Polemics - Discernment - Mormonism
Vern Peterman · Aug 23, 2015
Defense of the Faith, No. 32
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926512392199

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Starting in July, we began looking at doctrinal discernment. So we shifted from looking at defense of the faith to discernment. And one of the things that we began doing is identifying there are groups within Christendom who have neither a saving gospel nor do they teach the truth doctrinally.

And so the one we're looking at this morning is Mormonism. Mormonism is a fascinating cult. About 15 million Mormons, roughly. And most people think of the Salt Lake City group, and that's the major one, but they're actually, and we'll take a look at them, other splinter groups, the Bickertonites, the Cutlerites, and etc. Splinter groups that are out there, but much smaller numbers, of course.

Some of the key people are Joseph Smith, the founder and prophet, received the revelation from God that a new church was to be formed. Later he was led by the angel Moroni to where the special plates were hidden. It should be the other kind of lead, not LED. Led by the angel Moroni to where the special plates were hidden and he had these special glasses that he used supposedly to translate these golden plates.

One of the things I'll refer you to, it's on the slide up above here, the Book of Mormon first published in 1830. And then the most recent version, 1981, there's a 1981, 2013 version, I have to check that out yet, whether that's changed or is copyright the same thing. The Book of Mormon from 1830 to 1981 had at least 3,913 changes. to various things, and some of them were fairly minor changes, some of them were rather major. One of the big changes, what they did is they made the change in 78 and then published it in 81.

One of the big changes was to change from being black, being cursed, because it was very racist, and they actually prohibited blacks from holding certain offices in the Mormon church. So they changed that. So at any rate, a number of things have been changed. Brigham Young was the successor. After Joseph Smith died and he was killed, Brigham Young became the prophet of the Mormons.

And then the angel Moroni is the last Nephite prophet. The Nephites were one of the Jewish groups that supposedly traveled to the Americas and the Middle East throughout history. And then who later became an angel. As an angel led Joseph Smith to the templates that turned into the Book of Mormon. So those are some of the key early figures, and I think the angel Moroni is likely not an angel, but at any rate.

And some of the key events here is September 21st, 1823, the revelation of the tablets by the angel Moroni. This divination of the meaning of the tablets took place, and in the summer of 1829, the plates were returned to the angel Moroni. which is why you can't find them, right? According to the written records of Joseph Smith III, his father translated the plates, because Joseph Smith was a junior, right? Translated the plates with his head in a hat with a translation stone in the hat. He dictated to his wife Emma.

And that's how we get the Book of Mormon. So then 1838 is the Missouri Mormon War. And what's really interesting is my great-great-grandfather wrote in his autobiography that he crossed paths with them there. So that was an interesting connection. The Mormons from the start had a very military and anti-government anti-US government character to them. They had their own military, they had their own political structure, they had their own currency, which you see a sample of at the bottom of the page there. This was, by the way, not the first currency. As they moved west, they printed currency at different places.

So, at any rate, there was a lot of military interaction. Though the Mormons themselves settled down and eventually at the Salt Lake City group made peace, the various splinter groups did not settle down. Splinter groups continued to fight the U.S. government up until about World War I in other places like Arizona and whatnot.

It's one reason why Mormonism has been called America's Islam. That is, Islam from the outset was very military in its interactions. Being military and being rebellious and asserting itself militarily was a part of Islam and it's also a part of early Mormonism. It's just the nature of it.

Let's take a look at page two. You've got 1857 to 1858, so this is just before the Civil War by a few years. The Utah Mormon War, war between the Mormons and the United States federal government over how much control the Mormons could have over culture and politics in Utah. They basically wanted to control it. Many areas that the Mormons previously held were abandoned as Brigham Young called Mormons from all over the West to help fight in case the United States government troops arrived in Salt Lake City. A major military conflict was prevented by the Mormons as they used guerrilla warfare to destroy the provisions for U.S. troops and that delayed the arrival of U.S. troops. So when the troops finally did arrive in Salt Lake City, Brigham Young, who was up until that point governor of Utah, surrendered the title to Alfred Cumming. So avoided a massacre, basically.

Now, the things. The tablets or plates contained the text of the Book of Mormon, supposedly. These plates were supposedly written in the language of the Nephites and documented the history of three distinct groups that were of Israeli descent that had come to America. Their whereabouts are unknown, and therefore their authenticity, historicity, and the validity of the translation, sometimes referred to as denation, is completely unverifiable. Can't verify anything.

What do we have in terms of early copies of the Old Testament and New Testament? Pardon? Of the New Testament, we have thousands of early handwritten copies. The earliest, fairly complete set of Old Testament documents we have is known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. And in some cases, we'll have multiple copies of the book. So with the Bible, you can go back and verify, OK, what do we have? Of the many that we have, what is a good copy? And we can verify translation.

You can't do any of that with the Book of Mormon. Here is another parallel between Islam and the Mormon religion. In Islam, later revelation can override and correct earlier revelation. So you read something that's out of the Koran, but if it's contradicted by something later, than the later reading is what is held to, not the earlier one. Same thing in Mormonism is they can get continuing revelations and correct the Book of Mormon or anything else. So, for example, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had the practice of polygamy, which they themselves practiced and encouraged among others.

And yet then there was a later revelation that said, no, we're not going to do that anymore. That was basically to help stop the war with the United States government. So that was a subsequent revelation that changed an earlier set of revelations. That principle still holds today.

In 1978, they modified the Book of Mormon, instead of saying white and delightsome, and that the blacks are cursed, they changed it to pure and delightsome, and they pulled out the word cursed. So they can modify an earlier revelation, even if it was directly to Joseph Smith, supposedly, by the angel Moroni. So subsequent revelations can change or correct earlier ones. So that principle is similar between Islam and Mormonism. Yes, Dan? Isn't that also true for the Catholic Church? Yes, there was a later tradition. can change what something is meant.

If you look at Ephesians 3.1, He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. You look at that, and it looks like, reading it, that it's addressed to the church at Ephesus, all the believers at Ephesus. But they apply that to Mary by later revelation.

So I guess as the President of the Mormon Church, as the high official, can make changes? Yes. They also have a group of Apostles. So they've got a group of Apostles, and just like the Apostles could get new revelation, the Apostles in the Mormon Church can continue to get new revelation and make those changes, even changing the Book of Mormon. Who makes their changes?

Islam is a little different story because what you've got there is a very complex situation. Islam is not uniform. As a matter of fact, nothing is uniform. Islam is not monolithic and you have groups that are so sharply divided that they'll kill one another within Islam. So you'll have one imam make some kind of a pronouncement, but the other part of Islam just completely ignores that.

Essentially what a part of Islam does is they have an apostolic succession kind of thing, where one guy appoints the next guy and that kind of thing. And then there's another part of Islam that follows after your family lineage. Are you genetically related? But Islam is very complex, and so what part makes changes and what not is a very complicated matter. OK, so here are their sources of theology and doctrine. This is the middle of page two.

The Bible, a book of truth that was not considered to be accurate, and Joseph Smith taught that it was full of error and parts were lost. They also have as part of their doctrinal statement, if we can get there, that so long as it is translated correctly, no parts are lost. We have very little uncertainty at all about what was the original documents and nothing impacting doctrine. So the pearl of great price made up for this supposed parts lost and whatnot by adding special translations of parts of Genesis that included new revelation and other commentary.

The Book of Mormon, very interesting. Here's a Book of Mormon, and I've gone through it and flagged all kinds of things and made notes and underlined things and whatnot. Very interesting reading. But what was interesting Two, going through it, is that there are a whole bunch of things, because this is an early book and there is subsequent revelation, there are a whole bunch of things in here that are contrary to Mormon doctrine and that do not contain a lot of the essential doctrines of what is now Mormonism. It says, for example, that God does not change. And of course, the Mormon doctrine subsequently revealed and stated by Joseph Smith, by Brigham Young, and others, is that I as a human being can become a god, which is not only contrary to the Book of Mormon, but contrary to the Bible. So, at any rate, a fascinating book, but it really conflicts with both Mormonism and Is that a current belief that as God was, I will be? Yes, yes. The current president was asked about it, and he kind of tap dances around it. But the reality is there are clear revelations on that. They still hold to it, but when asked directly about it, they just kind of skirt it.

The Pearl of Great Price is another book there. The Pearl of Great Price is a selection of choice materials touching many significant aspects of the faith and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These items were produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and published in the church periodicals of his day.

And then the Doctrine and Covenants. This is a living book in that these scriptures are not complete. They are constantly being changed. Doctrine and Covenants constantly being changed. Fairly substantial book. I don't know if you've seen one printed out. It's thick. They constantly change. Between announcements by the President, they've got Apostles that they can get revelations through. If you've got an old copy, it's not the same. Alright, now let's take a look at page 3. Here are the articles of faith, and we'll compare those to the Bible. The first one, on top of page 3, is we believe in God, the Eternal Father.

So who's God? Just the Father. Just the Father. And in His Son, Jesus Christ. So Christ is the Son, but not Deity. And in the Holy Ghost. So would He be biological Son? Yes. Yes, and matter of fact, we'll touch on that. God the Father was sexually intimate with Mary, is the Mormon teaching, and therefore produced Jesus as a biological son. So not the Holy Spirit, but the Father. That's right. They deny that the Holy Spirit was involved. It was physical intimacy between the Father and Mary, And so, goofy. Rather disgusting, really. Aside from being unbiblical.

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, not for Adam's transgression. All descendants of Adam are bound to sin because of Adam's transgression. That's what the Bible teaches. The consequences of Adam's sin were moving forward and the new earth will be the complete rectification of this problem.

Third thing, we believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Whoa. Alright, so all mankind may be saved, what's the means of salvation? Works, alright. And where the Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith and not of works, specifically. Once a person believes the gospel, they are dead to the law, and not under law, but under grace. So clearly unbiblical here. And who saves you? You do. Yeah, it's your job.

When they say ordinances of the gospel, what ordinances is that, since they don't believe in grace? Well, they don't believe in grace, and so all the imperatives are things you've got to do. And if you don't do them, I'm not going to do so well. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, what's wrong with that statement right there? Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's first of a list. One, it's first of a list. It's not faith and that's it. But it's the first of the list.

And then they also define Jesus Christ differently. And that's one of the things to be careful of if you're talking with those of some of these groups that we're covering here, is that they'll use words but not mean the same thing by them that the Bible means and that we mean. So grace, for example, is giving you the opportunity to save yourself. That's grace. So that's the first one.

Then, second, repentance. What is repentance biblically? It's a change of mind that ends in belief. That's the biblical definition of repentance. So sometimes you'll hear people say, well, you've got to repent and believe. No, because repentance is a change of mind that ends in belief. So it has belief already built into it. And so that's the next thing, baptism by immersion. So baptism is one of the steps in your salvation. Are there any other groups that teach that you have to be baptized to be saved?

And those include the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox. Church of Christ is another one. And by the way, the founder of the Church of Christ, the Campbell brothers, the founders, had debates with Joseph Smith. So anyway, they're both arguing over which one was founding a re-establishment of the church.

Yes? your sins, but you can also remit the sins of those in your family who have died. That's right. In other words, so you can get baptized not just for me, but for some other person who wasn't properly baptized and didn't go through it. So you can retroactively save somebody, right? So, it's funny, you only are punished for your own transgressions, but you can save somebody else. So by what I do, I save someone else as well as myself.

So that's the teaching. The fourth is laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. So here's step number four, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, then we have the next one. We believe that man must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. To preach the gospel, one must be a believer.

Acts 2.47. That's what the Bible says. We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, namely apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. So essentially they retain all the apostolic era gifts, is what they claim.

The reality is the apostles and the prophets were foundational, that's Ephesians 2.20, the foundation of the apostles and prophets. When do you stop building the foundation and start building the building? This is a key question here.

Alright, now let's go on to the next page, page 4, and more articles of faith. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. And so what this allows for then is to have a continuing set of new revelations and corrections to earlier revelations. So it's within the faith system of the church to have ongoing revelations and all sorts of things. Anything could be changed, basically. At Holly Hills, we hold to a cessation, excuse me, a cessational view that the apostolic gifts have ceased to be used because the church was established and the New Testament completed. So we don't have some process or mechanism for coming up with subsequent revelations that changes an earlier revelation.

We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. But if there's a difference, like we talked about earlier, it would be the Book of Mormon that would have priority, right? Except subsequent revelation can change the Book of Mormon, and that's what's happened almost 4,000 times here. I've sat down with two different sets of Mormon missionaries, and I said, look, I've got some things to go through here.

And when we're all done, I don't want you to say, well, I've got a burning in my bosom. I said, let's just talk about facts and information. So I went through two hours of showing him copies of, here's the 1830, and here's this one, and it's changed, and the doctrines change, or here's a prophecy Joseph Smith made, and it didn't come true. A whole bunch of things like that after two hours. They had no answers for anything. I had everything in all paper documented.

So the first set of guys said, well I've got a burning in my bosom. I said, you don't know whether you've got a burning in your bosom or you've got enchiladas for breakfast. This is the truth. This thing is all full of contradictions. Horrible stuff. And all you have is a burning in your bosom. Where's the truth? So I asked the second set of Mormon missionaries, and went through the same thing. I said, you're not going to do that to me, are you? No. Guess what they did? I got a burning in my bosom. I said, you liars, get out of here.

Anyway, we believe that God has revealed all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. So this is the ongoing revelation idea. More and more revelations. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes, and that Zion, New Jerusalem, will be built upon the American continent, that Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisical glory. The restoration of the Ten Tribes. Guess what? They were already restored. You ever hear about the ten lost tribes? They're not lost. They weren't lost. So this is a misunderstanding at the outset.

The New Jerusalem be built upon the American continent. That's not what the Bible says. The New Jerusalem We'll be in the new heavens and new earth and have nothing to do with America. We'll have nothing to do with continents as we know them, nor will there be any seas to define continents. That's the New Jerusalem, Revelation chapters 21.2.

So was womanism started in America then and then moved out? It started essentially up in New York State. and then started moving out west, and as it got more and more in conflict, it eventually moved to Salt Lake City, but you still had splinter groups that were left behind. For example, Joseph Smith said, the temple is going to be built here, and he pointed to a place in Independence, Missouri. And so there's one group that has the temple lot group that they're stuck on that place in Independence, Missouri. But most of them moved on and try to forget about that statement that the temple is going to be built here in Independence, Missouri. Instead they built one in Salt Lake City.

So what about the 10 tribes? I thought there were 12 tribes. There are 12 tribes. There's this mythology about 10 lost tribes. because the Northern Kingdom was hauled off in great part by the Assyrians. However, many of them continued to maintain some kind of tribal identity. That's part one, but part two is that people of the Northern Kingdom who thought, you know, This is crazy what's happening here in the Northern Kingdom. And they would move down into the Southern Kingdom. So ultimately, the Southern Kingdom contained representatives of all the tribes.

And so you still had the tribes continuing, even into New Testament times. Anna, remember Simeon and Anna? at the temple when Jesus was presented, Simeon and Anna. Anna was of the tribe of Asher, one of the 10 supposedly lost tribes. Well, how does she know she's from Asher, and why is she in Jerusalem if she's lost? So the idea of a lost tribe is all mythology, goofy. It's just simply not correct.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, and what they may. What? Pick one. Anyone's okay. There is only one true God. Worship what they may. This is bizarre liberalism. Anything goes. John 4 reveals that God wants believers to worship in spirit and in truth.

Next, we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates, and obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law after we surrender the United States government. The Apostle Paul clearly teaches respect for the leadership that God has put in place in Romans 13. What the Mormons were doing was clearly unbiblical in establishing themselves as a religious military group in opposition to the United States government for decades.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and doing good to all men. Indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul. We believe all things, hope all things, we have endured all things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. Alright, so let's take a look. We've got page 5. We have the Gospel and other doctrinal concerns.

One is salvation is not by faith alone. Given that the Articles of Faith state that salvation is at least part by works each Mormon feels compelled to do, then salvation is not by grace through faith alone. And what about everybody should be free to worship however they want? Is that going to fly? No, because The reality is not everybody teaches the same means of salvation, and they all don't work. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. Exclusively through Him. And your definition of Christ had better be correct too, right?

But Mormons really don't practice that because they have a lot of, they're very ritualistic, and they're very rigid in their beliefs, so they don't really... It's conflicted, isn't it? In other words, you've got on the one hand all these things you've got to do, and on the other hand, let people do whatever they want. So, yeah, that's problematic. The next one is this burning in a bosom, this warm fuzzy feeling that happens in a Mormon's chest. It's supposedly a confirmation of God's work in their lives after completing the steps to salvation. Four steps you've got to follow.

The Bible is not an authority. If you quote the Bible to them, they won't trust it. They won't trust it because it might not be translated correctly, parts have been lost, it's been corrupted. And anyway, just the thought is any subsequent revelation through the Mormon leadership could displace anything that's in there anyway. So by quoting the Bible to them, you get nowhere. You get nowhere.

So 3,913 changes have been made to the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon. There's a Mormon scholar, Royal Skousen, Professor of Linguistics at BYU. He went through all the different editions and found 5,280 variations in all the editions of the Book of Mormon. So, lots of variations. And that's okay, because everything can be adjusted over time, and get new revelations, and fix it. Another is replacement theology.

Because of the three tribes, the Nephites, the Lamanites, and the Jaredites came over from Israel, and the inspired texts are carried over from their history, as well as God calling Joseph Smith to re-establish the true church, it is believed that the Mormons are also the true Israel. So if someone says, well, I'm a Jew, and I have this Jewish background, that's basically kind of corrupt and been displaced because the Mormon Church is now the true Israel. The problem is that the Bible recognizes that God has made promises to Israel that He's going to keep.

And where do those promises start? Those promises started with Abraham, right? One of the reasons God doesn't just wrap everything up right now and just kind of say, okay, I'm done with this heaven and earth stuff, we're going to start over. One reason He doesn't do that is because He made promises to Abraham He's going to keep. 4,000 years ago, he made promises to Abraham, and he's going to keep them all the way to the end. And that's why he doesn't just say, ah, I'm done with this. God is a God who makes promises. He's the promise keeper, not us.

The next one is progressive revelation. We've talked about that. The idea of continuing new revelation is It's simply part of the Mormon mindset, part of the Mormon church structure. They have people whose job it is to keep coming up with new revelations. Revelation is still progressing constantly. Here are, on the top of page six, some examples.

Prior to 1978, non-whites, particularly blacks, were considered cursed and could not hold a position of leadership within Mormonism. Then they got a new revelation in 1978, which was reflected in the 1981 version, in which that curse of the blacks was no longer part of the doctrine, and now blacks can hold higher office. and are no longer limited and no longer considered cursed. So that was changed.

Christ's return, initially prophesied by Joseph Smith, was able to be postponed. So Christ was supposed to come back around 1890, and that didn't happen, so we're going to fix it. Invalidity of the Bible due to its supposed errors is set aside since new revelation has been given. So there's so much new revelation that has been given that whatever's in the Bible is of no import. And any subsequent revelations are readily accepted. And so you quote something out of the Bible that contradicts a later revelation of any kind to the Mormon Church, they're going to go for the later revelation over the Bible. So you can't really correct them with the Bible.

Another one, and this is one that was brought up earlier, the virgin birth as a work of the Holy Spirit. The birth of the Savior was as natural, this is quoting from Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children. It was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood, was begotten of his Father as we were of our fathers. God the Father was sexually intimate with Mary and that produced Jesus.

He says it again. Now remember from this time forth and forever that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. But you would say, but wait a minute, the Bible says it was the Holy Ghost who brought this about. No, because why? Subsequent revelation through Brigham Young corrects the Bible's error. Luke 1, 34 and 35 And I also reference their passages in Isaiah and Matthew. Mary said to the angel, how can this be, since I am a virgin? The angel answered and said to her, the Holy Spirit will come upon you. Brigham Young says no. Come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

And for that reason, the Holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And where it says in Matthew that Joseph kept her a virgin until after Jesus was born, That's wrong. Because God the Father came in and was intimate with Mary. That's the Mormon teaching. Now one question, another one comes up, does God change or stay the same?

Moroni 8.18 and Mormon 9.10 Both of those say that God doesn't change. Those are out of the Book of Mormon. But subsequent revelation said no, that's not correct because I as a man can have a hope to be a God one day, like God is now. So the subsequent revelation changes this teaching in the Book of Mormon, which is closer to the Bible, that God doesn't change.

Here is on the top of page 7, teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

Here, however, is Isaiah 43, 10-13, You are my witnesses, and by the way, where did Jehovah's Witnesses get their title? This verse. You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant, whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. And this I am he in the Greek Old Testament is ego eimi.

Before me there was no God formed and there will be none after me. Will there be any other gods formed? No. The Bible says no. I even I am the Lord and there is no Savior besides me. So do you save yourself? No. It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, and there is no strange God among you, so you are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and I am God. Even from eternity I am He, and there is none who can deliver out of my hand, and I act and who can reverse it. Even the Book of Mormon says that God is the same and unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

But that was changed by subsequent revelation. Back to the conception of Jesus, how did they get Satan as his brother? That's an interesting concoction. Ultimately, because they believe in spirits that pre-exist and then are given a body, and that's essentially how what we call God, or what they call God, became God as He was ultimately and previously just a man. Who became God. And also, here's the other thing, and that is we see from the Bible that man is man and angels are entirely different beings. But Mormonism teaches that people go from one kind to the other. You can change from one to the other.

Here's Malachi 3.6, for I the Lord do not change, therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

James 1.17, every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

The other thing to point out here, as we do on the bottom of page 7, is there are various Mormon groups. There are about 15 million members. and the Salt Lake City Latter-day Saints group. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which became by name change in 2001, called the Community of Christ, has about a quarter million members. And by the way, they have a different Book of Mormon. Because the changes that I'm pointing out here were done by the Salt Lake City group.

What is going on here? Okay, fix that later. Then there are other splinter groups. The Temple Lot group is the one that, and it was actually in a historical event, Joseph Smith did say, this place right here is where the temple will be built. And that was in Independence, Missouri, but they were forced to move west to get away from their conflicts, and so it never happened under Joseph Smith.

It's my understanding that the Doctrine and Covenants actually has more weight than the Book of Mormon because that's the current governing documents and manuals for the operation. Yes, and that's correct. And they keep it real current. The Book of Mormon has a bunch of things that contradict Mormon teaching. It's got things actually that are more biblical. I'm not saying it's anything historical, but more biblical than a lot of the other documents.

I would presume that the divisions here probably originated from changes in the doctrines and the covenants that they didn't like or something, right? Ultimately, the Book of Mormon, to really make it match up with everything that the Mormon Church teaches would require much more modification than what has happened already. You would really have to doctor it up. I found all kinds of good doctrine in the Book of Mormon that isn't what they believe. You had then also the Hedrickites, the Bickertonites, Cutlerites, and Strangites. That's not Strangeites, it's Strangites. So you had those other groups, and then in addition to that, there are some who still hold to this day.

It's literally polygyny, not polygamy. Polygamy just simply means multiple spouses. of whatever gender, right? So polyandry is multiple husbands. Polygyny is the technical term for multiple wives, which is really what they practice and teach. 1890 was when the Mormons had this manifesto where they got rid of the polygamy teaching.

However, that's still what God's going to have in heaven. There's still going to be multiple wives in heaven, just not here on earth. So that contradicts what Jesus said. Yes, it contradicts what Jesus said, but that's in the Bible. Which they have no credence to whatsoever. Jesus said we should be like the angels in heaven, neither married nor given in marriage. But that's in the Bible, so that's not to be trusted.

So the subsequent revelation is what matters. All right, now the next thing you have about a page and a half, if you write to the Smithsonian and say, hey, I heard that the Book of Mormon is used as a reference by the Smithsonian for historical and archaeological considerations. And I did that back in the 80s, about 1988. And you'll get back this. Let me get back to this. This last one was updated in 1996, so it has slight variations from the 1988 version that I got. Point one, the Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the same subject matter of the book.

Two, the physical type of the American Indian is basically a mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the new world probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last ice age, and a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 or 30,000 years ago. Rather than about 600 B.C. a bunch of Israelites coming to the New World and being the Indians, they said from the New World, the first ones to come over from the Eastern World into the New World was about 1000 A.D. and they settled in Greenland. Basically Vikings and Norsemen coming over about that time.

There's nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America. One of the things, if you read through the Book of Mormon, they've got swords and chariots and horses and all kinds of things, and the reality is none of that existed here. Point number four here.

One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with old world civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal old world domesticated food, plants, or animals, except the dog, occurred in the New World and pre-Columbian, that is before Columbus, times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492, as the Book of Mormon claims. Camels and horses were in the Americas along with bison, mammoth, and mastodon. All these animals became extinct around 10,000 BC. I've excavated some of those as fossils. But they were not living creatures until Columbus and his troops came. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492. Whereas Joseph Smith describes swords made of fine steel and golden hilts and all those things, and there's none of that. No chariots. No great cities, no Zarahemla, you know. The trade and the trade centers in North America have been mapped, they've been found.

It doesn't reflect what the Book of Mormon describes at all. Not in the least. So anyway, you can go on and on. basically denies there's any connection at all. But what Joseph Smith wrote was based on his own ignorance because they didn't have a well-established science of archaeology at that point in time. They hadn't gone around the Americas and said what's actually there. So he just basically cooked stuff up. So there's no correlation between the Book of Mormon and what you find in the archaeology of North America.

Alright, well we could go on with more and more and more stuff, but I think you get the idea. Essentially Mormonism was invented out of the mind of Joseph Smith and has continued to morph and change because anything earlier can be set aside, including the Book of Mormon itself. Subsequent revelation can change it.

I was just going to say, I can't think of the guy's name right now who wrote that book about all the different calls. But he was talking about Joseph Smith's father and supposedly he was a quote-unquote con man as he worked his way through life and was doing all these cons to continue his existence. So why wouldn't Joseph Smith follow in his stead as well. In fact, I think he was taken to court numerous times, right? Yeah, and put in jail, and he broke him out of jail, and finally he was actually killed in the jail. There's people broken. Pardon?

I'm from Hancock County in that area of Nauvoo and private and stuff like that. What I have heard most from my family members and what they always, not their religious beliefs, but the fact that they believe that Anything that you had and they needed, they could take. Specifically livestock and food and anything like that. And that's what caused the most disruption there. Because they just, whatever they wanted, they came in and took. It's welfare.

So we're going to continue to move through some of the major cults and then deal with other Christian denominations of different kinds. I have a question for you before we call it quits. Is there any biblical basis for the different denominations? The different Christian denominations, is there any biblical basis for that? Not really. The Bible does not justify having a bunch of Christian denominations. There isn't any justification for that. Paul wrote to the Corinthians who were divided up, right?

And your church is divided, you know, following this guy and this guy and this guy, and what do we do? We name denominations after a man. and completely contradict what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians chapter 1. We'll name a denomination, and this one's Lutheran, and this other one's Calvinistic, and this other one follows some other guy. The Mennonites, that's another name, right? Following a man. So yeah, there is no biblical basis for establishing denominations as we have them. Okay, let's pray.

Lord, we thank you for your word. We thank you that as we examine these things that we have a good and true and solid measure by which to gauge them. And we can tell what is true gospel and what is true teaching. And we thank you for that. We thank you that you have revealed the truth to us because you love us and care for us. And you've demonstrated it in your Son, Jesus Christ. And we pray, Lord, in Jesus' name, amen.