Recent Audio from Christmas Lights!

Here is some audio of a recent conversation Jeff had with a Mormon couple during some outreach we were doing at Christmas Lights at the LDS Temple in Mesa, AZ. We are planning on going a few more times before the end of December. If you are interested in going with us, please let us know.

God Bless!

Evidence of God's Existence

Jeff and I recently had great conversation with an atheist on Facebook discussing whether or not the atheistic worldview can account for non-material things like the Laws of Logic. This atheist repeatedly asked me for, or at least remarked that there was no evidence for God. My response was that I do not need to show him any evidence and that he simply needed to look around him, because according to Romans Chapter 1, God has made Himself evident to everyone through creation.

I recently shot this video of my beautiful 3 week old daughter, Evie, smiling in her sleep, which she often does, and would like to show several things from it that prove God exists.



1) When I watch this video, my heart overflows with great joy and love for this beautiful little person that God knit together in my wife's womb and blessed us with. Now, I admit that those feelings are completely subjective to me, however, others may watch it and also have feelings of love, joy, or excitement. Someone may even have some twisted evil thoughts of hate or disgust. I can deduce a few things from this:

• Why does a video like this incite such feelings? As a Christian, the answer is easy: God is Love, and I feel love, because I was created in His image! The atheistic worldview, however, has no objective source of love or joy. After all, this worldview claims that we are all simply matter in motion, or bags of biological goo. Everything is material, and nothing non-material exists.
• That being said, are love and joy, or even hate material? Have you ever woke up in the morning and had a hot cup of love? Have you ever tripped on a dirty pile of pride? Again, as a Christian, this does not create any issues for me, because I submit that non-material things, such as love, joy, hate, or even God do indeed exist! The atheistic worldview, however, cannot account for any of these "feelings" without borrowing from the Christian worldview.
• If I knew someone watched this video and had hate in their heart, I would be upset, as would most people. Again, why is this? As a Christian, I can be upset because of something called morality, which was created and is sustained by God, and which I know in my heart of hearts because God has again created me in His image. If we are all just matter in motion though, 1) morals are non-material and cannot be accounted for by the atheistic worldview, and 2) why does it matter if someone feels hate or joy? There is no objective ultimate truth then, and everything is just random, so who's to say whether or not my morals should be the same as yours?

2) Even at only 3 weeks old, some thought in her precious little head made her smile. And, no I do not believe it was just gas, as she smiles all the time, especially when she's sleeping and dreaming, all without passing gas. She is also already smiling at me as a reaction to something I said or did. Here is what I can deduce from this thought:

• There is a chemical reaction going on her brain to make her smile. As a Christian, I can make sense of this because I can say there is more than just a chemical reaction involved. There is also a non-material thought of happiness that triggers the chemical reaction. The atheistic worldview would have to claim that there is only a chemical reaction going on. The only problem with this though, is that all of our minds then only work due to material chemical reactions. How then are we to determine whose chemical reaction is right and whose is wrong? I heard my friend and Christian Apologist, Sye TenBruggencate, give a great illustration in a recent debate. It goes like this: if I were to take a 2 liter of Coke and a 2 liter of Dr. Pepper, shake both of them up and then watch the chemical reaction that would result, how do we determine which chemical reaction is truth, or in this case with my daughter, how do we determine which chemical reaction is happy and which is sad? The point is that you can't! And if non-material things like happiness and sadness can't exist in the atheistic worldview, then why does it even matter, unless you are borrowing from the Christian worldview?

Although these few thoughts I've brought up are not exhaustive, they do show that apart from the Bible and a Christian Worldview, a person, specifically an atheist, cannot account for even some of the simplest emotions we take for granted every day, like love!

A Greek Study on the Deity of Jesus Christ: titus two thirteen

I would like to start a series on the Deity of Jesus Christ, by digging into the original Greek text of selected passages from Scripture. The more I study the original Greek, the more meaning I see hidden by our modern English translations! Ministering specifically to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses has forced me to better understand the text, because they can too easily take verses out of context and twist them to fit their worldviews! So, to start this series off, I'd like to dig into Titus 2:13.

Here it goes! In the King James version, Titus 2:13 reads as follows:

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; "

Although there is obviously nothing wrong with this version, it is lacking something from that Greek that makes it easy to twist. Interestingly enough, the Joseph Smith Translation, which Mormons use and is based on the KJV and not the Greek, reads the same. The New World Translation, which the Watchtower uses and is also based on the KJV and other obscure translations, and not the Greek, reads as follows:

"while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,"

You see, the problem with the KJV is that it could be read that God and the Savior Jesus Christ are two separate beings. Christians, Mormons, and Witnesses can all agree that Jesus Christ is the Savior. The thing that separates Christians from the others, is that we believe what Scripture trully reveals about Jesus Christ, that he is the One and Only, True Living God! This verse in the New American Standard reads a little better as follows:

"looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,"

The NASB helps a lot by placing the comma after Savior, to point towards Christ Jesus as being the great God and Savior. What I love about the Greek, is that the text becomes so absolutely clear that there is no way to deny what it is saying! First, the word endings, in the Greek, of the words God, Saviour, and Jesus Christ, are all possessive, meaning they are all sharing or possessing the same thing, which in this sentence is the Glory. So, this means that Jesus Christ, the Savior, is sharing the same Glory with God. My first question then becomes, how can they be sharing the same Glory unless the are the same Being?

Second, the way this sentence is constructed in the Greek, it reads weird translated word for word in the English, but leaves no room for error. Word for word, the sentence should read like this:

"looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior our Jesus Christ,"

When read this way in the original text, it absolutely reads that our Jesus Christ is the great God and Savior. Truly amazing!

Mormons use the Joseph Smith Translation to say there are two separate beings or gods, and the Witnesses use the New World Translation to say there are also two separate beings, but God is the only God, and Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel. But, when confronted with the original text, there is no denying the Triune Deity of of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ!

I hope this has and will be helpful to you in your endeavors to defend the Faith! God Bless you all!

Scene Four

Here is the latest edition. I am very excited and encouraged right now, because Josephine is really forcing me to understand the Word better in order to respond to her claims. I learned some really cool things writing this response. I hope you do too!

Josephine,

As usual, I will try to respond to your email one chunk at a time to avoid confusion. So, here is my response to the following email:

Thank you for your awesome, polite, and in-depth reply! I REALLY appreciate it! I do plan to call Jeff, but as I told him, it is long distance for me and I am currently attempting to get this service on my phone so that I do not have to worry about a huge charge(as I know Jeff and I most likely will talk for a while). Question: why is Jeff so important to contact verses you? You actually seem more open-minded in attempting to explain why and what you believe.

It really doesn’t matter if you contact Jeff verses me, I was just curious, because he had mentioned he was hoping you’d call him. I’m sorry if you got the impression that Jeff is not “open-minded in attempting to explain why and what we believe.” We are ministry partners, and work side-by-side all the time, and both take the same approach. In fact, I learned a lot of the way I go about it from Jeff.

I appreciate your insight in regards to my question. As I told Jeff, I am not asking questions to simply argue or prove this doctrine wrong...I am simply trying to understand the beliefs of many mainstream Christians. I too, was a "mainstream Christian' and consider myself to have been raised within the Baptist faith. However, I attended numerous churches in order to gain an open-minded perspective. I did not consider myself to be solely baptist, as I believed that the church I attended was not important(the important part for me was a love for the congregation and pastor).

Oddly, I never realized the church I attended and was baptized into taught the trinity. I always considered them to be one in purpose and will...but never did fathom Jesus being the literal God over the earth(even though I believed he helped with creation as it states within the bible). Even though you stated that the Trinity did not originate with the Catholics.....rather was created by Jesus....I have a hard time believing this. I assumed this would be the reply Jeff gave me as he also told me I was wrong about the history.

It’s interesting that you were not questioned on your belief in who God is when you were baptized. Also, Christians are not baptized into any church (different from Mormonism). We are commanded to be baptized after placing our faith in Christ to publicly show that we have done so. I also never said, nor believe, that Jesus “created” the Trinity. I believe, and will show you with Scripture later on, that the Triune God of the Bible has eternally existed, and will continue to exist that way forever and ever.

You provided verses for me, as I have pondered upon these as well. Even though these verses present a "trinitarian" doctrine in a sense, they still are not straight forward about the concern that Jesus is literally God. They simply state the ONE aspect, which can be interpreted differently as I am sure you are aware of. Being that I do not know every verse word for word I decided to copy and paste the verses you provided in an attempt to interpret their meaning.

John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Keep reading...1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM.... AND HIS SON....???

I’m glad you brought this up. The problem I have with, and what frustrates me as a Christian, is that you are not attacking my beliefs. You are attacking Modalism, a doctrine I completely disagree with. Christians do not teach Modalism, and never have. Modalism teaches that The Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and The Holy Ghost are three different modes, or aspects of One God. It’s almost as if God puts on a different mask, and can only be at one place at a time. One minute He is The Father, and then the next minute He is The Son. I am not at all saying that. I am saying that God is ONE Being, with THREE distinct personages; The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Therefore, in regards to your comment about 1 John 1:3 (not John 1:3 as you stated), absolutely there is a clear distinction between The Father and The Son. What really bothers we here, is that you briefly mention John 1:1 and then try to use 1 John 1:3, to disprove something I do not believe, nor does the Bible teach; but, in so doing, you have completely failed to justify John 1:1 with what you believe. I have yet to have a Mormon being able to justify this verse. You agree that this verse is talking about Christ, but you cannot justify that:
1) Christ was in the beginning, because you believe that Christ was created after the beginning.
2) Christ (the Word) was God. I just need a clear explanation for that portion of the verse. Please hear me on this. How can you justify, “and the Word was God?”

Also, if you do keep reading John 1, verse 2 states, “The same was in the beginning with God.” Again, Christ (the Word) was God in the BEGINNING. If Christ was God in the beginning, how then was he created? And if you continue to read, verse 3 states, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” This, again, is contrary to what you believe, as I have mentioned before that you believe Christ created, “all other things.” This verse is very powerful. How do you justify that Christ created, “all other things,” when John 1:3 clearly states that without Christ, “was not any thing made that was made?”

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth...AGAIN, WHY DO PEOPLE OVERLOOK "AND".....and meaning to state two separte ideas...or in this case individuals....

I’m also glad that you brought up this verse, as it is the next one I would take you to. To answer your question, I certainly do not overlook the word “and.” I also agree that it is referring to two separate individuals, or personages. I have no problem with that. Again, you are using this verse to attack Modalism, but again, you also fail to justify the connection between John 1:1 and John 1:14. Remember that in verse 1, “the Word was God,” and here in verse 14, it picks back up and says that, “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Christ, being God, became flesh on this earth. This is so plain here in this chapter. Please, please justify this with your beliefs.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. SIMPLY STATES " I AM HE....He being the savior of the world...the messiah, the only begotten son....If you read before this verse 14-18"

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you are making this very easy on me, only because you are a step ahead of me each time bringing up verses that I would next use. Now, the problem with you using this verse, is that you do not know what it says in the Greek. I know I explained this to you two emails ago, but you sent me this before I had sent it. Nonetheless, I will explain again for clarity. In this verse Jesus says, “if ye believe not that I am he.” If you read this verse in the original Greek, it says, “if ye believe not that ego aimi.” The “he” is not there. You see, “ego aimi,” literally means “I AM.” If you look at Exodus chapter 3, when God appears to Moses in the burning bush, Moses’ question to God was, “whom shall I say sent me (Exodus 3:13)?” In verse 14, God replies to Moses by saying, tell them, “I AM hath sent me unto you.” Does this sound familiar? In the Greek Septuagint, it is the same words, “ego aimi,” “I AM.” I completely agree with John 8:24. Please also note that it is the same language used in John 8:28, which states, “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” Again, it says, “then shall ye know that ego aimi.” Notice how “he” is bracketed. It is like that in both verses 24 and 28. In some Bibles the word “he” is just italicized in those verses, much like it is the JST version. The reason for that is because the word “he” is not in the original language, like I have just shown you. The problem for you, is that Christ is not just claiming to be, “the savior of the world….the messiah, the only begotten son.” He is also claiming to be, “I AM,” the name of God! How do you justify this?

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. NOT ALONE? So does this mean He is NOT all rolled into one...?

Again, I have do not problem with this. You are attacking Modalism.

17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE?

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. WOW!

Absolutely two separate people. Again: One Being and Three distinct Personages.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am...again am....the messiah, the savior....

This verse is even better for me that John 8:24, 28, because it doesn’t include the word “he.” Again, “Before Abraham was, ego aimi.” He is not JUST, “the messiah, the savior,” but ALSO, “I AM!” Please see what I am showing you. The original Greek completely shuts down what you are trying to say. As I have also mentioned before, please continue to read John 8 through chapter 10. In John 8:29, the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus, but he disappears. In John chapter 9, Jesus heals the blind man, and then in John chapter 10, He talks about being the sheep gate. In verse 31, the Jews again pick up stones to stone Jesus. In verse 32 He asks them, “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?” And there response in verse 33 is, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” One way in Old Testament Law to be stoned on the spot, is to claim to be God. The Jews tried to stone Christ, because he claimed to be God. I earnestly beg you to see this. This is so crucial!

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

By simply reading these verses, the ONLY one that mentions appearence is the last one....and even then it states Godhead, which can be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the embodiment of God being that He was perfect and sent by Him...

I’m beginning to feel like you saw my list of verses I use, and are just using one after another. I love Colossians 2:9, and have no problem with it. In fact, it helps my case. The word for “Godhead” in the Greek, is “theotes.” This word literally means, “deity,” or, “the state of being God.” The root word of theotes, is, theos. In the Greek, theos, is the word used for God. The case ending for theotes, is es, which is a genitive case of description. It is used to describe the state of something, or indicate possession. In other words, it is indicating that Christ contains the fullness of the state of God.

I agree with you that verses can be interpreted differently, as anything can, and that is an issue with me. You see, the problem is that interpretations are completely subjective. This is a point I always try to press with Mormons. The question is not how do you interpret the verse, or how did Joseph Smith, Jr., Jeff Durbin, or Luke Pierson interpret the verse. The question is, what does that verse say? What I am trying to show you, is that if you look at what these verses say in the original language, it is very difficult to deviate from its meaning, or what the author intended. What does the text say, plain and simple. What I keep hearing from you, is that you have to say, “well this verse could be interpreted this way, therefore, my view is correct, and yours is confusing.” The Bible, in its original form, is the sole objective truth that we have and need to test the claims of anyone, whether it be Joseph Smith, Jr., Jeff Durbin, Luke Pierson, or Barrack Obama.

My concern pertains to the numerous verses that CLEARLY state they are separate "physically"....there is no interpretation needed for these verses as they state the very nature or what apostles saw....or simply defined them as being TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE...
1 Cor. 8: 6
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (NOTICING "AND" again....stating them as separate...)

Again, I agree, One Being and Three distinct Personages. You are focusing on the word, “and” to try and disprove Modalism, but at the same time you are missing the whole point of this verse. This verse is describing God, who is The Father and The Lord Jesus Christ. Notice how it says, “the Father, of whom are all things,” and, “one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.” How do, “all things” come by The Father and by The Lord Jesus Christ if they are not the same Being. Can, “all things” come to be by two separate entities? I think not. How do you justify this?

1 Tim. 2: 5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (ONE God...AND one mediator BETWEEN GOD AND MAN....JESUS!)

I agree. There is ONE God. You don’t believe this, do you? Don’t you believe in the “plurality of gods?” Christ came to earth in the flesh as God the Son, to act as our ONLY Mediator between us and God. I absolutely agree. This also proves that there is no need for a modern day prophet. There is ONLY ONE Mediator, Christ Jesus; NOT Christ Jesus AND a modern day prophet.

John 14: 10
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (again He emphasized, not of Himself.....)

I have no problem with this verse. I’m not really sure how you are using this verse to say that God is not Triune in Nature. Jesus came to do the will of the Father. Ok, He and the Father are separate personages. They are still the same God though.

John 8: 28
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do anothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
FATHER TAUGHT HIM? OR Did He teach Himself?

Ok, you are still missing Christ’s claim to being God here with, “ego aimi;” "I Am.” Of course He did not teach Himself. He is NOT the Father. Once again, Modalism.

John 14: 28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (ASK YOURSELF: WHY WOULD JESUS CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THE FATHER IF HE WANTED THEM TO BELIEVE HE WAS THE FATHER?)

A better question to ask, is, “Why would Jesus want them to believe He is the Father?” You are again attacking Modalism. Jesus emphasized the Father, because He is NOT the Father, and He was doing the will of the Father.

VISUAL VERSES:(simple ability to read is all that is needed)
Heb. 1: 3
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (SO DID JESUS SIT BESIDE HIMSELF?)

Modalism, Modalism, Modalism. Of course He didn’t sit beside Himself. Again, however, you overlooking the point of this verse to try and disprove something the Bible doesn’t teach. Before we dive into the Greek, please note that from Hebrews 1:1,2, we can deduce that Christ is being compared to God in verse 3. The Greek word here for, “brightness,” is, “apaugasma,” which literally means, “reflected brightness.” Christ is a reflection of the Glory of God. Also, the Greek word for, “express image,” is, “charakter,” which literally means, “stamp, engraving, mark, or the exact expression of any person or thing.” The Greek word for, “person,” here, is, “hypostasis,” which literally means, “substance, real being, or nature of a person or thing.” Do you see that? Christ is the, “exact expression” of the, “substance”, or, “nature” of God! This is why it is so important to understand what the original language said. How do you explain this verse if Christ is NOT God?

Now, if you will keep reading in this chapter, you will find two more verses that you will have a very hard time with. In fact, I have not yet had a Mormon be able to explain the following verses to me:

“But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Hebrews 1:8-9

Please note that from Hebrews 1:5 we can see that in these verses God is speaking to the Son, as the Father. Therefore, you can also see here that He is calling the Son, “ O God,” in verse 8, and “God, thy God,” in verse 9. This is very plain and simple: Christ is being referred to as God! Please explain this to me. Again, I’ve never heard an explanation from a Mormon Worldview.


Acts 7: 55-56
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, (THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WE SHOULD GAIN BY "RIGHTHAND")
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

I am so glad you brought this verse up, and you make a great point here (See, I’m not just dismissing your points!). At first glance this verse seems really strange, but if you dig into it, there is a very clear and definitive answer. Just for clarity, Acts 7 is talking about the stoning of Stephen. Please read the whole chapter, and then answer this question: When did the Jews decide they wanted to kill Stephen? It’s in Acts7:57, immediately after he claims to see, “the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.” You will notice how in verse 54 they were angry with him, but they didn’t try to kill him. By saying this, Stephen was claiming Christ was the Messiah. You see, Stephen was mentioning Christ in reference to Psalm 110, which says:

“1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. 3Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. 4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. 6He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. 7He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.”

The Jews would have been very familiar with this Psalm. They knew exactly what Stephen meant. This Psalm was traditionally sang looking forward to their much anticipated and awaited Messiah. I already showed how the Jews wanted to kill Christ because of His claim to be God (John 10:33). They did not believe he was who he claimed to be, and that’s why they put Him to death. So, when Stephen mentions Christ in light of their beloved Psalm, as being the Messiah, they too, put him to death. Please also read Daniel chapter 7 in reference to this. I hope you understand what I have just shown you.

Acts 1: 9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.(So if God IS Jesus....Does God Himself have a body of flesh? Many Christians would say He does not...but it is clear this is how He will return)

To answer your question, in Heaven, God does NOT have a body of flesh and bones (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 3:16, Luke 24:39), like Mormonism teaches. This is why Jesus had to become flesh to dwell among us (John 1:14) as God the Son. So, if Jesus where to manifest Himself here on earth, yes he would appear in flesh.

AGAIN, my pupose is to only show you a few verses pertaining to this subject. How does one attempt to read them and interpret them to mean they are the same? Where can those type of conclusions be drawn? I attempt to not overlook verses and pick and choose, but rather to attempt to understand it ALL and then conclude. I believe the verses used to support the trinity are not straightforward and can be interpreted to mean both. But see, this only testifies to me the confusion that arises among doctrine and although some profess that these concerns aren't important....I would disagree being that in order to pray and develop a relationship with God, we must be able to fathom Him and His son....to believe that they are the same almost sounds schziophrenic...being that God spoke numerous times...proclaiming, "THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM...or I'm welll pleased" There was a purpose for this exclamation from heaven....and I assure that to believe Jesus simply said it would almost seem deceiving....of Him. Wouldn't a God who is simple, clear, and honest teach this priciple with clarity and understanding verses confusion as He is not the author of confusion.....

I appreciate your attempt to show verses pertaining to the subject, and to be honest, you did a very good job of doing so. It is great that you are trying not to pick and choose, but to look at the entire Bible, exactly what I am trying to do. You also have to very careful to try and understand the context of each verse that you provide. The biggest problem I see, is that you keep trying to “interpret” each verse. Like I said earlier, and I think I have shown you why, it’s crucial to understand what and why the text said in the original language. That should eliminate any interpreting and confusion. I absolutely agree that in order to understand God and His Son better, we must pray, but more importantly, we must understand what His Word says, because this is how He has revealed Himself to us. And again, prayer is subjective, but His Word is the Objective Truth (John 17:17). Hebrews 4:12 says:

“For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Another issue I have, is that you keep trying to put God in a box. In other words, you try to define God by earthly terms; by human wisdom. Although I agree that God is clear, honest, and not an author of confusion, I do not believe that He is “simple.” That is not a Biblical view of God. Isaiah 55:8,9 says:

“For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

God is not at all “simple,” but is very complex. How could one be the author and creator of the universe and be simple? Or know the thoughts and intents of your heart at all times (Job 21:27, Psalm 139:23, Isaiah 66:18)? I think the whole idea of a Triune God would seem a lot less confusing to you, if you start by considering what Scripture says about God’s Deity, and then formulate your belief. What you have done, is formulated your belief, and are now trying to make Scripture fit it. That’s where the confusion comes from. I think I have shown you that I can sit down, open up the Bible and see what it says about God’s Deity, and have no confusion at all.

The problem I have with most anti-Mormons is that they present verses to me all day long, but when I attempt to understand and reply with mine...I receive no answer or reply. Why do you think that is? Do you think people are not willing to change a belief even when supported by biblical evidence? Do you think people are not willing to be taught something new or different.....?

The reason you receive no answers back from “anti-Mormons” is because they don’t know what they are talking about. Most likely they have thrown some sound-bite verses at you trying to make you look bad, but when it comes down to it, they have no deeper knowledge of the text. They probably also do not have the dedication to take the time and respond, as I have done and will continue to do. I don’t necessarily think it’s because they don’t want to learn anything new. I am constantly studying Mormon theology, because I too want to test truth by what the Bible says. I am also always studying the Word to try and understand it better. I have doctrinal views (outside of who God is and how do we come to know him) that are even now changing, because I have dug into Scripture and discovered that what I thought was accurate, was not.

If you are interested in the numerous verses pertaining to this topic:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

If I may say, please be careful when using Wikipedia. I use it occasionally, but only when I know the sources are legit. The thing with Wikipedia is that anybody can post information on there, and it is not always reliable. Also, please know that all the verses I have responded to you with, I have researched on my own, to earnestly seek the truth. And I am not accusing of you doing this, but I will not just paste something I found on the internet, just for the sake of answering somebody, without completely understanding it.

P.S. If you google this topic you will find numerous Chrsitians who are confused and concerned about this doctrine....as they too, see the inconsistencies...

I’m sure there are tons of people who claim to be Christians that are confused on the issue. Unfortunately there are way too many people who speak out against Mormonism, but really don’t understand what or why they believe. That doesn’t, however, prove that it is confusing, or doesn’t exist. I talk to Mormons all the time with varying views on Mormon Doctrine, but I won’t use that to disprove Mormonism. Again, that is completely subjective. I will only use the Bible as the Objective Truth. That is my presupposition. Everything goes back to the Word of God!

In the Name of Christ,


Luke Pierson

Scene Three

Here is the latest addition to Latter Day Saints Investigation: atlanta. I know these are long, but they are intense, and in depth! Enjoy!

Josephine, I have put together a response to the following email:

In regards to Joe, I find it hard to believe He would state anything other than separate being that he saw two separate beings...maybe someone else wrote it and said it was Joe. One thing about discourses, articles, etc. is that they were written by people who listened to them and then wrote it. This is why the ONLY official doctrine we use are Bible, BOM, DC, PEARL....all other sources are opinions and usually do not contain viable sources....

Here is my response:

When I mentioned that Joseph originally believed in a Triune God, I wasn’t referring to any of the First Vision accounts. Also, one issue that a really have a problem with as a Christian, is that Joseph, over time, changed his mind on the Deity of God, as I will show you. So, to be fair to you as a Mormon, what I am about to show you is all from LDS publications. Nothing is from “Anti-Mormon” publications. As I have asked of you before, please take the time to earnestly look into what I am presenting to you, for yourself. Please don’t just send me something someone else put together as an answer. So, following are several verses and quotes that show Joseph Smith, Jr. at some point in his life taught that there is only one Triune God, not the plurality of gods as he later taught.

1) “For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.” 2 Nephi 11:7

This verse teaches that Christ is God and that there would be no creation without Him. Very interesting considering that the LDS church does NOT teach that Christ is God and that creation exists because of Him (the official stance is that Christ created “all other things”).

2) “And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;” 2 Nephi 26:12

The LDS church does NOT teach that Christ is the Eternal God.

3) “And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” 2 Nephi 31:21

This verse to me, again, sounds like a very good definition of a Triune God; “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God.” I know you do not believe this, do you?

4) “And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth—“ Mosiah 7:27

“Christ was the God,” and, “God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood.” Do you believe this? I know the LDS Church doesn’t teach it.

5) “AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.” Mosiah 15:1-4

Although I do NOT agree that Christ is the, “Eternal Father,” I certainly agree that they are, “one God.” I again ask you, do you? The Book of Mormon says that they are, and so does the Bible (John 1:1, John 8:24, 28, 58)!

6) “Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.” Mosiah 16:15

Again, although I do NOT agree that Christ is the, “Eternal Father,” I don’t believe that you do either.

7) “Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;” Alma 11:38-39

Again, I feel like I am starting to sound like a broken record, as the Bible does not teach that Christ is the, “Eternal Father,” but it does certainly teach that as God, He, “is the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Revelation 22:13).

8) “Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.” Alma 11:44

This verse blows my mind as a Christian, because it again gives a perfect, and very clear definition of the Triune God of the Bible; “of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God.” The LDS Church does not teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute One God, and they don’t teach that He is Eternal either! Also, as a side note, I find it interesting that is some passages the Book of Mormon says The Holy Spirit, and some passages say The Holy Ghost. It’s not important to this discussion, just something I noticed and thought was strange.

9) “And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.” 3 Nephi 11:27

Again, “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one,” sounds to me like a Triune God.

10) “And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.” 3 Nephi 11:36

Please see that, “the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one,” is a perfect description of the Triune God of the Bible. Please note that every example I have given you so far have been from the Book of Mormon, which was “translated” by Joseph Smith, Jr. and the published in 1830. I believe I have given you ample examples from your own book, which in 1841, Joseph said was, “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church, Volume 4, Page 461), that prove early Mormonism and Joseph Smith, Jr. taught the existence of the Triune God of the Bible. I’m sure you will want to say that in many of the passages I have just shown you, that all three personages (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are one, “in purpose.” However, as I have said to you before in my previous email, the text does not say that, in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Therefore, if you want to say that is the truth, then you have to add a word to the text, even to the “most correct of any book,” to make it fit your beliefs. Does this sit right with you?

11) “The representation of the god-head – three, yet in one is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writer’s views of that exalted personage.” Oliver Cowdery

Please note that this quote is taken from a letter Oliver Cowdery wrote to William Frye, dated December 25, 1835. It is describing the scroll of the Book of Joseph, which was never translated. This quote is again a perfect definition of the Triune God of the Bible. Now, I understand that this quote did not come directly from Joseph’s mouth, however, please hear me out on this. Oliver Cowdery was Joseph’s right hand man. He was the scribe that wrote down all the translations for Joseph from the Book of Abraham. Also, this letter was published in the December 1835 issues of both the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate. Joseph would have had to approve all content himself that was to be published in those LDS publications. Therefore, I find it very hard to believe that Joseph would have allowed anything to be published coming from his right hand man that he did not authorize or teach. So, even in December 1835, it appears that Joseph still taught and believed in the Triune God of the Bible and what he “translated” as the Book of Mormon. I will now show you, however, that even earlier that year, he started to change his beliefs and teachings about who God is.

12) “We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things--by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space--They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form or likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;--he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him………And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made:” Joseph Smith, 1835 D&C, Lectures of Faith, Pages 52-53

“Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?”
“A. Two: the Father and the Son.”
Joseph Smith, Lectures of Faith, 1835 D&C, Page 55

“Q. Do the Father and Son possess the same mind?”
“A. They do.”
“Q. What is this mind?”
“A. The Holy Spirit.”
Joseph Smith, Lectures of Faith, 1835 D&C, Page 57

“Q. Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead?”
“A. They do.”
Joseph Smith, Lectures of Faith, 1835 D&C, Page 58

Now, I could say a lot about what I have just shown you, but I will try to keep it the topic at hand: the Deity of God. Although I am not sure of the exact dates when Joseph said all these quotes, I do know from the 1835 D&C, that they were said at some point during that year, the same year the quote about the Book of Joseph was printed, most likely even earlier than December 25, 1835. Here are my major issues with what Joseph began to teach sometime in 1835:
1. From the Book of Mormon, and from the Oliver Cowdery quote, I have shown you how the Triune God of the Bible (One Being, Three Personages) was taught by Joseph Smith, Jr. at least until some point during 1835. But I have also shown you that in the year 1835 he, Joseph Smith, Jr., began to teach that the Godhead only consisted of Two Personages, The Father and The Son, and that They possess the same mind, that being The Holy Spirit. If Joseph would have stuck to Scripture, or even his “translated” Book of Mormon, he probably would have been okay. Unfortunately, you can see here where he starts to add his own doctrine to Scripture. The Holy Spirit is definitely referred to as a “person” in Scripture (Mark 13:11, John 14:26, Acts 1:16, Acts 9:31, Acts 13:2, Acts 20:28, 2 Timothy 1:14, Hebrews 3:7). Here you can see that Joseph begins to refer to Him as a “mind,” which is nowhere found in Scripture, nor in the Book of Mormon.
2. I know that Mormonism does NOT teach that the Godhead created all things, EVEN in Heaven. Doesn’t Mormonism teach that things in Heaven (even our spirits in the pre-existence, including Jesus and Satan) were not created by the Godhead “of this earth?”
3. I also know that Mormonism does not teach that The Father is, “a personage of spirit,” but of, “flesh and bones, as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

13) “I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for the express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.” Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, page 474, 1844

You will notice here, that in 1844, Joseph Smith, Jr. is teaching a different doctrine on the Deity of God. I believe that I have show you that Joseph did NOT, “always and in all congregations,” teach on the, “plurality of Gods.” Also, if you are to subtract 15 years from 1844, you get the year 1829; and I have definitely shown you that neither Joseph, nor even the Book of Mormon, taught on the, “plurality of Gods” back that far.

14) “John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests under God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation. Hence, the doctrine of a plurity of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrines. It is all over the interface of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A way-faring man, though a fool, need not err therein. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God—that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all.”
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, page 474, 1844

Now, without getting too far off tract, I want to briefly touch on this. The “Plurality of Gods” Doctrine is NOT at all, “prominent in the Bible,” and it certainly does NOT stand, “beyond the power of controversy.” In fact, the only Scriptural reference that Josephs mentions, 1 Corinthians 8:5, is taken so far out of context, that if further explored, destroys this entire doctrine. 1 Corinthians 8:5 reads, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,).”
1. First, the verse correctly reads, “gods many, and lords many,” not, “Gods many, and Lords many.”
2. The context of this verse is Paul talking about the things that were being offered as sacrifices to the many false gods of the Corinthians.
3. If you read verses 4 and 6 of 1 Corinthians 8, you will clearly see that Paul says there is only ONE True God.

15) “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” ‘Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.”
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, page 476, 1844

What’s amazing to me, is that in only 14 years (1830-1844), Joseph Smith, Jr. went from teaching a Triune God to teaching a plurality of gods, and sarcastically making jokes about this same God he once believed in.

Ok, so I know that this has been really long, but I wanted to show you everything I could, from strictly LDS publications, that Joseph Smith, Jr., did at one point believe in and teach the Triune God of the Bible. What really bothers me as a Christian, from what I have shown you, is that either Joseph Smith, Jr. changed his mind, or God changed his Deity. I say Scripture proves it was Joseph Smith, Jr. My fear is that to make your beliefs work, you have to say that it was God. I again, absolutely sincerely, ask you to research for yourself the information I have just provided for you. I have spent at least another six hours preparing this, again, not just to prove you wrong, but to show you that what you believe to be the truth, is actually misguided. I want you to see the truth through Scripture. I want you to earnestly try and justify the differences between Scripture and the teachings of Joseph Smith. Jr. As always, please feel free to call me at anytime to discuss any of this. I am praying for you!

In the Name of Jesus Christ,


Luke Pierson

Latter Day Saints Investigation: Atlanta

As I mentioned, I have been dialoguing with a very nice young Mormon lady from Atlanta. I have decided to start blogging about our continued conversation, with the hopes of encouraging Christians, and showing Mormons the True God of the Bible. As you have noticed already, I have "borrowed" the CSI: Miami theme to chronicle this dialogue. If you can follow my logic, I will entitle this first "episode," LDSI: atlanta, Episode 1, Chapter 1, Scene 1. In order to hide this young lady's identity, I will simply call her "Josephine." Again, if you have any questions at all, please email me at luke@defendthefaith.org. This is her initial email to me, and my first response. And just for the record, I will not edit any of the conversation, unless there is something vulgar. There will be much more to come................

So you are against Catholics even though you accept the "trinity" which was created by them? This concept did not originate within the Bible....


Josephine,

Just curious, but have you spoken with Jeff Durbin yet? I know he was expecting a phone call from you. Also, I saw some of the comments on your page from some Christians who appeared to be tasteless and hateful. I apologize for them on behalf of other Christians. Rest assured you will not receive that sort of spirit from Apologia Christian Ministries.

One more thing before I respond to your comment, you will notice that I have blocked all comments on my page, not because you, but because it is Apologia policy that we do so. I thought I had done that already, but obviously forgot to. That being said, I found nothing offensive with your comment, but as Jeff has already explained, we will have to communicate either through private messages or phone calls.

Now, in response to your comment, it is true that Christians believe in the same triune Godhead as Catholics, different from the God(s) of Mormonism. However, we disagree with Catholicism in that they teach a system of faith plus works for salvation, much like the LDS Church does. The problem I have with your comment, is that Catholics absolutely did not start the "Trinity" doctrine, and is has in fact absolutely been around since the time of Christ. I would strongly encourage you to look into the history of the church through sources not from the LDS Church. Unfortunately, what you are being told about the doctrine of the "Trinity," is full of half truths and lies. I saw your comment on your page about the Catholic who couldn't fully describe the "Trinity." Frankly it doesn't really matter if he could or couldn't, because he did not come up with the idea. Also, I'm sure you will want to bring up the Council of Nicea, which is fine. I know you are taught that in AD 325, Christians came up with the "Trinity" at the Council of Nicea, when in fact that is not at all the case (again, you should really look into this). The Christians at that council gathered to define what was already being taught about the relationship of God and Jesus, and to destroy a false view of God, being taught by Arius, much like what is being taught by Mormons, that is that Jesus was not God in the flesh, but a created being. If you dig deep enough, you will also find historical proof of many early church fathers teaching on the Triune Godhead. You will even be able to find early Non-Christian historians talking about the early church fathers preaching a Triune God.

I'm sure you will want to tell me that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, which is also fine. The word "Bible" is also not in the Bible, and I could also say the same for many LDS doctrines, but it really doesn't matter to the legitimacy of the Doctrine. Besides, there are plenty of Scriptural references that back up the Triune Godhead (i.e., John 1:1, John 1:14, John 8:24, John 8:58, Colossians 2:9, just to name a few).

You also might find this interesting, because I am sure you are not taught this either, but if you search hard enough you will learn that when Joseph Smith Jr. started the LDS church, he also believed in a Triune God. He only changed his mind later and began teaching something different.

Please take the time to really research the point I have brought up and not just dismiss them as "Anti-Mormon," because that is what you are told to do. I would love to dialogue more about this.

Sincerely,

Luke Pierson