hand, if I live into my nineties, claiming to love and serve God and Jesus, but effectively thumb my nose at them by violating all the commandments, it is safe to say that I was not truly converted, and never really accepted Jesus as my Lord.  Hence, his atonement will not cover my sins.

*** “Man:  Humans preexistied and were born of Heavenly parents and are gods in an embryonic state.  Adam's sin is not passed on to the human race.”

Basically accurate, except that we are all born into a fallen world because of Adam’s transgression.  But we do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, any more than the first several centuries of Christians did.

*** “Each one is responsible for their own sins.”

Well, yes.  But we have a choice:  We can accept Christ’s atonement, in which case he will pay the penalty of our sins, or we can reject it and try to pay for them ourselves.  In the latter case, we will go to Hell.

*** “The ultimate goal is to become a god.”

A little starkly stated, but essentially true.  We would generally prefer to speak about such a subject in the language that the New Testament itself uses.  We want, in other words, to return to the presence of God, to live with him -- which means, as the New Testament clearly says, to become his heirs, joint heirs with Jesus Christ, to sit with Christ in his throne and rule with him.

*** “CONFLICTS WITH CHRISTIANITY:”

This could have been better stated.  “Conflicts with a Fundamentalist Protestant Form of Christianity” would have been more accurate.

*** “1.  God was once a man.”

True, in an important sense, although we don’t know very much about it.

*** “2.  Jesus was created by sexual union between Elohim and Mary.”

It is grossly unfair to take unofficial speculations -- believed by some Latter-day Saints (particularly in the nineteenth century), but denied by many others -- and falsely claim that they are official doctrine of the Church.

*** “3.  Holy Spirit an impersonal force.”

It is hugely unfair to take unofficial speculations -- offered up by a few nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints, but of little or no interest to the vast majority of others -- and falsely claim that they are official doctrine of the Church.

*** “4.  There is no Trinity.”

This is, as I have noted above, very misleading.

*** “5.  Jesus received the godhead after His resurection.”

As I pointed out above, this is untrue.

*** “6.  Saved by works and faithfulness to the Mormon Church.”

As I indicated above, this is very misleading and deceptive.

*** “7.  Man can become a god.”

Yes, this is true, just as the earliest Christians believed.

*** “THE CHRISTIANS RESPONSE:”

This would more accurately have said, “The Fundamentalist Protestant-Type Christian’s Somewhat Misinformed Response.”

*** “God's nature is spirit not human.  John 4:24; 2 Corinthians 3:17”

We do not believe that God is a human, although we do believe, as the early Christians and Jews did, that he was embodied.  He is a spirit (he certainly is not merely a body), but his spirit is clothed in flesh.  Our model for this is Jesus Christ, who is both God and embodied. He is, in fact, the express image of his Father.

*** “Jesus was born of a virgin. Matthew 1:18; Matthew 1:20; Matthew 1:23  (Note: the Greek word parthenos is used in Matthew 1:23, which refers to a young woman who has never had sexual intercourse.)”

Latter-day Saints accept these scriptures.  I should note, though, that the Hebrew word in the prophecy of Isaiah from which Matthew is quoting does NOT necessarily refer to a young women who has not had sexual intercourse.  Its primary meaning is, simply, “a young woman.”

*** “Holy Spirit is a personal being.  1 Corinthians 2:10-11; Ephesians 4:30; Romans 15:30”

We agree.

*** “Holy Spirit is omnipresent.  (can be in more than one place at one time) Psalm 139:7-10”

We agree, in the sense indicated above.

*** “There is a Triunity of the Godhead.  Matthew 28:19; Matthew 3:16-17; John 15:26”

We agree.

*** “Salvation is not by works and faithfulness to Mormonism, but through the blood of Jesus Christ.  Romans 5:10; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 7:27; 1 Peter 2:24”

We agree.  Without the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ, no amount of righteous living would avail anyone anything at all.  It would be useless.  We would all be damned.

*** “Bibliography:

“Hoekema, Anthony A.  The Four Major Cults.  Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmens Publishing Company, 1988.

“Martin, Walter.  The Kingdom of The Cults.  Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985.

“Tucker, Ruth A.  Another Gospel.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1989.

“Van Gorden, Kurt.  Mormonism.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.”

Do you notice that all four of the works cited in this bibliography are by fundamentalist or evangelical Protestants?  In fact, that they are all four by professional anti-Mormons?  Do you see that there is not a single work by a Latter-day Saint or by a genuine scholar of the subject, Latter-day Saint or not? Would you go to the American Atheists, Inc., for information about Christianity? Would you go to the Roman Catholic Church to get the real truth about Protestantism?

Well, I’ve offered you my brief impressions of the web site you wanted me to look at.  I hope they are useful.  If you want to get more dependable information about the Church of Jesus Christ than this site offers, please contact me, and I can provide you some useful suggestions.

Cordially,

Daniel Peterson

Dr. Peterson,
Thank you for taking your time to examine this site.  I will have to gather some references in order to disprove the mormon beliefs.  I am still somewhat unclear on exactly what the basic mormon doctrines are.  Perhaps you know of a site that outlines the differences between the Latter-day Saints and the "Misleading Fundmentalist Christian Church" that I could better use for my research.  If not, I will make what I have suffice.

You ask why I call you a cult and not Christian.  I, first off, have always believed (and always will) that God was, is, and always will be a spiritual being, and has never been a man of any sort (speaking of God the Father, not the Son).  This is a serious point of Christianity, and one of several reasons that I call you a cult.  I will, seeing that it is offensive to you, simply refer to you as a different religion or faith; however, keep in mind that I still mean the same thing.  Another reason you are considered a cult is that Jesus apparently came to you and gave you these scriptures (Book of mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), whereas the book of REvelation states that the next time Jesus was to come in human form he was coming to carry out the prophecies of the book of Revelation (save the Christians, judge the world, and so forth).  There are a number of other examples that I can think of now (at 12:38 am).  One is the mormon concept that there are many earths (as mentioned in the articles of faith).  Where is there any scriptural basis for this.  That leads to the most important reason. Christians (as I know them) have been taught that the Bible is a) not fallible or faulty, b) the one and only word of God, and c) completely accurate and uncontradictory, unlike many of the mormon scriptures that you use.
Joel Miller

Mr. Miller:

Again I thank you for the much improved tone of your last several postings.  Permit me, though, to respond to several of the things you say in your most recent message to me.

"I will have to gather some references," you say, "in order to disprove the mormon beliefs.  I am still somewhat unclear on exactly what the basic mormon doctrines are."

I am, I will admit, more than a little puzzled by your zeal to assault the faith of the Latter-day Saints, especially when, as you yourself say, you are "still somewhat unclear on exactly what the basic mormon doctrines are."  Isn't this, at the very least, putting the cart before the horse?  Wouldn't it be wiser to attempt to UNDERSTAND the Church of Jesus Christ before you commence your attack?  (In fact, pardon me for being naive but wouldn't it be the normal course of things to find out "what the basic mormon doctrines are" before you conclude that they are false and deserve demolition in a holy war?)

"Perhaps," you write, "you know of a site that outlines the differences between the Latter-day Saints and the 'Misleading Fundmentalist Christian Church' that I could better use for my research.  If not, I will make what I have suffice."

Well, I might recommend http://www.mormon.com/ as a place to begin.  (From there, you can easily access the Church's own official web site, which would give a better and more authoritative idea of what Latter-day Saints teach and believe than any thousand anti-Mormon sites ever will.)  http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bbickmor/EC.html also has an excellent list of links.  And then, there are those things called "books." Reading the Book of Mormon would give you a good, unbiased look at some very basic Latter-day Saint doctrine.  And there are many, many more books that I could recommend.

Continuing, you write, "You ask why I call you a cult and not Christian."

Yes, I do.  But there is several questions that are logically prior to that one.  I want to know what you MEAN by the words "cult" and "Christian," and what scriptural, historical, and logical basis you have for your definitions.

You do not define your terms, but proceed to apply them anyway, as follows:

"I, first off, have always believed (and always will) that God was, is, and always will be a spiritual being, and has never been a man of any sort (speaking of God the Father, not the Son).  This is a serious point of Christianity, and one of several reasons that I call you a cult."

So, one of the central requirements for being a Christian is that you not believe that God was ever a man.  And believing that God was once a man makes one a cultist.  Could you show me the biblical basis for your definitions or for these rules?  I don't recall ever seeing such definitions in the Bible.  And I always thought that what made somebody a Christian was accepting Christ as Savior and Lord.  But I guess that doesn't cut it.  We are saved not by grace, but by grace-and-not-believing-that-God-was-once-a-man.  Where does the Bible teach that?  Doesn't it make you slightly uncomfortable to add to the word of God, and to add "proper" theology as a requirement for salvation?

"I will," you write, "seeing that it is offensive to you, simply refer to you as a different religion or faith; however, keep in mind that I still mean the same thing."

Well, that is at least SOME progress.

"Another reason you are considered a cult," you write, without telling who it IS that considers us cultists, "is that Jesus apparently came to you and gave you these scriptures (Book of mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), whereas the book of REvelation states that the next time Jesus was to come in human form he was coming to carry out the prophecies of the book of Revelation (save the Christians, judge the world, and so forth)."

So, believing that Jesus will appear to somebody between his Ascension and his Second Coming makes one a cultist, and deprives one of the name of Christian?  Interesting.  So we are saved, not by grace alone, but by grace-and-not-believing-in-any-interim-appearances-of-Christ.  Mistakes about the last days make one a cultist?  What about errors on the signs of the Second Coming?  Would those make one a cultist, too?  Would getting the mark of the beast wrong send one to Hell as a non-Christian?  I'm just wondering how big a mistake one can make, regarding the last days, before one becomes a non-Christian cultist and goes to Hell.  And doesn't it help to call on Christ as Savior?  Does he save fornicators and thieves and sorcerers, if they call on him, but turn a deaf ear to anybody who misinterprets a verse in the book of Revelation?

By the way, could you show me, please, where exactly in the book of Revelation Jesus says, "I will never appear to anybody again until I come at the very end of time"?  (Oral Roberts claimed to have had a vision of Jesus some years ago.  Does that make him a non-Christian cultist, I wonder?)  Could you show me in the Bible where it says that to believe in an appearance of Jesus before his final second advent makes one a non-Christian?  Could you provide me biblical evidence that believing such a thing makes one a cultist?

"There are," you say, "a number of other examples that I can think of now (at 12:38 am).  One is the mormon concept that there are many earths (as mentioned in the articles of faith).  Where is there any scriptural basis for this."

There is nothing in the Articles of Faith about "many earths."  Perhaps you are thinking of Moses 1:29-35.

I fail to see how believing that there is life on other planets makes one a non-Christian.  Nor how it makes one a cultist.  You really must define these terms for me.  Apparently, though, in your view, we are saved not by grace alone, but by grace-and-believing-that-no-other-planet-in-the-universe-sustains-life.  Gosh, and I thought that being a Christian meant simply believing in Christ and accepting him as one's Lord.  But now I learn that it has at least as much to do with one's views of extraterrestrial biology.  Fascinating.

"That leads," you say, "to the most important reason.  Christians (as I know them) have been taught that the Bible is a) not fallible or faulty, b) the one and only word of God, and c) completely accurate and uncontradictory, unlike many of the mormon scriptures that you use."

Perhaps we are simply not Christians "as you know them."  Is it possible, do you think, that there might be other kinds of Christians than the ones you are familiar with?

Many Christians do not believe, and have not believed, that the Bible is inerrant -- that is, without any human errors.  (Martin Luther, for instance, wanted to remove the epistle of James from the New Testament.  He really didn't like it.)  Many Christians do not limit themselves to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, but accept other books as scriptural. (Ethiopic Christians, Catholics, etc.  Even one of the New Testament writers, Jude, quotes from the book of Enoch as an authority.  Early Christians argued for years about what should be considered scripture and what should not, and there were widely differing opinions.)  Would you kick all those millions out of Christianity who held a different view of the scriptures than modern Western fundamentalist Protestants do?  Are we saved not by grace, but by grace-and-accepting-only-the-Western-Protestant-canon?  Does belief in Jesus and acceptance of him as Lord and Savior just not cut it?  Is it not enough?  Again, doesn't it disturb you to be adding requirements for salvation to those that the Lord himself set out?

Just a few questions.

Best wishes,

Daniel Peterson

Dr. Peterson,
I have only one thing to say at this point as to why I believe your faith is incorrect and inadequate (boy cult would sound a little better, wouldn't it).  You are very correct when you say that salvation in Jesus Christ is ABSOLUTELY enough to go to heaven.  However, I believe in my heart that the Jesus Christ you believe in is not the same as the one I do.  Muslims often claim to believe in the same God as the Jews, but mistake each other for the same reason we do.  Of course the Jews are right (in an aspect, of course their religion is incorrect, but the original God remains the same), but neither can prove the other is wrong sufficiently.  I believe that you have a mistaken image of Jesus Christ that makes you believe in a CHrist that is convenient to your beliefs.  That is why I consider you (dare I say it) a cult.  
However, if it is even possible, it will take me a while to disprove the mormon faith; it might even turn out to be a lifelong process.  I will, as you say, attempt to understand the mormon faith before I try to disprove it.  Maybe I'll even attend a service or two.  
However, do not at any time expect there to be possibility of my conversion to mormonism, because even if you were right, there wouldn't be. 
I will probably be a little while with my next argument paper as I have to gather a few resources.  I think that is a reasonable thing consdering I am an upcoming juior in high school, and you are a doctor who has studied all your life.  I know I am right.  The holy spirit tells me I am, and it is a voice the I can not POSSIBLY mistake for any other. 
I would ask you to do one thing that I will do as well. I would ask you to pray to God (yours or mine) to tell you the truth; to tell you which of us is correct.  I will do the same thing.  Whoever is right will be proven so soon enough.

God Bless You,

Joel Miller

Dear Joel:

It helps me very much to understand that you have just completed your sophomore year in high school.  I assume that the Scotts are also teenagers.  That explains a lot.

You say that you believe my faith to be "incorrect and inadequate," and then voice your regret that you have, temporarily at least, forsworn use of the term "cult": "(boy cult would sound a little better, wouldn't it)."

Well, perhaps it WOULD -- depending on your taste.  If you have a hankering for four-letter insults that convey little meaning but a lot of contempt, "cult" is a wonderful word.  Go ahead and use it, if it will make you feel better.

"You are very correct," you write, "when you say that salvation in Jesus Christ is ABSOLUTELY enough to go to heaven.  However, I believe in my heart that the Jesus Christ you believe in is not the same as the one I do."

Obviously, we don't conceive of him in exactly the same terms.  Do you think that makes them two separate Jesuses?  If I don't like Bill Clinton, but think him a scoundrel, and you think he is the greatest president since Washington, does that somehow create two different Clintons?  The biography of my Jesus during his mortal life is recorded in the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  He was born of Mary in Bethlehem, began his public ministry at about the age of thirty, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, but rose from the dead on the third day.  He ascended into heaven, where he sits on the right hand of God.  Which of those facts about Jesus do you reject?

"Muslims," you say, "often claim to believe in the same God as the Jews, but mistake each other for the same reason we do."

I think the Muslims DO worship the same God as the Jews.  Would you care to discuss this issue? -- Daniel C. Peterson, Ph.D. (Arabic and Persian); Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic; Managing Editor, Islamic Translation Series.

"I believe," you say, "that you have a mistaken image of Jesus Christ that makes you believe in a CHrist that is convenient to your beliefs."

So Christ will save fornicators, adulterers, murderers, thieves, drug dealers, war criminals, slave traders, child abusers, and embezzlers, if they call on his name, but he will damn to Hell anybody who misinterprets a few scriptures, even if that person sincerely tries all of his or her life to be a disciple of the Savior?  An interesting view of Jesus, I suppose.  We are NOT saved by grace, then, but by grace-and-errorless-understanding-of-the-Bible.  It sounds a bit dangerous.  Risky.  Are you sure there are absolutely no errors in YOUR theology?

You continue, "That is why I consider you (dare I say it) a cult."

Of COURSE you dare say it.  It's a satisfying word.  And it is totally meaningless.  You haven't defined it.  You haven't given any historical or logical basis for the way you use it.  You just apply it without reason, randomly, arbitrarily, to me, my family, and my friends.  Feel free!

"However," you say, "if it is even possible, it will take me a while to disprove the mormon faith; it might even turn out to be a lifelong process."

It might well.  Nobody has succeeded in doing it YET.  Perhaps you will be the first.

You then write, "I will, as you say, attempt to understand the mormon faith before I try to disprove it."

An excellent plan.  More anti-Mormons should try it.

"Maybe I'll even attend a service or two."

Actually, a remarkably good idea.  Just don't try to create a disturbance at our services.  WE never do that to anybody.  I'm sure you won't.

"However," you warn me, "do not at any time expect there to be possibility of my conversion to mormonism, because even if you were right, there wouldn't be."

Oh, I wouldn't rule it out.  Many a Latter-day Saint got to be one by attempting to prove the Church of Jesus Christ false.

And don't you think it a little strange, by the way, to say that you would reject Mormonism even if it turned out to be true?  Do you love God so little that you would spurn him in that fashion?  If you had been alive in the first century, as a Palestinian Jew, would you have vowed that you would never accept Jesus or become a Christian even if you learned that Jesus was the Messiah and that Christianity was true?

"I will probably," you say, "be a little while with my next argument paper as I have to gather a few resources.  I think that is a reasonable thing consdering I am an upcoming juior in high school, and you are a doctor who has studied all your life."

I think that is ENTIRELY reasonable.  Take all the time you want.  There is much, very much, that you need to learn.  I don't mean to be harsh or unkind, but you really don't know a great deal about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But, please, don't limit your reading and study to anti-Mormon sources.  Read our scriptures (including the Bible, of course).  Read things about Mormon history and doctrine written by Latter-day Saints, or at least by real scholars.  Contact FARMS, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.  Look at a few of the web sites that I mentioned to you in my earlier posting.  Give this a FAIR investigation, or don't waste your time.

"I know I am right," you say.  "The holy spirit tells me I am, and it is a voice the I can not POSSIBLY mistake for any other.  I would ask you to do one thing that I will do as well.  I would ask you to pray to God (yours or mine) to tell you the truth; to tell you which of us is correct.  I will do the same thing.  Whoever is right will be proven so soon enough."

Joel, I accepted the challenge outlined in Moroni 10:3-5, in the Book of Mormon, many years ago.  I received a witness from the Holy Spirit then, and have had it renewed on numerous occasions since, that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true.  I know, through personal revelation, that God -- the God you and I both worship -- lives, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that the only way to salvation is through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, that the Church and Kingdom of God has been restored, that the holy priesthood has been returned to the earth, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led, today, by living prophets and apostles.  I know that the Bible is true, that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the other scriptures given through Joseph Smith and his successors are true.  These things are most precious to me, and are at the center of my life.  I hope and pray that you will open your own heart and mind to come to the same divine knowledge.

Very sincerely yours,

Daniel Peterson

Joel:

A friend of mine sent this letter to someone (another critic of the Church of Jesus Christ; they are legion) with whom he has been corresponding.

Since it deals with issues like the spiritual witness granted by the Holy Spirit, I thought it appropriate to share with you.

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 21:31:58 -0600
From: "Louis C. Midgley" <midgleyl@burgoyne.com>
Subject: EVANGELISM--MERELY AN OPTION?
To:  [removed by request]
Cc: skinny <skinny-l@teleport.com>

[Name removed by request]:

I have been thinking about your recent letter.  If I remember correctly, one of the motives for you getting into anti-Mormon literature was a question from your daughter, who seems to have asked you if "Mormons" are Christians.  I assume that you are talking about your daughter at a young age.  If that is the case, then would it not have been entirely satisfactory to explain that they are a different brand of Christian than you are?

It is very much like a child asking where babies come from.  One does not need to try to teach human anatomy in order to give an explanation.  And it is not necessary or desirable to go into any details.  Right?

But if your daughter was older, then I can imagine quite a different situation.  Perhaps your daughter had met and befriended some members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  She might have even become interested in finding out what they believed.  Then I can see a parent in a panic.  This would explain your running to anti-Mormon literature to somehow save you daughter from doing something that troubled you.  I assume that you will be willing to explain how old your daughter was and what provoked her question.  If a young girl had a question about Latter-day Saints, exactly why would it not have been satisfactory merely to say that they are involved in a brand of Christianity that differs from yours in some such way as Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox or Anglicans differ?  I suspect that there is more or perhaps less to your story than you are letting on.

Perhaps you feel that a child who shows some interest in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ is somehow thereby threatened by the possibility of hell fire.  Unless one has already been indoctrinated by the hate literature produced and distributed by those involved in the countercult industry, I can hardly believe that any parent could reasonably hold such an opinion.

Years ago I knew a young fellow from Alberta who was at Brigham Young University playing football.  When he came here he was not a Latter-day Saint, but he soon accepted Jesus and became one.  His parents, and especially his father, were furious.  They made a big fuss.  They were even more angry when he married a young women who also had joined the Church of Jesus Christ without the approval of her parents.  Both of these handsome, decent young people asked my advice.  I told them to ask their parents exactly what is was that they were now doing that displeased them.  They were financially responsible, industrious, good students, did not risk lung cancer by smoking, were not on drugs, did not use dirty language, prayed, were genuine in their faith in God and on and on.  The only problem was that they were no longer part of Protestant sects of which their parents were but nominal members.  Both sets of parents objected to the marriage and demanded to know why these young people had gotten married; why had they not just set up housekeeping together?

And within six months the young man's father was boasting about his son to his friends and defending their having become members of the Church of Jesus Christ to his business associates.  And in a two year period both sets of parents had undergone a profound change they also were now Latter-day Saints.  The their parents no longer found it necessary to consume beer, puff on cigarettes, gamble, and various other things that has seemed to be the most important thing in their lives.  Instead, they were busy ministering to the needs and wants of others, something they had never even thought about before.  I seem to remember something to the effect that it is by their fruits that you shall know them.

Several years ago my wife and I, while on holiday in England, visited a tiny village in Calderdale, West Riding, Yorkshire.  This village is on the terrace above the Caller River a few miles from Halifax and Bradford.  Its name is Midgley.  Its existence was noticed in William's DOOMSDAY BOOK in 1066.  Then it had about 10 or 12 cottages.  It now has about 30 cottages.  The entire area was Wesley country and in Calderdale there were nine handsome, thriving Methodist churches.  When the industrial revolution came, those who lived in Midgley were forced to work in the mills that arose with the building of canals along the Caller River.  Previously there cared for sheep and were weavers in their own homes, each cottage having a weaving room.

My wife and I had a wonderful visit in Midgley.  We attended the Midgley Methodist Church on Sunday.  There were seven or eight people in 70s or older that made up the congregation.  They very much reminded me of my mother and father.  Lovely, kind people.  At the services, which were conducted by a Methodist circuit rider, a women who serviced three or four Methodist congregations in the area, it was announced that this was the last time there would be a worship service in that building.  Why?  They could not pay the light bill and so forth.  From then on those old people would have to travel three hours to a Methodist church to worship on Sunday.  In Calderdale the preacher explained they had now closed all but one of the nine churches.  Since World War II none of those nine congregations had retained any of the younger people and had recruited not a single person.  It was simply devastating to those people in Midgley, and devastating to me.  They were kind to us and invited us to a little party that they held there in that wonderful old building.  They told us how to locate Midgley's who happen to run the two farms in the area.  They told us of the history of the place and so forth.  We cried with them at their loss.

This experience in Midgley reminded me of Matthew Arnold's poem entitled "Dover Beach" in which he tells how the sea of faith is retreating around England.  But the sea of faith is not withdrawing among the more than 200,000 Latter-day Saints in England.  The Kingdom of God is growing on that fair island.  Why?  Because we believe in what you call evangelizing.  And not just pagan, but those who a presumably Christian, nominal or not.  Why?  Because we have the fulness of the gospel and the good news simply must be shared with others.

Midgley is quite a lovely place.  It was from a village not more than five miles away that the first Midgley became a Latter-day Saint.  He had a wife, four sons and four daughters.  When the missionaries met him he immediately accepted the fulness of the gospel and soon traveled with his sons by sailing ship, of course, in terrible conditions to New Orleans, and then to Kansas City, and then on to Utah.  After setting up a modest home, the wife and daughters were sent for.  And by they traveled to Boston and then to Kansas City by "coaches."  But they had nothing when they reached Kansas City, and were forced to travel under terrible conditions late in the fall.  Back in Salt Lake the father and his boys had found a lamb and prepared for a grand dinner upon the arrival of the women.  At the October General Conference of the Church, the first order of business by Brigham Young was to announce that a train of emigrants had reach what is now the Wyoming border and was suffering terribly.  He read a list of those who had died, and it included the mother. Brigham Young interrupted the conference to send a wagon train with help.  This was a year before the handcart companies suffered even more in their journey to Zion.

What motivated these people?  Greed?  Some worldly ambition?  The answer is that they would suffer anything for their faith in Jesus Christ.  In the words of Paul, they simply counted all worldly things as dung in comparison with their knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah or Christ.

Now I wonder if you have really had a close look at the Church of Jesus Christ.  Have you read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover?  Did you do so with a genuine desire to understand the prophetic messages it contains?  The fact is that it is simply a wonderful booth very Word of God.  If you do not own a copy of the Book of Mormon, then I would be pleased to provide you with one, at my expense, of course.  And if you doubt that it is what it claims, including being an authentic ancient text, I would again be pleased to provide you with literature dealing with that issue.

If you are the least bit interested, all you need to do is to provide me with you address.  And I trust that you will see that I am evangelizing you.  Why?  It is my obligation, one I owe to God, to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.  And I do this because I know, by a divine special revelation, that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, that he died to make us spiritually whole, and that by faith (understood as trust) in him, with repentance for our sins, and with the anointing of the Holy Spirit, we can return to the presence of God as the seed of Christ.  Now please note that I am not attacking your faith.  Some of what you have, if you are earnest, is good, of course.  I am not asking you to give that up.  But I am testifying to you that there is more than what is contained in the teaching of theologians and preachers.  It has been restored by divine revelation to prophets and apostles.  And it should be no surprised that what God reveals is not identical with what squabbling theologians have done to the Bible.  I trust you will now understand why I do not consider sharing the gospel to be merely an option that one may or may not take up, depending on how one happens to feel.  Once warned, one is under an obligation to warn one's neighbor.

Grace and peace,

Louis Midgley