Are Mormons Christian?

Many people have asked if have questioned if Mormons are Christian. Most of the criticism comes from traditional Trinitarians that say Mormons believe in a “different Jesus”. They claim that Jesus is the second person in hypostatic union between man and a homoousios, triune God.

If you didn’t understand that, it’s okay. Most of them don’t either since none of those terms are found in the Bible. But, that is the definition of Jesus that they believe Him to be as found in the Trinity (which we discuss here).

No, Mormons do not believe in that unbiblical definition of Jesus, but does that make them not Christian?

What is a “Christian”?

Just as these Trinitarians have redefined who Jesus is, Christians have also redefined the term “Christian”. Historical records show what the original definition of “Christian” meant.

The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word “Chrism” that we have been called “Christians,” certainly not because of the word “baptism”. And it is because of the chrism that “the Christ” has his name. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us.(Gospel of Philip, Nag Hammadi Library)

The Greek word “chrism” means “to anoint”. It was an “unction” (a physical ordinance) that made them “Christians”. This is further evidenced by Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD) who wrote:

Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians, verifying the name also by your new birth. For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had properly no right to this title, but were advancing on your way towards being Christians. (On the Mysteries 3.5)

Cyril calls being “Christian” a title, one that they advanced toward, one that they had to be “counted worthy” for. It was not a title that they just automatically received by having some “born again” experience and claiming to “follow Jesus”.

Both “Christ” in Greek, as well as “Messiah” in Hebrew, mean “The Anointed One”. Jesus is “the Christ” because He was anointed as such by the Father. (see Acts 10:38) It is His title. He earned His title… with His life.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost

The chrism was also associated with receiving the Holy Ghost. The apostle John wrote both of these scriptures:

But ye have an unction (chrisma) from the Holy One, and ye know all things … But the anointing (chrisma) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing (chrisma) teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:20,27)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

Since we know that it is the Holy Ghost that abides in us, and teaches us all things, John is referring that it is the unction, the physical ordinance, that gives us that gift.

To Mormons it is known as the confirmation. When Mormons are confirmed by the laying on of hands, they actually have more right to the title of “Christian” than modern-day Christians do.

Chrism is also oil

Just to avoid confusion, the word “chrism” has also been used in reference to an oil that was used in ancient times during certain ordinances. The word has become synonymous in the Orthodox religions as they are used for the same purpose.

But, Mormons have that covered, also. In God’s temples, members have to be “counted worthy”, it is something they “progress toward”, and they receive the Initiatory ordinance by washing with water, and an anointing with oil.

So, either way, they still have more right to the title of “Christian” than most modern-day Christians do. The problem is what do we call the usurpers who have stolen the title?

Click Here to subscribe. (You may need to pause your Adblocker).

What is Salvation to a Mormon?

“Have you been saved?” You’ve probably heard that by more than one preacher on the street, on TV, or some other advertisement.

The problem is Mormon’s and Mainstream Christians have different definitions for salvation. While they agree on the need for salvation and how it brings us back into the presence of God, they differ on the substance of what salvation is.

There is nothing we can do ourselves to cross this chasm of sin and death. No amount of righteous works will get us to the other side, these Christians claim, because “our works were made as filthy rags” (see Isaiah 64:6).

Salvation was only made possible by Jesus Christ through the Atonement. He created a “bridge” to God and made it possible to return to Him through grace.

So, to most Christians, salvation is a destination. It is very black and white for them; you are either saved, or you are not. If you are saved you are going to Heaven. If you are not, you are punished in the fiery, burning pits of Hell for eternity. With no reprieve. Ever. That doesn’t sound like a very good God.

But, all we have to do to avoid that is to accept Jesus Christ into our hearts. Right? That claim only creates more problems than it avoids. What about a Muslim baby who dies and goes to Hell because of original sin? What about an Atheist child who dies young and goes to Hell because of her own sins, never having the chance to hear the name of Jesus.

Is God so evil that he would condemn someone just for the crime of being born to the wrong parents?

 

Mormon Salvation

There is a third option. Jesus describes Himself as the way, a path to follow.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

That sounds like a journey, which is exactly the way Mormons view salvation. It is not a destination, but a bridge to travel across.

Mormons ARE saved. They are with Jesus, following his example across His Bridge, doing the works that He asked them to do. They will stay saved as long as they don’t go back, or jump off the bridge (also known as enduring to the end).

  • Protestant Christians will say we are saved by grace without works.
  • Mormons say we are saved by grace and REWARDED for our works.

The Gate

So, how do we get on this Bridge of Salvation? We must enter at the gate.

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The Book of Mormon tells us what this gate is, it is a cleansing of our spirits, a remission of our sins, and it can only be done through Baptism.

For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost. (2 Nephi 31:17)

This is a true remission of our sins, not just a justification of our sins through faith, like other Christians have redefined to fit their theology. The justification that Protestants teach is an avoidance of the punishment for our sins. If that is true, then Orenthal James Simpson was justified in killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown. Simpson avoided his punishment, that is the justification these “Christians” preach.

So, the difference in what Salvation does for us is relevant. When Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, he believed! He had more than just faith, he had knowledge. He also still had sins. After Ananias healed Paul’s blindness he told Paul, “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (see Act 22:16)

When we are baptised, we become clean. Our sins are forgiven.

Baptism not a Requirement

Even then, baptism is not always a requirement. The Book of Mormon says little children have no sin.

the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them (Moroni 8:8)

So, babies and little children of other faiths are NOT going to Hell. The ancient prophet, Mormon, tells us that original sin and infant baptism is wrong. It is only the “sick” that need a “physician”, only once we sin that need to become clean again. That cleansing is done through baptism, immersed in water, performed by someone with the authority to do so.

It is also why Mormons perform baptism by proxy for those who have died. Those who did not have the chance in this life to hear of Jesus’ plan will have that “first chance” to accept it on the other side of the veil.

This amazing doctrine, taught only by Joseph Smith during his day, is more evidence WHY he was a prophet. It’s the only way that makes God good and just

Click Here to subscribe. (You may need to pause your Adblocker).

Click Here to find out why Mormons are Christian.

Why Polygamy?

I lived in Southern Utah for a while and saw first hand the concerns that polygamy causes; including child abuse, male domination and sexism, jealousy, secrecy and avoidance of others, etc. Most people are aware of the Fundamentalist LDS Church that practices polygamy as their leader, Warren Jeffs, has been in the news and is currently serving in prison for child abuse. THOSE are the very reasons why polygamy was taken away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over 100 years ago. God knows the consequences when polygamy is lived unrighteously. He knows that when man is given a good thing it has the potential of being abused. The FLDS Church is the perfect example to show us that.

So, why did He command polygamy in the first place? There’s an exception in the Book of Mormon that allows for polygamy when it is needed.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord… For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;…

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:24,27,30)

God basically says many wives are bad, BUT, to “raise up seed unto me” sometimes it is necessary. And back in the mid 1800’s in the wild west, it was necessary.

Raising up a “Seed”

Growing up in the desolate and arid deserts of Utah and Arizona gives one a different perspective than those who live in more moderate climates. It’s HOT. It’s desolate. It’s rough terrain. It’s a harsh environment. Did I mention it’s HOT?

Back when the Mormons moved out West there was no air conditioning, no cars, no supermarkets, no dishwashers, refrigerators, phones, or any other modern convenience. There wasn’t even a railroad.

The men were out all day working farms and businesses, and the women had to prepare the food, cook the food, clean the house, take care of and watch children, wash clothes, and the many chores of running a household and family. And it took ALL DAY. Then they had to start all over again the next day.

If I were a woman back during those days, I’d be praying to God for help. But, He had already sent help… another woman. By allowing polygamy, “sister wives” freed up women to do more. One wife could teach and watch the children, while another cooked, while another cleaned, while another could even get a job in town. They could help each other, cry on each other’s shoulders, and they could relax once in a while. And, they could have more children and “raise up a seed” unto God.

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: (Psalm 127:3-5)

The only drawback, they had to share a husband.

WE might think it’s strange now, but for them, out in the wilderness, it was a way of life. It was a blessing.

They weren’t as sexed a society as we are today; even though, yes, the sexual aspect was abused. There were problems and there was sin, but that’s the only thing critics focus on. What we don’t hear from them are the success stories, and there were many.

Life Got Easier

Back East they heard the problems polygamy caused. They they didn’t understand what it was like out in the deserts, and the blessing it was to colonize the West. Political advocates sought laws to ban the practice.

But by then, the steam train had come to Salt Lake. They included refrigerator cars that could carry ice and perishable foods. Goods such as heavy stoves, iron tools, plows, and other necessities were flowing and being traded much easier. They built factories and stores.

Life was getting easier on the Pioneers. Because of that, “sister wives” were no longer necessary. It was time for God to take it away.

Sometimes God, in his sovereignty, uses governments and laws as incentive. The government passed laws that Church property would be lost, men would be imprisoned, and families torn apart. President Wilford Woodruff received “modern revelation”  that it was time for polygamy to go (actually he had a vision of what would happen if they continued polygamy) . And so it was discontinued.

Critics today only look at the external pressures “forcing” the Church hand, when it’s the opposite. God had to use those forces to make sure His Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, didn’t end up like the Fundamentalist LDS Church and abusing it for man’s pleasure. Polygamy was never meant for man’s pleasure. That was the great sin with King David and Solomon and why they were condemned.

While polygamy has its roots in raising up a righteous generation to God, He also has kept the woman in mind. By having the comfort, blessing, and help of another female “sister wife” during times of difficulty it let her know that He was there for her.

Blacks and the Priesthood

Racism.

Such a nasty word now-days. WE find it appalling. Our ancestors in much of Europe, Asia Minor, and the Southern States of America found it lucrative, productive, and profitable.

It’s interesting how people in our day judge history by today’s standards. WE, who are more “enlightened”, believe all men must inevitably be brought to justice by our own arrogant criteria, not history’s. Critics of the LDS Church use that arrogant criteria to condemn Joseph Smith and the early leaders the church, but fail miserably when looking at the big picture.

Noahide Laws and Racial History

When the floods receded and Noah came forth from the Ark, God covenanted with him that He would never flood the earth again. He gave Noah seven commands, and a sign with seven colors (the rainbow) to seal His covenant.

One of the seven Noachide Laws was to not engage in incestuous, adulterous or homosexual relationships (also known as gilui arayot).

However, today, the LGBT community has hijacked the symbol of God’s covenant with Noah, taking the rainbow for their own flag in the ultimate act of defiance against God and His commandments.

Ironically, it was Noah’s son Ham who broke that law first. While scholars are divided on exactly what sin it was that Ham committed, there is evidence that Ham had incestual relations with his mother.

The Hebrews often used euphemisms when describing certain “offensive” topics. Moses wrote both of these verses:

And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:11)

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. (Genesis 9:22)

It is very plausible that Moses was likening a Noah’s “nakedness” to the Noah’s “wife”, and “seeing” could refer to Ham having incestual relations with his father’s wife. It is also plausible that a son was born from that incestual act; Canaan. If true, it would explain why Noah cursed Canaan and his seed.

There is a lot of scholarly evidence to support this theory, but whatever happened, the narrative of the Curse of Ham was born as an explanation for black skin. It wasn’t actually Ham that was cursed, but his son Canaan.

This Curse of Ham is not a Mormon invention. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all over the world, and throughout history have used this narrative to persecute Canaanites and enslave blacks.

Racism and the Church

Was the LDS Church and its leaders racist during the 1800’s? The inevitable answer is, yes. But, what right have we to judge them by our standards? EVERYONE was racist back then. Mormons were more racist than some, but a lot less than others.

Remember, the Curse of Ham was taught by all religions. All religions believed it and acted to some degree on it. While those in the Northern States may not have used the Bible to justify slavery, they sure didn’t want to go the to same churches with them. Nobody in the North tolerated a black pastor over them.

Even during the height of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 60’s, there were few, if any, “all White churches” with “Black pastors”. Black pastors and leaders led Black churches (even though a few White members may have attended).

The LDS Church was following that same lead, the difference was there were not that enough Black Mormons to form “all Black churches”.

That was the whole kit-and-caboodle reason for denying the priesthood to Blacks in the Mormon Church. They were welcome to join, they were included in worship services, they sang with them, rejoiced with them, and blessed them. But, they would have found it intolerable to have a black bishop or stake president lead them. This would have destroyed the Church, and God knew that. God knew His people and their attitudes at the time, and it was by his Sovereign and Revelatory Authority to prevent that from happening.

The REASON “Why”

The reason why God held the priesthood back in the Mormon Church for so long comes from the difference in what Salvation means to a Protestant and to a Mormon.

In Protestant Christianity, salvation comes from God through faith. When they believe, the Spirit indwells within them and they are “saved”. Salvation comes from the top down, from God to man, and is called monergism. So, in Protestant Christianity no authority is needed. A pastor goes to school, gets a degree, and receives his “authority” to preach, but that is essentially all. A Black pastor or priest has no real authority over their members.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the authority to perform ordinances on behalf of God is real. When baptised by someone holding the authority to do so, sins are literally washed away. When laying on hands, the Gift of the Holy Ghost is literally given. Bread and water is literally blessed by those holding that authority.

It’s sad by our standards, but White members at the time would not have accepted a Black member having that authority over them. While the 1900’s brought about a change of attitude, it was slow. My own grandmother, born in 1916, was self-admittedly racist. She never would have gone to a church with a black bishop officiating. Racism took a longer time for LDS Members to overcome than any charge from God.

Several of the LDS prophets during the 50’s and 60’s specifically prayed to have the ban removed, but God said it was not time yet. It wasn’t until 1978 when President Kimball finally received “modern revelation” that was confirmed unanimously by all 12 Apostles with him. They knew it was time for the ban to be lifted.

Since that time, Black churches have exploded all over the earth, especially in Africa where it is growing extremely fast. If blacks are joining the church at the rate they are, they must understand something that critics of the LDS Church do not. Blacks are the ones that should feel slighted, but it is mostly the critics that feel slighted on their behalf. What’s wrong with this picture?

Myself, I am good friends and neighbor to one of the sweetest woman I know. She’s LDS, and she’s Black (she’s a democrat, too, but I don’t hold that against her). I hold no racism. My children hold no racism. Bringing up the race card only seeks to divide while Christ seeks to unify. We should be more like him. Fortunately, today, we are.

Is Atheism a Religion?

There are several definitions of the word religion in the dictionary. While most of those definitions pertain to an organized belief system regarding faith in a Supreme Being, some of the definitions also apply to the movement of Atheism.

The word “atheism” comes from Greek:  a- = not / theos = God / -ism = belief. It literally means not believing in God or gods. So, how does Atheism go from a “non-belief” in God into a religion?

What turns a “non-belief” into a “belief system” is the fact that we exist, and in their case Atheists believe that we exist without a Creator.

The Atheistic “belief system” is that we exist through a set of natural processes, or undirected events. They believe it started when life appeared by a transformation of chemicals into life (called abiogenesis) and then progressed through evolution from the first living cell into what we are as homo sapiens today.

Atheism becomes a religion, then, based on that set of beliefs and the level of devotion to that “belief system”. The problem is, it requires faith to believe that we we were created without a creator. It’s also a belief that can be scientifically proven as false (falsified).

The achilles heel of an Atheist’s belief system is understanding abiogenesis and Origin of Life theories. Abiogenesis is another Greek word meaning: a-notbiolifegenesisbeginning, or that “life didn’t begin with life”.

When the earth was first created, there was nothing but chemicals in a world hostile to life. Everything that existed poisoned life instead of creating it. But, Atheists believe that some how, by some miracle, this hostile environment produced life all on its own.

Atheists must believe that this happened by itself, as their belief system doesn’t allow for a “higher intelligence” to create life. But, this is where their belief system becomes unscientific and contradictory.

If the achilles heel of Atheists is abiogenesis, the achilles heel of abiogenesis can be summed up in one compound word:

HALF-LIFE

Half-life is a scientific term that measures the rate of decay of an element, a molecule, or a chemical compound. For example, Carbon-14 dating is used to measure the age of a long dead plant or animal. The process used is the half-life of carbon-14, in which half of the carbon decays in approx. 5,730 years.

Certain conditions, like heat or water, can actually increase the rate of decay of these molecules, causing them to decay faster, or to not form at all.

Here’s what real scientists have to say about the half-lives of the raw chemical materials that are required for abiogenesis to occur.

RNA – Ribosome

Ribosomal RNA(rRNA) persists for several days estimates for rRNA half-life in vitro range from <3 days (human fibroblasts), through 3.8 days (18S rRNA moiety in H1299 cells), to about 7.5 days (cultured rat fibroblasts).  http://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?&id=108025&ver=1

These experiments suggested that rRNA decayed in the anucleated core fibre cells with a half-life of approximately 2.5 days. Similarly, in situ hybridization analysis of polyadenylated transcripts, beta-actin, or GAPDH mRNA indicated that these sequences were not stable in the core fibre cells.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10581721_RNA_stability_in_terminally_differentiating_fibre_cells_of_the_ocular_lens

Nucleobases

High-temperature origin-of-life theories require that the components of the first genetic material are stable. We therefore have measured the half-lives for the decomposition of the nucleobases. They have been found to be short on the geologic time scale. At 100°C, the growth temperatures of the hyperthermophiles, the half-lives are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds.

We show here that the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleobases A, U, G, C, and T at temperatures much above 0°C would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential compounds on the early Earth. A high-temperature origin of life involving these compounds therefore is unlikely. These results are applicable to any origin-of-life theory in which life begins with the evolution of a self-replicating genetic system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

At 100°C the half-lives for the decomposition of the nucleobases are still very short. The half-life for A is 1 yr, G is 0.8 yr, U is 12 yr, and T is 56 yr. C is shortest of all with a half-life of only 19 days. Therefore unless these compounds were used immediately after their synthesis, an origin of life at ≈100°C is also unlikely. http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/7933.full

Ribose

Sugars are known to be unstable in strong acid or base, but there are few data for neutral solutions. Therefore, we have measured the rate of decomposition of ribose between pH 4 and pH 8 from 40 degrees C to 120 degrees C. The ribose half-lives are very short (73 min at pH 7.0 and 100 degrees C and 44 years at pH 7.0 and 0 degrees C). These results suggest that the backbone of the first genetic material could not have contained ribose or other sugars because of their instability. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC41115/

Phospholipid – Membrane

Both lipid and protein components of the plasma membrane are continually removed and replaced. Turnover allows the cell to continuously change out damaged components. This is a highly selective process, since the rate of turnover varies for different proteins and lipids. For instance, the half-life of some phospholipids in membranes is ~10,000 sec; the “off-rate” (half-life) for cholesterol from a lipid bilayer (e.g., the red cell surface) into the cytoplasm is ~7200 sec at 310 K. Protein turnover half-lives may range from several minutes to several years, but the “typical” protein has a turnover half-life of ~200,000 sec, or ~2 days. Protein replacement is carried out by protease enzymes located in the cytoplasm and in lysosomes. Replacement rates also depend upon cell type. For example, the plasma membrane surface of the macrophage has an unusually fast mean turnover time, ~1800 sec, vs. ~5400 sec for fibroblasts.  http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/8.5.3.2.htm

Sterols and phospholipids also were turned over at similar rates. The rather short half-life of these molecules in the plasma membrane is consistent with the findings of Bowers and Olszewski, who estimated that A. castellanii turns over its surface membrane at a rate of 2-10 times per hr. The fact that the half-lives for sterols and phospholipids were so similar suggests that endocytic vesicles may contain representative portions of membrane lipids.
www.pnas.org/content/81/5/1385.full.pdf

ATP – Metabolism

Once outside the cell, ATP has a half-life measured in seconds as a result of a complex array of potent nucleotidases and other hydrolytic activities, which degrade ATP and generate ADP, AMP and adenosine.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863605/

Hydrolysis of ATP is clearly spontaneous in aqueous solution (water), and the reaction occurs relatively rapidly at 25°C. In vitro (in a lab), the half-life of ATP is on the order of days at this temperature  https://books.google.com/books?id=4xExFogxlPEC&lpg=PA127&ots=LpvC2cGe8X&dq=half-life%20atp&pg=PA127#v=snippet&q=half-life%20of%20atp&f=false

Conclusions

These are just a few of the studies performed that provide more than enough evidence that abiogenesis is false. These examples are just the building blocks, like a screw in a space shuttle. Since the required building blocks degrade so quickly, some within just a few hours to a few days, it doesn’t matter how much time, or how many tries, we give it to for something as complex as a cell to form on it’s own. It physically cannot happen.

There are no physical or chemical laws in nature that flow in the direction toward the creation of life. Creating life runs in the opposite direction of the rate laws of half-life. It’s like a rock tumbling uphill. It doesn’t matter how long we give a rock to tumble up a hill, it will never happen because it runs in the opposite direction of gravity.

Even in life our cells and the materials that make up a cell follow the rate laws of half-life. They decay, degrade, and die. The only way that life continues in spite of these laws is because of replacement. Living cells manufacture and create its own replacement parts, and ultimately copies itself, as needed.

Chemicals don’t do that. Therefore, life can literally only come from life. It had to have come from a living, intelligent being. Our Creator.

Scientists that promote origin of life theories without addressing these issues are just being plain dishonest. They are aware of these problems, but they don’t discuss them to keep the public unaware of them. They don’t want to have to answer questions about them, because they have none.

So, the religion of Atheism is a sham. It runs counter to science and is unscientific. It is solely by faith that Atheists even exist, but it is a false religion based on a false set of beliefs.

The real question is not if a Creator exists, but what is He like?

Click Here to find out.

Click Here to subscribe. (You may need to pause your Adblocker).

Is God Evil?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God saw that it was good. (The Bible)

To see the nature of a creator, all we must do is look at what they created. A morally corrupt or evil being cannot, or would not, create anything good. A morally good creator would not create anything evil.

In the beginning, our earth was good. We were created in the image of our Creator on a beautiful and wondrous planet designed for us. From looking at God’s creation, we can infer that He is morally good.

An evil God would likely have created us as intelligent microbes living on the surface of Jupiter torturing us forever. Since we are not on Jupiter, we can infer that God is not morally evil.

We also have to remember that while our Earth was initially created good, it was later corrupted by evil. That is why God can be morally good and there is evil in our world today.

We are Created in his Image and Likeness

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27)

It’s interesting to note how traditional Christians believe in this scripture, but they don’t really believe it. Even though Seth was in the likeness and image of his father Adam, and Adam was in the likeness and image of God (see Genesis 5:1-3). And if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. So God would also be in the likeness and image of Seth. Right?

Well, not in their world, the math doesn’t add up. They don’t believe the words likeness and image mean what they say since, to them, God is a spirit without “body, parts, or passions.” They have redefined the words likeness and image to mean that we have taken on the same “person” traits that God has. That means that we can love since He loves. We can feel sad similar to the way He weeps for his creation. We can feel the same sense of mercy and justice that He has… wait, wut?

Justice equals Fairness

We, as human beings, have an innate sense of good and evil, right and wrong, fair and unfair. We know innately that causing someone pain is bad and causing them pain for unjust reasons is unfair. It’s called a conscience, and while some people can block it out, we all have one.

We also know that it is wrong and unjust to imprison and torture anyone for their entire lives, no matter what their crime. We also know it wrong to imprison someone for a crime their father committed. We just don’t do it.

However, if we know it’s wrong, why doesn’t God know it? In other words, how does a morally good God justify creating an intelligent species that is destined to be tortured and burned in the agonizing suffering of a fiery Hell for eternity? That’s forever and ever. With no reprieve. Ever.

Well, first they try to blame Adam and the Fall in order to dehumanize mankind, punishing us for the crime of our ancestors by claiming we have “original sin” and are unworthy to enter God’s presence. Yet, does that make us “worthy” to be tortured for eternity?

How many babies have been born and died who have never heard the name of Jesus, only to tortured, forever, all because of “original sin”? How many young children are going to burn forever for their own sins, even if it’s only one sin, simply because their parents were Atheist and they died of cancer, never having the chance of hearing of Jesus.

If even one baby or child is imprisoned and tortured in Hell simply for the crime of being born to the wrong parents, we innately know that is NOT fair. That is not a Fair God. If God is not Fair, He is not Just. If He is not Just, He is not morally Good. If He is not a morally Good… He is Evil.

To deny that is to believe that God gave us a different and separate sense of Justice that the one He has. Therefore, we cannot have been created in the image of God.

No amount of rationalizing or interpretations from the Bible can overcome this contradiction.

Christians aren’t the only ones

The problem is, Mainstream Christians aren’t the only one to believe in this unfair, evil God.  Islam’s version of Jahannam is similar to the blazing fire of Hell unless you follow Allah and his prophet Muhammad. All “enemies” of Islam (especially Jews and Christians) are immediately judged and sent there, including their children. Again, not very fair.

In fact, ANY religion that requires exclusive access to their own worldview makes it unfair to those who don’t have the same access. Especially for little ones who die before ever learning that worldview.

And if a worldview or religion is not Fair, it is not Just. If it is not Just, it is not Good. And if it’s not Good, well… That’s the definition of Evil.

Trying to Overcome these Objections

There are many that do find the Christian concept of Hell abhorrent and have changed their belief system about it. Some believe that this life is the end, that there is nothing beyond. But, even this belief has problems that make God evil.

It isn’t fair that people like Adolph Hitler of Germany, Joseph Stalin of Russia, Mao Tze-tung of China, and other evil dictators who caused millions of deaths and an untold amount of suffering, would avoid a punishment for crimes. There must be a judgement for God to be fair.

Another belief is Universalism, that all men will eventually find their way to Heaven and be reconciled to God. They believe that wicked men will be punished by taking longer to get there than say someone like Mother Teresa. But is it ultimately fair that they receive the same reward as someone like Mother Theresa or the Apostles and other martyrs who died for Jesus? Most people would say no. However, it does get us a little closer to the truth.

Ultimately, it still has problems of its own. What about people that just don’t want to go to heaven? Is it fair to force them to go there? It does raise a debate on whether or not we should force people to do what’s good for them, but a morally good God would never use force to unjustifiably send someone where they don’t want to go.

Mormonism has the only solution

The only way to make God truly good and fair is by taking it out of His hands and putting the choice into ours. When it’s our choice, there is no one else to blame but ourselves.

The only real solution is to have a universal salvation with a works based reward system. This is what Mormonism teaches. Mormons believe that everyone will stand before the Judgement Bar of Christ. For it is written, “every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:11-12) Those that will not bow to Him reject His salvation and will end up with Satan and his followers. That way nobody can blame God for going to Hell, they can only blame themselves.

Those that bow to Him still must give an accounting of themselves and be judged. So, it’s still not fair if Hitler accepts Jesus and receives the same reward as Mother Teresa. Why try to live a good life here if we can all receive the same reward? Well, it is true that living a good life here does have some benefits and living a bad one has consequences. But, it can also lead to unfair jealousy that “bad” people get the same reward as “good” ones.

The Bible has an answer for this. Paul taught resurrection of the dead to life comes in different degrees of glory.

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:41-42)

In 1832, Joseph Smith, along with one of his counselors, Sidney Rigdon, saw The Father and His Son, Jesus. They received revelation concerning these and other Bible verses. That revelation is contained in the Doctrine & Covenants section 76.

It’s brilliant how this revelation describes the rewards awaiting those who do good and follow the Gospel, and the punishment of those who cause misery. Each person receives salvation based on their faith in Jesus Christ, AND a reward based on their works they perform in this life. Our treasure in heaven is a resurrected body that will be more glorious the more good works we accomplish.

This is the only way that makes God just, fair, merciful, and keeps Him morally good.

Joseph Smith is the only one that fully understood this. He really was a prophet.

Click here to subscribe. (You may need to pause your Adblocker).

Click here to discover more about Mormon Salvation.

Who is Jesus?

This page is under construction. It will discuss the differences between the Christian and Mormon definitions of God.

We will explore the fundamental concepts of the Trinity, and show how it is ultimately self-contradictory. The Mormon definition of “God” can be explained similar to a plural unit, like “team” or “family”. If “One God” is a singular, plural unit, similar to saying “One Family” it provides the only plausible explanation of the nature of God as found in the Bible.