Biblical Reasons Ministry
by Bob Betts of Concerned Christians - contact
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Based upon examination of the Bible and even of LDS scripture and history, the LDS Church possesses no genuine priesthood authority.
Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church, stated:
While we {Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery} were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us saying: 'Upon you my fellow servants in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministry of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.' He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me. Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me--after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood--for so we were commanded." (LDS Scripture, Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2: Extracts From the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, p. 56:68-71)
I. The angel ("a messenger from heaven") usurped authority, since Mormon
doctrine teaches that men with authority have always been present on the
earth: the Apostle John (LDS scripture, Doctrine and Covenants
(hereafter D&C) ch.
7) and three Nephites (LDS scripture, 3 Nephi 28). Since these four have
authority and have always been on the earth, then the authority has never
been lost from the earth, and a restoration of authority through an angel is
unnecessary, and thus not from God.
II. LDS believe that one who is not baptized by immersion in water is not
truly saved, does not have the remission of sins, and is not in the kingdom
of God (D&C 84:74; Book of Mormon (hereafter BoM) 3 Nephi 11:33-34, 38;
Pearl of Great Price (hereafter PGP) Moses 6:52ff). LDS also
believe that an unbaptized person may not baptize others, nor may the
priesthood be conferred by him, nor upon him. One must have the priesthood
before he can confer it on others, or baptize others.
Therefore, based on the story above, when the angel conferred the Aaronic
priesthood on Joseph and Oliver, he conferred it on two men who had not yet
been water baptized.
Since Joseph and Oliver were not yet baptized, the Aaronic priesthood was
conferred on two men who were unsaved and still in their sins.
It's curious that the angel didn't baptize them first, since in Mormonism,
heavenly beings apparently have the authority to administer baptism (PGP
Moses 6:64). At least, if the angel had the authority to confer the Aaronic
priesthood, surely he had the authority to do water baptisms.
Instead of baptizing Joseph as he should have done, the angel told Joseph
and Oliver to baptize each other. So, Joseph, who had never been baptized,
baptized Oliver, so Oliver's baptism was invalid. Then Oliver baptized
Joseph, but since Oliver's baptism was invalid, so was Joseph's.
Joseph, having been improperly baptized, then conferred the Aaronic
priesthood on Oliver; therefore, Oliver's ordination was invalid. Then
Oliver, having been improperly ordained, conferred the Aaronic priesthood on
Joseph; therefore, Joseph's ordination was invalid.
Going back to the beginning of Joseph's story, the angel conferred the
Aaronic priesthood on Joseph and Oliver before they baptized each other.
Yet, Joseph and Oliver conferred the Aaronic priesthood on each other after
they baptized each other. The assumption is, the Aaronic priesthood first
conferred on them by the angel must have been washed away with their sins
when they were water baptized, or otherwise invalidated, since they redid
their priesthood conferences after baptizing each other.
Since Joseph and Oliver conferred the Aaronic priesthood on each other after
their baptisms, they must have thought that something was faulty about the
priesthood conference by the angel. So, they must not have had the
priesthood before they baptized each other, which is another reason why they
shouldn't have baptized each other.
Since Joseph and Oliver had to re-confer the priesthood on each other after
they were baptized, they must have somehow lost it, and therefore had no
authority to confer it on each other.
Neither Joseph nor Oliver had the Aaronic priesthood after they were
baptized, but the angel did have it. Therefore, the angel should have
conferred it on each of them again after their baptisms.
In other words, both baptisms and the conferences of the Aaronic priesthood
did not follow baptism or priesthood conference protocols, as understood in
Mormonism. What should have happened
in this story is, the angel should
have baptized both of them, THEN conferred the priesthood on them; or, at
least on one of them, so that it could then be passed to the other by the
laying on of hands, as has always been the protocol in Mormonism. Such
violations of protocol invalidate those baptisms and priesthood conferences.
Neither the (alleged) angel, Joseph nor Oliver followed the heavenly order,
as it is understood in Mormonism.
For this reason, ALL subsequent baptisms and priesthood conferences have
been invalid. No Mormon has ever been properly baptized, and no Mormon has
ever held any priesthood, according to the LDS understanding of the heavenly
order, with regard to baptism and priesthood conference protocols. Thus, the
LDS Church has never had any authority.
III. BIBLICALLY SPEAKING, who has the right to hold the Aaronic priesthood?
The Aaronic Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his sons, only - Ex. 28:1,
43, 29:9, 44; Num. 18:1-7; Lev. 6:19-23; Neh. 7:61-65.
The Levites were given to Aaron, by God, as helpers - Num. 3:5-6, 9-10; Heb.
7:5.
Those non-Levites who tried to become priests were punished: Dathan and
Abiram - Num. 16:1-35; King Uzziah - 2 Chrn 26:1-3, 16-21; Jeroboam's
priests - 1 Kings 13:33-34.
Joseph Smith was of English heritage; not a Jew, nor a Levite, nor a son of
Aaron. The Aaronic priesthood was hereditary. The LDS Church defies that Old
Testament
order of God by assuming to hold the Aaronic priesthood.
Physical Qualifications: Lev. 21:16-23
Joseph Smith had a leg operation when he
was 11 years old, in which part of the bone was removed. He was, therefore,
physically disqualified to be a priest.
Biblical Priesthood Ordination Ceremony: Ex. 29; Lev. 8
Washed with water (v. 4)
Dressed in priestly robes (v. 4-5) ordered by God to be made for "glory and
beauty" (Ex. 28:2). From pictures I've seen, LDS garments are plain, white
and unattractive.
Anointed with oil (v. 7)
Laid hands on the head of a bullock (v. 10)
The bullock was killed, its blood poured out at the altar, while the fat and
kidneys were placed on the altar, and the rest was burned outside the camp,
as a sin-offering (v. 11-14)
Laid hands on the head of a ram (v. 15); the ram was killed, its blood was
sprinkled about the altar, and the body was offered as a burnt offering on
the altar (v. 16-18)
Laid hands on the head of another ram (v. 19); this second ram was killed,
and some of the blood was put on the tip of the right ear, right thumb, and
right great toe of Aaron and his sons, while the rest of the blood was
sprinkled upon the altar (v. 20)
Some of the blood on the altar and some of the anointing oil was then
sprinkled on the priests and their garments (v. 21)
Were given parts of the ram and three kinds of bread, and these were waved
as a wave offering, then they were burnt on the altar (v. 22-25)
The breast of the ram was given to the one who ordained them (v. 26)
The shoulder was given to them (v. 27)
They were to eat of the ram and the bread, but no one else was allowed to do
so (v. 30-33)
For the next seven days, one bullock and two rams were offered daily (v.
35-44)
Mormon Priesthood Ordination Ceremony:
They lay hands on the priests being ordained and speak the words that are
specified by the LDS church to confer the priesthood.
Nowhere in the Bible account do we find
hands laid on the priests; hands were laid only on the bullock and rams.
The LDS Church completely disregards the Biblical method of ordaining
Aaronic priests. It often applies Heb 5:4, "...as was Aaron," to refer to
the LDS ceremony by which the men are ordained to the priesthood, but they
don't follow any part of the OT ceremony.
Some LDS have argued that those OT ceremonial ordinances don't apply today.
But, if the Aaronic priesthood exists today, then the method for ordaining
priests into the priesthood applies today, "as was Aaron."
(back to top)
Jesus Christ Did Not Hold The Aaronic Priesthood because He was of the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levy.
Heb. 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest (Christ) to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
13 He (Christ) of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.
14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
This further proves that Joseph Smith could not have held the Aaronic
priesthood, because of heredity matters. Surely, if Jesus Christ could not hold
the Aaronic priesthood, then neither could Joseph Smith.
The Aaronic priesthood
ended on the cross:
Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.'"
8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made).
9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second.
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But when this priest (Christ, the Melchizedek priest) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,
14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
The purpose of the Aaronic priesthood was the blood-letting of bulls and goats for the remission of the people's sins. When Christ became the final blood sacrifice for the remission of sins, the purpose for the existence of the Aaronic priesthood was no longer necessary. It became obsolete.
Heb. 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it,
17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.
Again, once Christ died for our sins, the new will (New Testament) was in effect, making the Aaronic priesthood of no further use or importance.
Therefore, there is no Aaronic priesthood for Mormon men to hold. It has been obsolete since Christ died on the cross. Therefore, it's this author's opinion that there are three possibilities to explain Joseph's story.
-
The "messenger" who appeared to Joseph and Oliver was of the Devil
-
Joseph and Oliver hallucinated
-
Joseph and Oliver fabricated the story
Regardless, no messenger of God would have conferred an obsolete priesthood
on the two men, since Christ's death on the cross made it so. The men of the
LDS Church have no Aaronic priesthood authority, except in their own
hearts and minds.
There is no example of Aaronic priests in the early church,
or anywhere in the New Testament. If the Aaronic priesthood existed in the
New Testament church then it's quite odd there is no mention of it; nor of
anyone holding it.
Rather, the Apostle Peter taught a universal priesthood of all believers:
1 Pet. 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be A HOLY PRIESTHOOD, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,"
8 and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (back to top)
Melchizedek priesthood
Mormons cannot lay claim to the
Melchizedek
priesthood.
This priesthood is mentioned in three places in the Bible: Gen. 14:17ff,
Psalm 110:4, Heb. 4:14-8:4. The only Melchizedek priest in all the OT was
Melchizedek himself. The only Melchizedek priest in all the New Testament is Jesus
Christ. The Bible never mentions a Melchizedek priesthood of many thousands
of priests.
Christ was appointed a high priest after the order of Melchizedek by God
(Heb. 5:5-6, 10), not by an existing Melchizedek priesthood, nor by a
ceremony of the laying on of hands.
According to the Bible, Melchizedek belonged to no priestly succession and
had no priestly parentage. Nor does the record mention his birth or death.
It simply says He "was a priest of the Most High God." So, Melchizedek
resembles the Son of God, who also came from no priestly lineage or
succession, and who lives forever (Gen 14:17; Heb. 7:3, 6, 15-16).
Biblically, the Aaronic priesthood was inadequate to bring salvation to men,
so it was necessary to change the priesthood, and "another priest (singular,
not priesthood) to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one
named after the order of Aaron." Christ was not of the Levitical tribe from
which the Aaronic priests came, but of the tribe of Judah, which was not a
priestly lineage (Heb. 7:11-14). This passage makes it clear that Christ is
the ONLY priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Aaronic high priests had successors, because they died. Christ has no
successor as a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek because He lives
forever (Heb. 7:23-25). Heb. 7:3 points out the similar nature of Christ and
Melchizedek. Heb. 7:15 says that Christ arose in the "similitude" (KJV) or
"likeness" (RSV) of Melchizedek.
The "high priests" in the Bible refer to the chief priests of the Aaronic
priesthood, named for Aaron who was the first high priest (Heb. 5:1-4), and
not to members of a Melchizedek priesthood.
Every high priest must have a sacrifice to offer at the altar (Heb. 8:3).
Jesus Christ offered His blood and life on the cross. What sacrifices do the
LDS high priests offer?
Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices (Heb. 5:1). Yet,
when there is remission of sins, there is no more sacrifice (Heb. 10:17-18).
Christ made the sacrifice which took away sins (Heb. 10:12). Therefore,
there are no high priests on earth today. There have not been high priests
present since Christ died on the cross as the final, once-for-all, and for
all time sacrifice.
There is a lack of evidence to show that there was any restoration of the
high priesthood in 1829.
The first printed compilation of alleged
revelations received by JS was published in 1833 as the
Book of Commandments (BOC). It
contained 65 revelations. In 1835, the second edition of these revelations
was printed as the Doctrine of Covenants
(D&C), with additional revelations included. The revelations of the
BOC are included in the first 72 sections of the 1835 edition of D&C, and in
the first 64 sections of the modern editions, though later revelations are
interspersed.
The organization of the LDS church, with its various offices, is given in
BOC 24:31-32, the 1835 D&C 2:8 and the modern D&C 20:38, in a revelation
dated April 1830. The organization consisted of apostles, elders, priests,
teachers, deacons, and members. HOWEVER, as originally given in the BOC, the
revelation did NOT include the offices of "the president of the high
priesthood, (or presiding elder,) bishop, high counselor, and high priest,"
and "high counsel," which were snuck into that revelation in the 1835 (D&C
2:17) and the modern (D&C 20:67) editions.
The references to the restorations of the two priesthoods,
found in the 1835 D&C 50:2-3 and the
modern D&C 27:5-18 editions, did not appear at all in BOC 28. More than 400
words were added to those 1835 D&C 50:2-3 and the modern D&C 27:5-18
editions, that were not in BOC 28. Do you understand the implications of
this? A revelation was drastically changed after the 1833 BOC edition, to
make it appear that the restoration of the priesthoods were known about in
"the Church" in August of 1830, thus deceiving modern readers.
The fact is, none of the following offices were mentioned anywhere in the
1833 BOC: high priests, high priesthood, high council, high councilors,
seventies, Melchizedek priesthood, patriarch, president, or first
presidency. In addition, Melchizedek's name isn't mentioned. Peter, James
and John are not mentioned in the same connection in the BOC. All these
things are fabrications added later to make them appear to have been part of
the original collection of revelations.
The word for this is FRAUD.
In his booklet, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 49, David Whitmer, one of the three BoM witnesses wrote:
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are today in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon.
David Whitmer further wrote:
The next grievous error which crept into the church was in ordaining high priests in June, 1831. This error was introduced at the instigation of Sidney Rigdon. The office of high priests was never spoken of, and never thought of being established in the church until Rigdon came in. Remember that we had been preaching from August, 1829, until June, 1831 - almost two years - and had baptized about 2,000 members into the Church of Christ, and had not one high priest. During 1829, several times we were told by Brother Joseph that an elder was the highest office in the church...In Kirtland, Ohio, in 1831, Rigdon would expound the Old Testament scriptures of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (in his way) to Joseph, concerning the priesthood, high priests, etc., and would persuade Brother Joseph to inquire of the lord about this doctrine and that doctrine, and of course a revelation would always come just as they desired it. Rigdon finally persuaded Brother Joseph to believe the high priests which had such great power in ancient times, should be in the Church of Christ to-day. He had Brother Joseph inquire of the Lord about it, and they received an answer according to their erring desires. (ibid., p. 35. See also pp. 64-65)
Joseph Smith wrote a detailed journal history, giving many details of daily occurrences. However, there is no mention of the account of the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood. Of which, LDS apostle and historian, B.H. Roberts wrote:
...there is no definite account of the event in the history of the prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals. (History of the Church, 1:40 footnote)
In Problems in Mormon Text, p. 8, LaMar Peterson wrote:
There seems to be no support for the historicity of the Restoration of the Priesthood in journals, diaries, letters nor printed matter prior to October, 1834.
References to the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood were published
after this date, even though earlier dates were assigned to them, or they
were made to appear to be a part of earlier writings.
Slip-ups are bound to happen when someone tries to change history. JS
committed one in History of the Church,
1:175-176, in reference to a conference at Kirtland, OH, June 3-6, 1831:
The authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifest and conferred for the first time upon several elders.
This contradicts the revelation found in the 1835 D&C 3:3 and modern D&C
107:7 editions, dated March 1835 (therefore not in the BOC) which say, "The
office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek." However, the
History of the Church quote by JS
agrees with Whitmer, who said they had ordained elders as early as August
1829, but says that high priests were not introduced until June 1831 (An
Address to All Believers in Christ, pp. 32, 35).
On the basis of the
historical evidence given above, it is reasonable and logical to conclude
that there was no restoration of the Melchizedek or high priesthood in 1829,
and there was no such priesthood in the LDS church until June 1831.
(back to top)
I
previously established in this article that Joseph Smith was disqualified
from holding the Aaronic priesthood because he was not of the seed of Aaron,
nor of the tribe of Levy.
The premise of this article is to show that Joseph Smith, who is believed by
the LDS Church to be of the tribe Ephraim, is disqualified from holding the
priesthood because he was of the tribe of Ephraim.
The following three quotes demonstrate the LDS belief that Joseph Smith was
of the tribe of Ephraim:
The Book of Mormon states that Joseph Smith the Prophet was a descendant of Joseph, son of Jacob. By revelation we learn also that he is of the tribe of Ephraim, but it is evident that he also had some Gentile blood in him, for it is written in the Book of Mormon, that it came forth, "by way of the Gentile," (I Nephi 13:35, 39.) and it came by Joseph Smith. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 3: 63.)
JOSEPH SMITH WAS A DESCENDANT OF EPHRAIM:
Ezekiel 37:9 reads as follows:Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and they shall be one in mine hand.
Now if you will carefully analyze this verse, you will discover that it positively states that this "stick" which is the "stick of Joseph," thus covering both tribes, is "in the hand of Ephraim." The record, after its presentation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, was placed in the hand of Ephraim, for Joseph Smith was of Ephraim. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 3: 198.)
The Book of Mormon came to Ephraim, for Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite, and the Book of Mormon was revealed to him, and while he lived he made it his business to search for those who believed the Gospel. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2:269)
The following LDS scripture establishes the Egyptians as being of the seed of Cain:
Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:20 Behold, Potiphar’s Hill was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea. And the Lord broke down the altar of Elkenah, and of the gods of the land, and utterly destroyed them, and smote the priest that he died; and there was great mourning in Chaldea, and also in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood. 21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. 22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; 24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. 25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
Conclusion:
In
Genesis 41:45, the Pharaoh gave Joseph an Egyptian wife who bore him
two sons: Manasseh (v. 51) and Ephraim
(v. 52).
Remember that the tribe of Ehraim is the tribe that Joseph Smith was
allegedly descended from.
But
that's precisely the problem.
Ephraim, being born of an Egyptian mother, of the cursed seed of Cain,
according to the PGP
above, was also of that cursed seed of Cain who could not hold the
priesthood. Since Joseph Smith was of the tribe of Ephraim (“a pure
Ephraimite”), he was disqualified from holding the priesthood.
(back to top)
Bob Betts
Jesus Saves
Mormon Testimonies Turned to Christ
Updated 5.08
Why Mormonism?
Mormon Temples
Secret or Sacred?
What Happens In There?
The Mormon Miracle Pageant
That’s my King! (S M Lockridge) – free video
"Jesus' blood on the altar was the ultimate payment. He made us worthy permanently. When Jesus died on the cross the veil covering the Holy of Holies tore in half. The mercy seat lay exposed to mankind. There is no veil, anymore, between God and man. Jesus ripped it down. But Mormonism has hung up a new one." -Kathleen Baldwin
"When I was LDS (not that long
ago) I saw a lot of things that made me question my membership in the LDS
church, but I sure wouldn't admit it for a long time (not even to myself). I
just knew there had to be good explanations for all of those silly criticisms,
if I just looked in the right place...or prayed about it long enough. I was
wrong." - Former Mormon, Marsha Bette
More...
Editor's note:
If the quote above describes you, please know that God loves you and has a
wonderful plan for your life. Visit Testimonies Turned to Christ at
the top of this section to understand that you're not alone in your feelings.