Comments for Mormon Miscellaneous Worldwide Talk Show

Comment on Mike Haxton, an ex-Mormon Bishop by Steve

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:26:23 +0000

Great and informative program. I respect Mike Haxton’s approach to Mormonism wherein he says he is not interested in criticizing or tearing down the LDS church. I see this as a very christ-like thing to do. Im sure he a good christian man. Enjoyable program.

Comment on Theology With Blake Ostler by Larry Hunt

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:29:18 +0000

Pleae put me on your mailing list.

Comment on Brigham Young’s Belief that Adam is God by Art Bulla

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:05:49 +0000

The wicked Mr. Hale in denial removed my comment posted on March 2, 2009. Amazing! But here is another proving that Joseph Smith taught the doctrine:

He (Joseph Smith) taught us that God was the great head of the human procreation–was really and truly the father of both our spirits and our bodies. (Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George S. Gibbs)

September 4, 1860 Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized. * * * He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print, and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have never had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. (W. Woodruff’s Journal)

December 16, 1867 Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and Joseph taught this principle. (Brigham Young, W. Woodruff Jrnl.)

Brother Horne and I chatted again tonight about the Gospel and the Adam-God Doctrine, as we have done many times before. Brother Horne, who grew up in Salt Lake City and was the son of Richard Horne and grandson of Joseph Horne, said–in reference to the Adam-God Doctrine–that when he first went through the Temple (Salt Lake) for his endowment in 1902 before going on his mission he was surprised to hear the teachings during the temple ceremony that “Adam was our God” and that “He came here with Eve, one of His wives.” Also, it was taught that “Eve bore our spirits” (i.e., the spirits of all men). He asked his father about it but he declined to give any opinion about it. After Brother Horne returned from his mission a few years later, in 1905, he noted these teachings had been removed from the temple ceremony. He feels that they were left over from Brigham Young’s influence, but that he himself (Brother Horne) couldn’t believe such doctrine. He thinks perhaps Brigham just got off in his speculation. (From C. Jess Groesbeck’s Elders Journal, Vol. 1, p. 291)

Date:May 19, 1838 Place:Spring Hill, Daviess County, Mo To:Joseph Smith

1 SPRING Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

(D&C 116:1)

Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God, and Joseph taught this principle. (Wilford Woodruff Diaries, Dec. 16, 1957)

The first article in this questionable publication “Gospel Problems” is in defense of the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young. Was he, too, crazy? Was Joseph Smith crazy when he gave us the 116th section of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the prophet Daniel as there referred to (Dan. 7, 9, 10) or do we hold Jesus Christ responsible for these revelations? Bishop Heber Bennion, Gospel Problems

Some of our friends say, “O, it is scriptural and reasonable enough, and truthful, but is out of harmony with the living oracles and therefore must be wrong.” We answer, “If it is in harmony with the scriptures, the law and the prophets, truth and reason, who is to blame for its lack of harmony with the living oracles?” But, it is objected, what is the use of a head if you do not follow it? We answer, “What is the use of a neck if it is too stiff to turn the head? What is the use of a heart if it cannot soften and mellow a cold philosophical brain? Can one part of the body say to the other members of the body, “We have no need of thee.” Rather, are all the members of the body necessary?”–Paul. Others protest, what is the use of leaders and praying for them if we are not going to sustain them? Does that mean we must uphold them in everything, right or wrong, as [4] though they were infallible? Is it inconsistent for us to vote and pray for them even though we differ with them? Should not Republicans pray for Democratic Presidents, and vice versa, a Democrat pray for a Republican President? These objections are so weak and purile that they tend to strengthen Gospel Problems rather than weaken them. It is further objected that “there is not one constructive idea in the book.” We respond, “It does not claim to be a new revelation, direction or dictation of a new program for the church. If so it would be open to criticism as usurping the prerogative of the President of the church. The presumption would be that God had not revealed sufficient to the prophet Joseph Smith and other Presidents, but that some lay member must introduce something new. Gospel Problems do not aspire to anything new. “There is nothing new under the sun.”–Solomon. It only presumes to defend, and contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints,” and uphold the doctrine of Adam-God as taught by Brigham Young, revealed through Joseph Smith and the prophet Daniel; the correct and literal translation of the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. It is a defense of the constructive idea of the United Order, given to the Saints through the prophet Joseph Smith “for their temporal and spiritual salvation” in contrast with the present financial systems of Zion, which tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, the very antipodes of each other. It is a defense of the constructive idea of the revelation to Joseph Smith on plural marriage, providing for the temporal and spiritual salvation of the millions of widows and mateless maidens that mourn “because of the inhumanity of man to man.” It is a protest against the laws of man in direct opposition to the laws of God as revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon and the Bible. We maintain that these principles are all constructive and opposition to them is destruction–destructive of faith in God and the principles of eternal truth and righteousness as recorded in the holy scriptures. Declarations against these principles are being applauded in our great tabernacle. One of the imported speakers in the late Educational Convention said that private ownership of property was the very basis of civilization, and that any [5] abrogation of it was anarchy–the doctrine of the Reds, and the penalty deportation; and he was applauded to the echo. And yet God has said “And let not any man among you say that it is his own, for it should not be called his, nor any part of it.” (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 104-70). And again, “It is not meet that one man should possess that which is above another; therefore the world lieth in sin.” The Superintendent of Public Instruction declared in the tabernacle that the French was the most idealistic nation on the earth,” and was most vociferously applauded. Surely the Lord must cut His work short in righteousness or there will be no flesh saved. Can we wonder that the Lord wondered “if He should find faith in the earth at His coming.” There is little doubt that God was offering man a chance to have his eyes opened, his understanding enlightened and to become as the Gods. This is the doctrine taught by the Prophet Joseph–that it is possible for man to grow in wisdom and power until he becomes as God.

[185]

Chapter 13

FURTHER TEACHINGS ON ADAM

A multitude of people were acquainted with the Prophet Joseph Smith, but only a few did he trust with some of the deeper doctrines. To these closer friends, like those of Jesus who were entrusted with the “pearls” and the “meat” of the Gospel, Joseph taught some of the mysteries of the doctrines of Deity.

I do not say that you have not been taught and learned the principle; you have heard it taught from this stand from time to time by many of the elders and from the mouth of our beloved and martyred prophet Joseph. Therefore my course will not be to prove the doctrine, but refer to those things against which your minds are revolting. Consequently, I would say to this vast congregation of Saints, when we enter into the temple of God to receive our washings, our anointings, our endowments and baptisms for the saving of ourselves, and for the saving of our dead, that you never will see a man go forth to be baptized for a woman, nor a woman for a man. If your minds should be in any dubiety with regard to this, call to mind a principle already advanced, that when an infinite being gives a law to his finite creatures, he has to descend to the capacity of those who receive his law, when the doctrine of baptism for the dead was first given, this church was in its infancy, and was not capable of receiving all the knowledge of God in its highest degree; this you all believe. I would keep this one thing in your minds, and that is that there is none, no not one of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, that ever received the fullness of the celestial law at the first of the Lord’s commencing to reveal it unto them.

September 17, 1854: President Young preached this afternoon and spoke upon the law of consecration and had an interesting conversation in our prayer circle. The subject of Elder Orson Pratt publishing the Seer and the doctrine it contained was brought up in conversation. President Young said he ought not to have published the marriage ceremony. It was sacred and one of the last ceremonies attended to in the Endowments ought not to have been given to the world. Brother Pratt said that he thought it was no harm as the plurality of wives, and its doctrine, was to be published to the world. He said he should not have done it if he had thought there had been the least harm in it. President Young said he was satisfied that he intended no wrong in it. He said that the doctrine taught in The Seer that God had arrived at that state whereby He could not advance any further in knowledge, power and glory was a false doctrine and not true. There never will be a time to all eternity when all the Gods of Eternity will cease advancing in power, knowledge, experience and glory. For if this were the case Eternity would cease to be and the glory of God would come to an end; but all of celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge and power worlds without end. Joseph would always be ahead of us. We should never catch up with him in all Eternity, nor he with his leaders. Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth; could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was, that He came from another world and made this, brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat [68] children and they were earthly and had mortal bodies. And if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his philosophical reasoning and get revelation from God to govern him and enlighten his mind more, and it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books and go into the canyons as some of the rest of us were doing and it would be better for him. He said his philosophy injured him in a measure. Many good things were said by President Young–that we should grow up in revelation so that principle would govern every act of our lives. He had never found any difficulty in leading this people since Joseph’s death.

September 4, 1860: Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized; he believed in this work but wanted to close up his business in New York City first. Said when he was baptized that he should lay aside his practice of medicine, as he believed the Lord had provided means for the healing of his Saints without the practice of medicine. He is satisfied [140] that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph and Brigham; for this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print, it would more than fill this room, but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed.

December 16, 1867: At meeting of School of the Prophets: President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel, and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and was our God and that Joseph taught this principle.

*Here, George Q. Cannon is recorded by Wilford Woodruff to have said that God revealed to Joseph that “Adam is our Father”. This is three witness to this: George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff, and Brigham Young.

Comment on More Thinking About Scriptures & Tradition by Art Bulla

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:59:07 +0000

“If the claims of the Church are to be understood as story rather than history, then authority in the Church will eventually pass from the Brethren to the scholars, just as it happened in ancient Israel and in the early Christian Church. For if the scholars know the “objective truth” about the Book of Mormon through their research while the “benighted Brethren” are still struggling under a false perspective and with archaic interpretations, then modern revelation and authority are just part of the myth, part of our “salvation history,” and we, like the ancient Church, will ultimately abandon the idea of living prophets and turn to scholars for the “truth.” God help us if it comes to that. ” (Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Second Nephi: The Doctrinal Structure, p.403)

Of singular importance here is the matter of who is creating whom. Are we the children of God, or is he the child of our perceptions? Is it for us to refashion God so that we might not be embarrassed by him as our own intellectual fashions change? Such is the position of many liberal theologians today (a la Van). They argue for a historical or progressive revelation of the divine nature that ignores the plain meaning of the language of scripture. This, they claim, is necessary to show respect for “individual creativity and cultural development” (Coakley and Palin, Making and Remaking of Christian Doctrine, 178). Plainly stated, such liberal theologians are telling us that God is what man chooses to have Him be and that we are not to take seriously such declarations as that made by the Lord to Joseph Smith in which He described Himself as being “infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them” (D&C 20:17).

(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions , p.138)

“Beware of the leaven of the pharisees”

As long as men of science ignore the light of truth and have no faith in the Divine Creator, they will search the hard way to find out the works of the Lord and will formulate false theories which may prove both harmful and pernicious in that they will guide their fellows who accept them away from the revealed plan leading to eternal life.

Unfortunately most scientists depend entirely upon their own intelligence and wisdom without a thought of divine aid. It is said repeatedly that scientists do not take God into their reckoning in the search of truth. This is an unfortunate condition, for if they were men of prayer and faith, seeking divine help they would come to the truth more readily and would avoid the many pitfalls of false hypotheses.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, p.21-22)

Jacob 4:8

8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God.

1 Cor 2:11

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

2 Tim 4:3-4

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Art Bulla,

President, Melchizedek Priesthood

Comment on Joseph Smith’s View of Ancient Curses by Art Bulla

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:57:19 +0000

Van insisted on a lie when he said, “I insisted that there has been no evidence, from sources produced before Joseph Smith’s death, that he believed an ancient curse was to be continued in the Restoration.”

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, …who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

(Abr 1:26)

This scripture is not such a source produced before Joseph’s death?

Also this:

Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictate by his counsel.

(Joseph Smith; Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2 (October 1835-September 1836), Vol. 2 April, 1836 No. 19, p.290)

which regards this:

25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

(Gen 9:25-27)

Septuagint not “produced before Joseph’s Death”?!!! To say that Joseph did not believe the Bible is a base lie, and this anti-Christ in sheep’s clothing only makes such a statement because he counts on an audience too ignorant and/or cowardly to confront him with facts. Sycophants. “Facts”, however, are “stubborn things.”

Those who stretch forth their hands to steady the ark of God in this and other matters are smitten with the shaft of death as Joseph warned.

Art Bulla

President of the Melchizedek Priesthood

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by Flipper

Sun, 24 May 2009 00:44:07 +0000

Shawn is really ignorant.

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by nathan wach

Wed, 20 May 2009 02:32:47 +0000

There is too many different christian churchs out there that have the same basic truth and it all comes from one source the bible. why is this it just doesnt add up with me its choas. If one religion can spilt into so many different opinions or (churchs) its telling me that its totally man made all the way.

Comment on History with an LDS Historian by James Muir

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:39:39 +0000

THE ENSIGN TO THE NATIONS HAS BEEN LIFTED UPON THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN

(see Isaiah)

Weeks before Easter 2009 I prepared a press release about my great discovery of the signature of the living God written across the face of Mount Olympus here in Salt Lake City, Utah. You would think it interesting enough to get some notice. Nobody would touch it so I decided to present a lecture during LDS Conference week. The day before my Saturday lectures I realized that there was also present the sign of swine hooves trampling upon the Holy One of Israel. This got me up and protesting a warning Sunday April 5th as the crowds assembled for Conference. I was heckled by the hecklers but they were all silent when I bellowed: YOU CAN NOT BE THE TRUE CHURCH AND FAIL TO BE THE RRRRRRRRRREAL ZION, and THERE CAN BE NO TRUE PROPHET OUTSIDE OF ZION. A few Mormons were with me when I got dramatic with the RRRRRRRRREAL Zion act.

My great anxiety was that I realized at once that the Ensign lifted up here in the last days is in fact a repudiation of the LDS Church. This intrusion of the Kingdom of God into the real world is the signed bill of divorcement from the Lord to his truly restored church that has failed and is full of all manner of abominations and corruption not even attempting to bring forth and establish Zion, no even knowing how to begin. The days of apostasy and spiritual chaos are already upon us until the Ancient of Day sits and fulfills D&C 85. You can download my entire lecture at www.fireark.org

Please share this important news with all your fiends.

James Muir

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by OldSoul

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:50:14 +0000

Anyone else in awe of the stupidity of this exchange? Van’s defense and offense in the debate boils down to “Well your version of Christianity is just as untenable as Mormonism and you believe it, so what’s wrong with our beliefs?” In the end Mormonism is a sad silly lie, why is the fact Biblical Christianity can look as silly sometimes a good thing for Mormonism? The end result is believers on both sides of the argument come away from that debate feeling like they won, and non-believers realize why they gave up religion to begin with. Not productive.

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by Shazoolo

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:07:37 +0000

After listening to this exchange between Van Hale and Shawn McCraney I find myself disgusted.

I see Shawn as angry, vindictive, obstinate, deceptive, and unable to answer specific questions about his beliefs and knowledge of the Bible. I feel sorry for those who are lead away by his destructive influence and sincerely pray that those who have been lead away eventually come to learn that God is love.

Comment on Brigham Young’s Belief that Adam is God by Art Bulla

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:06:18 +0000

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/artbulla/2008/11/19/Topics-pertaining-to-Zion

Comment on Polygamy Discussion with Author, Carmon Hardy by Mr. IT

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:04:42 +0000

My last posting got mangled by both myself and the board. Here’s the correct version:

Speaking as a non-LDS Mormon Studies Scholar, I was thrilled to find this Podcast! It was only marred by the fanatic True Believing Mormon caller who insisted on referring to my people group as “Apostate Jerks” and uttered a litany of Mormon dogma that, sadly, made him sound like a brain washed cultist of the type gives Latter Day Saints a bad reputation.

As Gordon B. Hinckley so correctly assessed:

“We must work harder to build respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility.” (National Conference of Christians and Jews Banquet, February 21, 1995 in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 665)

“We are greatly misunderstood, and I fear that much of it is of our own making.” (President Hinckley, LDS General Conference, April 2000, Ensign, May 2000, 87)

“Teach [your children] tolerance. They need not surrender their own beliefs while extending tolerance to those with other beliefs. Teach them civility towards others.” (“Teach the Children,” Southern Utah University Baccalaureate Address, June 3, 1994 in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 663)

Comment on Polygamy Discussion with Author, Carmon Hardy by Mr. IT

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:48:05 +0000

Speaking as a non-LDS Mormon Studies Scholar, I was thrilled to find this Podcast! It was only marred by the fanatic True Believing Mormon who insisted on referring to my people group as “Apostate Jerks” and utterly a litany of Mormon dogma that, sadly, made him sound like a brain washed cultist and gives Latter Day Saints a bad reputation.

As Gordon B. Hinckley so correctly assessed:

“We are greatly misunderstood, and I fear that much of it is of our own making.” (President Hinckley, LDS General Conference, April 2000, Ensign, May 2000, 87). This dynamic adds a special poignancy to today’s “two-fer” from former President Hinckley:

“We can be appreciative in a very sincere way. Not only must we be tolerant, but we must cultivate a spirit of affirmative gratitude for those who do not see things quite as we see them.” (“Out of Your Experiences Here,” BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, October 16, 1990, 30 in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 663).

Thank you for this show and thank you for listening to this “stupid Apostate Jerk’s” feedback.

Comment on God’s Omniscience: Diversity of Mormon Views by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:02:39 +0000

I found a Wonderful site on Isaiah! http://www.isaiahexplained.com/ The site has free lessons on every chapter. Very well done and in the author’s own voice. Every Isaiah Chapter has the Analytical Commentary of Isaiah. Enjoy this personable verse-by-verse commentary of Isaiah by well-known Hebrew scholar Avraham Gileadi.

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

“It is my testimony that this man has been brought forward and trained at this time to help those inside the Church into Isaiah, and those outside the Church, Jew and Gentile, through Isaiah into the Church” —Arthur Henry King, author, former BYU professor and London Temple President.

“Dr. Gileadi has achieved a major breakthrough in the investigation of a book of such complexity and importance as the Book of Isaiah”—Professor David Noel Freedman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Dr. Gileadi’s work will render obsolete almost all the speculations of Isaiah scholars over the last one hundred years . . . enabling scholarship to proceed along an entirely new line . . . opening new avenues of approach for others to follow”—Professor Roland K. Harrison, Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada.

“Only one who is truly at home not only with the Hebrew but with the ancient manner of biblical thought could have produced such an insightful and ground-breaking book”—Professor S. Douglas Waterhouse, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

“Avraham Gileadi’s unsealing of the Book of Isaiah will forever change people’s understanding of Judeo-Christian religion, lifting it to heights hitherto known only to prophets and saints”—Arie Noot, corporate executive, Edmond, Oklahoma.

“Isaiah Decoded is a huge breakthrough for the seeker of truth—Jew, Christian, Moslem, and agnostic. From an ancient writing, Gileadi has brought to light eternal truths about the nature of God and our relationship to him that have lain buried for centuries in the dust of time”—Guy Wins, fifth-generation Jewish diamond dealer from Antwerp, Belgium.

“Gileadi is the only scholar I know who has been able to express the Jewish expectation of the Messiah in relation to the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth”—Daniel Rona, Israeli tour guide, Jerusalem, Israel.

“Dr. Gileadi has clearly demonstrated his mastery of the Book of Isaiah and of the scholarly literature dealing with it”—Professor Ronald Youngblood, Bethel Theological Seminary, San Diego, California.

“Avraham Gileadi’s books and tapes take the casual observer of Isaiah’s words and transform him into an enlightened and lifelong student of the Word of God”—Allan and Nancy Pratt, LDS mission president, Toulouse, France.

“Dr. Gileadi has awakened a whole new depth of my understanding of Isaiah’s prophetic message. His books and tapes illuminate the urgent relevance of Isaiah’s writings to our own day”—Becky Douglas, supervisor and sponsor of three orphanages in India, Atlanta, Georgia.

“Dr. Gileadi’s translation [of the Book of Isaiah] is clear and smooth, allowing the reader to appreciate the power and beauty of Isaiah as conveyed in the Hebrew original”—Professor Herbert M. Wolf, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

“Gileadi has uncovered an amazing message written in a divine code by the prophet–poet Isaiah. This will give comfort, hope, and joy to masses of people as they cope with the perplexing events now unfolding before their eyes”—Fenton Tobler, thirty years elementary school principle, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Comment on God and Omniscience / Priesthood and Succession by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:01:42 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Strange Elements of the Old Testament by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:00:45 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on LDS Church Political Policy by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:59:50 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Death of Joseph Smith Miscellaneous Topics by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:59:00 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Facing the Old Testament by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:58:13 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Rethinking the Old Testament by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:57:22 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Which Bible? by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:56:31 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Polygamy: The Utah Attorney General Speaks by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:55:24 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on The Bible: Basic Reasoning by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:54:30 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Mormonism in Print by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:52:02 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Understanding the United Firm by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:50:33 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on An Alleged Prophet by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:49:55 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Why Common Consent by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:49:17 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on The Curse of Cain and Ham by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:48:43 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Apologetics: A Believer’s Answers by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:48:09 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Joseph Smith’s View of Ancient Curses by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:47:40 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Perspective of a Black Convert by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:46:58 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on A Visit with a Mormon Apologist by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:46:28 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Massacre at Mountain Meadows by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:45:47 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Mormons Who Ran for President by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:45:19 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Testimony, Faith, Belief, Knowledge by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:44:34 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Mystery of the Book of Mormon Translation by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:43:58 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on LDS / non-LDS Exchange by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:43:20 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on More Thinking About Scriptures & Tradition by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:42:53 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Would God … ? by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:42:22 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Polygamy: Joseph Smith’s Letter of Explanation by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:41:49 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Hard Evidence and Religious Conviction by dewey olsen

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:40:56 +0000

“Dr. Gileadi is the only LDS scholar I know of who is thoroughly competent to teach the words of Isaiah”—Professor Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. (1. 6. 2003)

Comment on Would God … ? by Ty

Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:41:09 +0000

Here’s a million dollar question – If you were to die right now, would you qualify for the celestial kingdom? If you’re like many Mormons, you’re not sure. You try hard to be as good as possible, but you still don’t know if you’ve done enough. If the Book of Mormon is really scripture, this hope will always elude you. Alma 11:37 says God cannot save you in your sins. Are all of your sins forgiven? Moroni 10:32 says you must be perfected in Christ, which can only be done by denying yourself of “all ungodliness”. Have you done that? Do you repent on a regular basis? Is so, then it is clear that you sin on a regular basis, since only those who break the commandments need to repent. 1 Nephi 3:7 states that you are able to keep His commandments. In fact according to D&C 25:15, you are required to keep them continually! Since you haven’t done this so far, why assume you will in the future? Of course, we should all try to be holy; but if you think that sinning less will qualify you to live in God’s presence, you are mistaken (Gal 3:1-11). The assumption that good works are required for forgiveness only cheapens Christ’s atonement, making it nothing more than a partial payment. God chooses to justify us by faith. Jesus alone does the “perfecting” (Heb 10:14). God gives peace to those who trust in Him alone. If you don’t have this peace, it’s probably because at least a part of you trusts in yourself. Questions? Visit us at www.gotforgiveness.com

Comment on Which Bible? by Art Bulla

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:14:09 +0000

On his program today, Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 Mr. Hale, immediately preceeding my call to his program with a long and baleful slander of Mr. Tullidge, stated that Eliza R. Snow was in no way responsible for the quote above, I called him what his is, a rash liar, and as proof that the pen of Eliza R. Snow was the main inspiration and source of the language of the book, “Women of Mormondom” I give the following few references available establishing the fact that Eliza assisted in the preparation of and indeed is responsible for the prose contained therein, giving the lie to to the long untruth told by Mr. Hale:

From the Life of Joseph Smith In the spring of 1836, after three years of work and sacrifice, the Kirtland Saints finally saw their beautiful temple complete, the first temple in this dispensation. On Sunday, March 27, more than 900 people gathered in the temple chapel and vestibule for the dedicatory service. Many others met in an overflow session in a nearby schoolroom, while still others listened outside the open windows of the temple. The Prophet himself helped to seat the faithful. The congregation heard an address by Sidney Rigdon, a counselor in the First Presidency, and then joined together to sing “Now Let Us Rejoice” and “Adam-ondi-Ahman,” written by William W. Phelps. Joseph Smith then rose to offer the dedicatory prayer, which he had received by revelation. In the prayer, he described many of the remarkable blessings that are bestowed upon those who come in worthiness to God’s temples (see D&C 109). The choir sang “The Spirit of God,” and the congregation then stood and gave the Hosanna Shout “with such power as seemed almost sufficient to raise the roof from the building.”1 “Let thy house be filled,” the Prophet said in the dedicatory prayer, “as with a rushing mighty wind, with thy glory” (D&C 109:37). This was literally fulfilled, for many Saints testified that heavenly beings were present during the dedication service. Eliza R. Snow recalled: “The ceremonies of that dedication may be rehearsed, but no mortal language can describe the heavenly manifestations of that memorable day. Angels appeared to some, while a sense of divine presence was realized by all present, and each heart was filled with ‘joy inexpressible and full of glory’ [see 1 Peter 1:8].”2 LDS.org

1. Eliza R. Snow, quoted in Edward W. Tullidge, The Women of Mormondom (1877), p. 94. 2. Eliza R. Snow, quoted in The Women of Mormondom, p. 95.

Just after the October Conference of 1876, Sister Eliza entered upon the superintendency of the “Woman’s Store,” a Commission House for Utah home made goods. Officers and employees were women. During this year she prepared her second volume of poems for the press, also assisted in selecting and preparing the manuscripts for the “Women of Mormondom,” and in raising funds for its publication, and not least of all, gave the proof her attention. Also still continued her labors in the House of the Lord. At this time occurred the death of President Brigham Young.

As early as 1856 she had published her first volume of poems, embodying religious, historical and political themes. Twenty years later she prepared a second volume of poems for the press, and also assisted in the publication of Tullidge’s “Women of Mormondom.” History of Utah By Orson Ferguson Whitney

The Personal Writings of Eliza Roxcy Snow Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, editor Volume 5, Life Writings of Frontier Women series, edited by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher Perhaps the most famous woman in Mormon history, Eliza Roxcy Snow was a person of high standing and many accomplishments. She married Joseph Smith secretly in 1842 and wed Brigham Young after Smith’s death. She was also the sister of Lorenzo Snow, fifth president of the LDS Church. Best known as “Zion’s poetess,” her prominence also earned her the appellations of “priestess,” and “prophetess.” Capable of producing a poem for virtually any special occasion, she came to be considered the first lady of Mormon letters, having written, by her own count, nine published volumes. Her leadership among Mormon women is demonstrated by her positions as president of the Relief Society (the church’s organization for women), president of the Deseret Hospital Association, and organizer of the Young Ladies’ Mutual Improvement Association, the children’s Primary Association, and the Woman’s Commission Store. Compiled in this volume are her autobiographical writings, including “Sketch of My Life,” originally written for inclusion in Edward W. Tullidge’s The Women of Mormondom, published in 1877, and revised for Hubert Howe Bancroft’s proposed series of histories of the western territories; her Nauvoo journal and notebook, which are the earliest, but most recently discovered, of her extant chronicles; and her trail diaries, covering February 1846 to May 1847 and June 1847 to September 1849. Together they provide valuable insights into both mid-nineteenth century Mormon society and Eliza R. Snow’s life, revealing much about a public woman who tried to guard her privacy. ISBN 1-58958-012-5 $225.00

Mr. Hale is no scholar and again, is a fraud, with an axe to grind against Mormonism. My radio program tonight will deal with this. A podcast can be downloaded blogtalkradio.com/artbulla.

Sincerely,

Art Bulla

Comment on Which Bible? by Art Bulla

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:10:44 +0000

Once again Mr. Hale has demonstrated an extreme mendacity when, upon my air, http://blogtalkraido.com/artbulla, he called in regarding the Adam God doctrine, which I know to be true, who denied that Brigham Young had ever taught this in a”Discourse before the Veil” in the St. George Temple and that such a discourse even existed! I am including here this discourse as recorded by L. John Nuttall in his Journal per command of BY and also another journal source proving that Mr. Hale is a liar and a fraud and should be ashamed, but knows no shame, saith the Lord:

Lecture at the Veil

In 1877 Brigham Young asked L. John Nuttall, his private secretary, to transcribe the endowment ceremony in a book now in the LDS Archives in Salt Lake City. Fortunately, Elder Nuttall also transcribed part of the temple ritual’s “lecture at the veil” into his own personal diary (Journal 2: December 1876 - August 1877), which is in the BYU Special Collections, in Provo, Utah. The “lecture” reveals that Brigham Young’s “Adam-God Doctrine” was taught in the temple ceremonies.

He writes:

“In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young, in following up in the Endowments written, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elder J.D.T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which Presi-dent Young refers to Adam in his creation &c.

/s/ L. John Nuttall For Presidents W. Woodruff Geo. Q. Cannon Jos. F. Smith June 3, 1892 Salt Lake City” (Source: L. John Nuttall Papers; BYU Special Collections, Mss 188, Letterpress copy book #4, p. 290.)

Brigham’s Lecture at the Veil (Original Spelling & Grammar)

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth. & putting Michael or Adam upon it.

these things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus made while in Jerusalem.

This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

We were once acquainited [acquainted] with the Gods & lived with them but we had the privilige of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in.

we did so and forgot all and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned.

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life.

for we read “from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return” Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth.

Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness.

and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father.

Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in.

and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child.

it is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve-this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other Men had the seed within him to propagate his species.

but not the Woman. she conceives the seed but she does not produce it. consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. this explains the mystery of Moses’s dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve.

Adam & Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh. bones and sinews.

but upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life.

Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit that was nesesary that they might be together that man might be.

the woman was found in trans-gression not the Man- Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks- this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.

[Four lines without any writing on them.]

Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth.

they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.

I felt myself much blessed in being permitted to associate with such men and hear such instructions as they savored of life to me-

(Source: Journal of L. John Nuttall; BYU Special Collections; Pres. Brigham Young; delivered in St. George; Wed., Feb. 7, 1877. This was the first draft of the Lecture at the Veil. Brother L. John Nuttall was the private secretary to President Brigham Young until his (Brigham’s) death in 1877. He then became the private secretary to President John Taylor (1879-1887) and again to President Wilford Woodruff (1887-1892)

From Another Journal: Apparently about this time a change in the temple instructions were made, because of the unbelief and disagreements that were caused over this doctrine. One elder records the following in his journal:

Other changes, though very small, began their slow, but sure dissolving powers upon that doctrine. In a regularly sung hymn the words once read:

Sons of MICHAEL, he approaches! Rise; THE ETERNAL FATHER greet; Bow ye thousands, low before him; Minister before his feet; . . . [149](Sacred Hymns for Church of J.C. of L.D.S., 20th ed., 1891, pp. 375, 376)

This song sometime later was changed to read:

Sons of Michael, he approaches! Rise; the ANCIENT Father greet; . . .

I testify the doctrine is the most important doctrine ever revealed in agreement with Eliza R. Snow who also said,

When Brigham Young proclaimed to the nations that Adam was our Father and God, and Eve, his partner, the Mother of a world–both in a mortal and celestial sense–he made the most important revelation ever oracled to the race since the days of Adam himself. (Women of Mormondom, Edward W. Tullidge, p. 196)

Comment on Which Bible? by Art Bulla

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:45:08 +0000

In rebuttal to Mr. Hale’s belief that the Adam God doctrine was not doctrine or that persons would not be accountable for not believing it, treating it with indiffernece, or rejecting it, please listen to my broadcast on the Discourse Before the Veil at the St. George Temple:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/artbulla/2008/11/19/Topics-pertaining-to-Zion

Comment on Bits and Pieces by Art Bulla

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:35:13 +0000

The doctrine you teach that Joseph Smith believed that spirits are eternal, despite his having been quoted accurately saying “spirit are eternal” is false for the following reason: the words intelligence and spirits were used interchangeably at first by Joseph, but then in the last discourse on this subject corrected this:

BH Roberts made these observations, which I know by the spirit of God to be true:

B. H. Roberts, Seventy’s Course in Theology, 4:, p.11 Words used Interchangeably: Here it is necessary to repeat with some additions, what was said in Year Book II, on the use of words interchangeably: It is often the case that misconceptions arise through a careless use of words, and through using words interchangeably, without regard to shades of differences that attach to them; and this in the scriptures as in other writings. Indeed, this fault is more frequent in the scriptures perhaps than in any other writings for the reason that, for the most part, they are composed by men who did not aim at scientific exactness in the use of words. They were not in most cases equal to such precision in the use of language, in the first place; and in the second, they depended more upon the general tenor of what they wrote for making truth apparent than upon technical precision in a choice of words; ideas, not niceness of expression, was the burden of their souls; thought, not its dress. Hence, in scripture, and I might say especially in modern scripture, a lack of careful or precise choice of words, a large dependence upon the general tenor of what is written to convey the truth, a wide range in using words interchangeably that are not always exact equivalents, are characteristics. Thus the expression, “Kingdom of God,” “Kingdom of Heaven,” “the Whole Family in Heaven,” “the Church of Christ,” “the Church of God,” are often used interchangeably for the Church of Christ when they are not always equivalents; so, too, are used the terms “Spirit of God,” and “Holy Ghost;” “Spirit of Christ,” and “the Holy Ghost;” “Spirit,” and “Soul;” “intelligences,” and “spirits,” and “angels.” I mention this in passing, because I believe many of the differences of opinion and much of the confusion of ideas that exist arise out of our not recognizing, or our not remembering these facts. Hereafter let the student be on his guard in relation to the use of the words “intelligences,” “spirits,” “soul,” “mind,” etc.; and he will find his way out of many a difficulty. Let the closing part of the quotation from the Prophet’s discourse above be considered in the light of the suggestions made here respecting the use of words interchangeably. It is observed that he uses the words “Intelligence” and “spirit” interchangeably-one for the other; and yet we can discern that it is the “intelligence of spirits,” not “spirits” entire (see next subdivision) that is the subject of his thought. It is the “Intelligence of Spirits” that he declares uncreated and uncreatable-eternal as God is. The same interchangeable use of the terms is to be observed in the Book of Abraham (Ch. iii:16-28) and in other scriptures.

Also Elder Roberts wrote: 2. Jesus as the First Born: Sure it is that God, the Father, is the Father of the spirits of men. “We,” says Paul, “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?” According to this, then, there is a “Father of Spirits.” It follows, of course, that “spirits” have a father-they are begotten. It should be remarked that the term, “spirits” in the above passage cannot refer to self-existent, unbegotten intelligences of the revelations, considered in the foregoing note; and certainly this relationship of fatherhood to spirits is not one brought about in connection with generation of human life in this world. Paul makes a very sharp distinction between “Fathers of our flesh” and the “Father of spirits,” in the above. Fatherhood to spirits is manifestly a relationship established independent of man’s earth-existence; and, of course, in an existence which preceded earth-life, where the uncreated intelligences are begotten spirits. Hence, the phrase “shall we not be subject to the Father of spirits and live?”

(B. H. Roberts, Seventy’s Course in Theology, 2:, p.14)

It grieves the spirit that you persist in your infamy by instigating confusioon on this subject, which is calculated to throw doubt upon the Adamhood of God (for how could he be the father of spirits, if they are eternal.

John Widtsoe made this observation as well: 5. Offenses Against the Church

There are really only three kinds of offenses of which the Church takes cognizance. First…Third, the incorrect interpretation of doctrine, coupled with an unwillingness to accept the correct view after proper explanations of the doctrine have been made. The first two types of violation are of conduct, the third of belief. All imply non-conformity to the practices of the Church or non-acceptance of its teachings.-PC 164.

(John A. Widtsoe, Priesthood and Church Government, p.209)

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by bob aarness

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:17:19 +0000

Once again Van refuses to concede that according to “Gospel Principals”, the official Salt lake City, mainstream L.D.S.Church published manual, 1992 version states that, “It is the first principal of the gospel to know for a certainty that …as man is, God once was, as God is, man may become.” - Van Hale, Can you say,”Extrapolate”??? Gee, Van, I guess that says it all, doesn’t it?! AND, to top it all off, when Gordon Hinkley was asked about this very subject he replied, “I don’t know that we teach that.” !!!!!!! HELLO? Knock knock, anyone home?! Can you read,”FIRST PRINCIPAL”?!! What part of “FIRST PRINCIPAL” didn’t Gordon understand?!!

Comment on Theology With Blake Ostler by Matt Carlson

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:54:46 +0000

I must agree with Andrew. Joseph was quite clear in his June 16, 1844 discourse that “Paul says that which is Earthyly is in the likeness of that which is Heavenly–hence of J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Far. also” (Ehat/Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 380). This stands strictly opposed to Ostler’s take on the matter. I do not see how any position which contradicts Joseph can be accepted as Jospeh’s position. Of course, Ostler argues that there are scribal errors since we have only Thomas Bullock’s account of the June 16 discourse but we have the multiple accounts for the April 7, 1844 discourse. This to me is pure conjecture as we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the June 16 Bullock account. Bullock was also the primary recorder of the April 7 account and was the author of the 1844 Bullock amalgamation (which appeared in the Times & Seasons). Of course, it is more reliable since it has corroboration but this leaves a lot of Joseph’s sermons suspect. It just does not hold up without the leap of scribal error on June 16 which seems unlikely.

Comment on LDS Church Political Policy by LDS Art Collector

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:16:34 +0000

Great Post

Comment on The Bible: Basic Reasoning by LDS Art Show

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:46:12 +0000

Great thoughts will be checking back on your blog often.

Comment on Mormonism in Print by Mark Clifford

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:57:17 +0000

Sir: I enjoy your program tremendously. I live in Hawaii and cannot listen to it live, but I think I have heard every program on the website. I particularly appreciate your fair-handed approach. I would not have the patience to tolerate some of the calls with the equanimity that you muster. Keep up the good work.

Mark Clifford “one of those Mormons”

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by beeess

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:44:19 +0000

Shawn McCraney is a typical Charismatic-Pentecostal Televangelist. McCraney embraces the Calvary Chapel / Chuck Smith philosophy of ministry (was educated at their Bible College). Google this phrase: “Day of Reckoning+Chuck Smith”, find the article in Christianity Today about this whole corrupt movement.

Where does McCraney / BornAgainMormon stand ?

He believes (according to one of his own church members) that Born-Again Christians can lose their salvation. This doctrine is not taught ANYWHERE in the Bible. Certainly not a very healthy doctrine to embrace while ministering to LDS ! ! !

Shawn also embraces (he taught this on his Lord’s Word broadcast) the “It’s-OK-to-Speak-in-Tongues-as-Private-Prayer” nonsense. Tongues were revelatory (Revelatory = Direct & Immediate info from God). Tongues have ceased… The Charismatics are in the same boat as Mormons…they both believe in contemporary revelation ! ! ! Again…not a very healthy doctrine to teach while trying to win Mormons.

McCraney teaches in his book and on TV that LDS who become genuine Born-Again believers can and/or should REMAIN in the LDS religion…hence the term, “Born Again Mormon”. Noticeably contrary to II Corinthians 6.

Numerous followers of his are from existing local churches in Salt Lake City, not LDS whom Shawn has personally won to Christ. In other words, McCraney’s “church” is made up of disgruntled church hoppers, who move around from one congregation to another in and around SLC.

Comment on Theology With Blake Ostler by Andrew Miller

Sun, 18 May 2008 01:17:38 +0000

Frankly, Blake is wrong on the issue of whether the Father had a father.

Comment on Strange Elements of the Old Testament by J. Acevedo

Mon, 12 May 2008 23:02:14 +0000

I was only wondering if you have had the opportunity of reading the Bible published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. IF I remember correctly, they say this translation is the most accurate, based on original manuscripts, or something. Any comments?

Comment on Strange Elements of the Old Testament by Dallas

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:50:35 +0000

thanks for keeping the podcasts coming. I look forward to\ it every week. I only wish you posted a couple episodes a week. Oh well.

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by mormonmisc

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:00:14 +0000

Bob Aarness is speaking without knowledge. I have discussed LDS views on the plurality of Gods many times. I have written several articles, which have been published, addressing the fine points of this concept, its origin and development within Mormon thought. I have compared and contrasted LDS views with the widely divergent views of God found in the many controversies of early and modern segments of non-LDS Christianity.

Further, I have discussed many times the development of the concept of God within the Bible drawing from the work of many Protestant and Catholic scholars who acknowledge and comment extensively upon the concept of a plurality of gods found in a number of Biblical passages.

Van Hale

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by bob aarness

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:53:03 +0000

Typically Mormon,Van refuses to be even slightly honest about this situation. He won’t even acknowlodge that the single most widely difference between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism is the absolute clear fact that mainstream Christianity believes in ONE God Almighty and their church teaches that God Almighty is only one of billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of God Almighties existing in the universe. And that’s the BOTTOM LINE. Not ONCE did or does he even concede this fact. SHAME ON YOU, VAN, try to be honest at least one time in your life, will ya?!!!!!

Comment on Mormon Fundamentalism by kitty

Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:32:58 +0000

will never accept POLIGAMY

Comment on Polygamy Discussion with Author, Carmon Hardy by Alan

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:51:52 +0000

This was very interesting, thanks.

Comment on Defining Mormon Concepts of Deity by Lincoln Cannon

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:33:51 +0000

An important difference between Mormon and most other concepts of deity is that the God of Mormon faith can (and should, in my estimation) be understood and revered in entirely naturalistic terms.

Comment on Mormon Fundamentalism by Nate

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:22:16 +0000

Whilst the issue of who wrote the Manifesto is less important than why the Manifesto was written and what its intention was, I think there may be some credibility to the idea that Penrose was involved in the writing of the Manifesto, for the following reasons -

The dates and locations and people involved in Thomas Rosser’s recollection are confirmed by the Millennial Star - Volume 70, page 348.

Apostle Matthias Cowley testified that Penrose told him the very same thing - “Brother Penrose told me once in the city of Mexico, that he had written the Manifesto, and it was gotten up so that it did not mean anything and President [Joseph F.] Smith had told me the same.” (Matthias F. Cowley, Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve, 10 May 1911. Cowley’s honesty was never questioned in his disfellowshipment trial.)

Ada L. Shepherd made a statement before William J. Barette, Notary Public, Salt Lake County, 7 December 1912, which stated she had heard Charles W. Penrose say it was he who wrote the Manifesto. (A World-Wide Survey of Present Day Mormonism…, 3 July 1913. Admittedly this is not a pro-Mormon source, yet it is doubtful she knew either Cowley or Rosser.)

The Editorial for the Deseret News in which the Manifesto first appeared admitted that the Manifesto had been condensed, and only “poorly” expressed “the sentiments of the writer.” Charles W. Penrose was the editor of that newspaper. (Deseret News, 25th September 1890.)

In 1935 Joseph Musser also claimed that Penrose had taken part in writing the Manifesto, and that he had learnt this from his father, A. Milton Musser, who was assistant Church historian. (Joseph W. Musser, Truth 1:2:8, July 1935)

I believe that these points show that the idea that Penrose helped write the Manifesto (or at least claimed to) is a credible one.

Comment on Bits and Pieces by Art Bulla

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:44:51 +0000

THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS: Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.

Mr. Hale is the one guilty of over-talking and insults. He has a habit of droning on and on, and after a lengthy soliloquy in the mode of “strong censorship” then says “it is time to move on”, thinking that his supercilious disparagement of objective facts have disposed of the matter. How dishonest can one be? As the Lord has said, “Wo unto the uncircumcised of heart, for a knowledge of their iniquities shall smite them at the last day.” If he treated me in person the way he does behind a microphone I would probably give him a boxing lesson, it is true.

The man has absolutely no revelation from God but depends on the learning of men who disagree among themselves concerning the truth, taking absolute delight in “darkness rather than light”. The Lord says this is in fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the OMS, who would be turned aside as a thing of naught because they wear “high heads” and “stiff necks” and depend on the “precepts of men”.

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted. 12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. 13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up. 14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men. 15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell! 16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish. 17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts. 18 But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof. 19 For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; 20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. 21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well–and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. 22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none–and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. 23 Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. 24 Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! 25 Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well! 26 Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost! 27 Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more! 28 And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall. 29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough! 30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

(2 Ne 28:11-30)

Comment on Spalding Theory of Book of Mormon Authorship by Jeff Spector

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:48:29 +0000

Hi Van,

I have been listening to your podcasts and enjoying them immensely. But this Spaulding thing seemed a little odd to me. Listening to the Podcast, there was no introduction and I was not sure if you were talking about a new book or the one from the 1980’s. I read through it and was very unimpressed with it back then. I could not tell what was different this time. Are you aware of Bob and Rosemary Brown’s book about this??? They did a pretty good job of tearing it apart. I didn’t hear you ask Wayne Cowdery if he was still a direct decendant of Oliver Cowdery as he previously claimed. As Oliver had no male decendants. The show seemed a little disjointed to me this time. And then not have your wacky cast of callers this time really through me off….. ) Thanks

Comment on Polygamy Discussion with Author, Carmon Hardy by Dallas Robbins

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:52:08 +0000

excellent show, I look forward to reading Carmon’s book.

Comment on Polygamy Discussion with Author, Carmon Hardy by DaveHawk

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:34:45 +0000

http://www.lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by Mike

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:05:50 +0000

Good debate. Shawn made up for his ignorance with aggression. Whenever you point out to an anti-Mormon their blatant double standard they will always run back to the, “LOOK, YOUR ATTACKING THE BIBLE!!” deflection.

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by Van Helsing

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:56:07 +0000

Christianity is easily monotheistic. It is one God manifesting Himself in three personas (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). I’ve never understood why it is that some people have such a hard time understanding that God is an omnipotent, eternal being who is not limited to any form of manifestation. He has chosen the above three. He is ONE God!

God bless!

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by mormonmisc

Thu, 03 May 2007 15:13:41 +0000

Van replies:

First, I am not aware that Bob Aarness is authorized to speak officially for the LDS Church, and “polytheistic” has never been used by LDS authorities to define the LDS view of God.

Further, most mainstream Western religions are trinitarian; that is, they are not monotheistic. “Trinitarian” comes from the Latin “trinitas” which means three and cannot be used in any way to define true monotheism. To say that the one God is three persons is not monotheism. To say that there is one lone being, essence, power or person who stands alone as God is monotheism. This is the view of modern Judaism, which declares trinitarianism as a heresy because it is not monotheism. Jews, religiously, are monotheists; Christian trinitarians are not.

And finally, widespread commentary by non-LDS scholars explains that the view of God in ancient Israel, and found in many Biblical passages, is not monotheistic. Rather, the God of Israel, as found in Psalms 82 and a number of other passages, stands at the Head of a “heavenly council of gods.” He is the “God of gods,” the “most high God,” the “head of the gods,” which is not monotheism. And nowhere in the Bible is there any statement that there is one God manifest in three persons. So, monotheism, mainstream Western religion and trinitarianism all diverge from views of God found in the Bible.

Comment on Anti-Mormon Vs Mormon by Bob Aarness

Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:52 +0000

Bottom line on the Mormon issue is that, officially speaking, the LDS Church is a polytheistic religion while most, if not all, mainstream Western religions are decidedly monotheistic religions. This overiding difference will forever keep the Mormon Church a seperate entity when it comes to Bible believing religions.

Comment on Statements of the LDS First Presidency by shadowman

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:03 +0000

Comment on Prophecy: Scenarios of the End Times by Carlton Gosnell

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:01:26 +0000

Thanks for having me on your show. I am not that good a public speaker. I have been doing extensive studying on Tony’s and other catastrophism works and I am finding evidence that supports his and other folks contentions. “Kicking the sacred Cow” By Hogan is a good read and approaches a lot of what was disscused on the air in a thoughtful manner. Hogan believes as you do in the scientific method. Thanks again Carlton Gosnell