text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80998137642337667722015-11-06T00:17:24.028-05:00The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism
Searchable blog archive of past S.P.A.M. articles
G. email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-3721658387075043902015-10-27T09:44:00.001-04:002015-10-27T09:45:45.922-04:00What does Dr. Ben Carson's campaign will show us about anti-Mormonism?

The presidential campaign of Dr. Ben Carson, a Seventh-Day Adventist, provides and interesting opportunity to compare and contrast how two religions with superficially similar histories are treated in the press and by political commentators.

It has been a long time since I wrote a S.P.A.M. post. Amateur Mormon defenders like me eventually run out of gas over time because anti-Mormonism is incessant--and it's stupid. It's like defending against racism. Racists won't admit they're racist, and even if you can shame them into admitting it, it still doesn't change their feelings. No reasonable argument will shame them out of it.

Eventually, you burn out because, after writing hundreds of articles to answer every anti-Mormon attack ever conceived, you get idiots who write comments like, "Yeah, but you believe in a different Jesus" or "You think you have to work your way to heaven." They are obviously too stupid to use a search window on a blog or to Google keywords that might reveal articles that explain our doctrine fairly and truthfully. There is no end to the idiocy and life just eventually calls you on to other things.

Real Mormon apologists--the university professors and the like--stay in their academic ivory towers and write nice papers with footnotes that the idiots will never read. And even if they did read the articles, their critics will find one phrase or sentence to take out of context and bend it to their purposes. The academic approach to Mormon apologetics ignores the one central truth of anti-Mormonism: it's always personal.

If the anti-Mormons were simply concerned about orthodoxy or conformance to a historical Christian template of some kind, we'd eventually find acceptance. Civil conversation could occur. Instead, anti-Mormons always have a personal reason behind their choice to fight against Mormonism. Some of them are former members who apostatized and can't leave the Church alone. They try to stir up enmity among the ignorant and gullible. Some are sectarians who regard Mormonism's growth as a threat to the continued existence of their flavor of Christianity. Some are atheists who fight against any belief in God, and more particularly, find the belief in a living God who speaks today to be a frightening possibility.

When Mitt Romney was running for President, Mormonism was in the news every day. There was the Book of Mormon musical. There were daily articles about polygamy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, doing baptisms for the dead for Jews, Mormon underwear on TV. It was the central issue of Mitt's critics. The head of the Southern Baptist Convention admitted that Mitt's Mormonism was more troubling than Newt Gingrich's adultery. That was a really revealing comment. The prejudice against Mormons was that strong.

As a disclaimer, I'm not a partisan. I'm critical of both politcal parties in the U.S. I was not particularly a Romney supporter in the last election. I was proud that a Mormon was running for President, but even then, I thought that Romney ran away from his religion instead of embracing it. If anything, he wasn't Mormon enough for me. When the spotlight was on him, he downplayed his religion almost to the point of denying it. In one interview, he emphatically stated that God hadn't spoken to anyone since Moses. Excuse me! Any Mormon missionary worth his salt can show you about 20 examples of God speaking to someone in the Bible since Moses, not to mention Joseph Smith in the 19th century!

During the last two presidential elections, Romney's religion was the central focus of his critics, particularly on the evangelical Right. They tried to hide it, calling Romney a "flip-flopper" on various positions in which he became more (not less) conservative. From as early as a year out from the 2008 election, the media was already beating the anti-Mormon drum. The "Mormon Moment," as it came to be known, was driven by anti-Mormon obsession ingrained in the entire culture.

Now there is a new presidential candidate rising in popularity. Dr. Ben Carson is beginning to pull even in polling with celebrity businessman Donald Trump. Trump was the first one to bring it up in a direct way. Trump is a sort-of non-committal, lackadaisical, generic, white-bread Presbyterian. Religion really isn't a big thing with him. Few people are aware that Ben Carson is a Seventh-Day Adventist and even fewer would know what that even means.

There are a lot of seeming similarities between Mormons and Adventists. Both sects arose in the 19th century. Both are millenialist movements of a sort. Both were founded by individuals claiming to be modern prophets. Both have a code of health. Neither denomination affirms a belief in the orthodox Trinity. Neither believes in an orthodox "heaven or hell" doctrine common to historical Christian sects. Both denominations teach that there was a Christian apostasy.

Although these similarities exist, there are profound differences in how Mormons and Adventists approach scripture, revelation, the Godhead, the afterlife, and the purpose of life. Nevertheless, from a purely "outsider" view of the two faiths, it would be easy to lump Mormons and Adventists in the same group. You'd think that they'd be treated similarly by press pundits, secularist cynics, and Christian critics.

So why is it that Mormons are the targets of literally thousands of hateful anti-Mormon web sites, sectarian clergymen, college professors, political commentators, media and cultural icons and Seventh-Day Adventists are not? Politically, we are not dissimilar. Both denominations tend toward conservatism. Why isn't there a Broadway musical parody about SDA beliefs? Why isn't SDA founder Ellen G. White portrayed like Joseph Smith was--as the villainous "Joker" from Batman?

Certainly Seventh-Day Adventists have some "extreme" beliefs. Pacifism. Vegetarianism. No coffee or alcohol. The Papacy is the biblical anti-Christ. They say the rest of the Christian world is in error for worshiping on Sundays. Why are these beliefs not the subject of hateful discussions of web sites like Free Republic? I'm surprised that the media hasn't tried to link Ben Carson to David Koresh and the Branch Davidians whose "compound" was burned to the ground by federal troops during the Clinton's regime. The Branch Davidians were Adventists.

My intent here is not to stoke enmity against Adventists. What I'm doing is making a comparison about how Mormons are portrayed in the media and in popular culture compared to a very similar denomination. You'd have to be blind or ignorant not to see the disparity.

I wrote an article a long time ago about the Icarians. The Icarians were a French religious movement that came to the USA in the 19th century. They were similar to Mormons in a number of superficial ways, like the Adventists. They believed in having communal property. They dressed similarly, preached against smoking, and lived orderly, virtuous lives. Nobody attacked them. Nobody demanded they be driven from the state with "powder and ball" like the Mormons. Their founder, Etienne Cabet, was not tarred and feathered or murdered by a mob, like Joseph Smith.

As a matter of fact, the Icarians setttled in the very place--Nauvoo, Illinois--from which the Mormons were driven by hateful mobs. Although the Icarians didn't fit in with the local culture any more than the Mormons, they were praised for their industriousness. No one burned their homes, killed their cattle, or destroyed their crops.

I have to ask, why is it that one non-conformist religious sect finds tolerance and acceptance in the general society and another does not? Why is it that Mormonism is continually targeted and singled out for mistreatment by our fellow Christians and the media?

I can only speculate that it is because Satan has hold of the hearts of the wicked. Satan knows who has the keys of the kingdom on this earth. He knows to whom God has given power and authority. He knows where the true kingdom of God is on the earth. That kingdom and power is the greatest threat to Satan's dominion. That's why he stirs up the hearts of the ungodly against it.

In a football game, everybody wants to tackle the guy who actually has the football. Nobody is concerned if a wandering lineman or tackle strays across the goal line--unless he has the ball and is going to score. The possibility that a Mormon might inhabit the White House was too much good press for the Lord's Church.

It will be revealing to see how the media will treat Ben Carson's faith if he gets the nomination. He will get some criticism because he's conservative and the media is overwhelmingly liberal, but will there be an "Adventist Moment?" Probably not? Will the haters on Free Republic, Christian Press, Red State, or other web sites go into paroxysms over Carson's faith? Probably not.

Mormons have the football. We're running to the goal. Satan doesn't care if an Adventist becomes President. It doesn't affect his game plan whatsoever. It's a non-issue. A Mormon? That's entirely different! That's what Ben Carson's campaign will ultimately show us about anti-Mormonism.

G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-50031302831021792702014-12-23T00:03:00.001-05:002014-12-23T00:04:24.877-05:00BYU brawl brings out the anti-MormonsBYU's football team got into a brawl after the final play of the Miami Beach Bowl today. It was a shameful display of unsportsmanlike conduct, admittedly. I'm sure we'll see players or perhaps the whole team suspended. Of course, this might be the last game of the season. I don't keep track of football very much. (When I do, I cheer for the Sooners.)

What got me to pull up the blog on my laptop and write this post was the string of anti-Mormon comments in the article about the game. The very first one was an anti-Mormon swipe:

Looks like Elohim didn't do a very good job now did he?
Another chimed in later in the commments:

Aren't they godly little priesthood holding returned missionary saints? Isn't this how you want YOUR little boys to behave – as long as they do so sober and whilst wearing garments and perhaps with girlfriends that eschew tank tops? LOL hypocrites.
An apparently LDS reader questioned if the commentator was a bitter ex-Mormon. The following was the reply:

I love how people always use the world "bitter" when talking about ex-mormons. Get over yourself, your church is a blatant fraud. Joseph Smith was a 19th century con-man/pedophile, and a bad one at that. Mormons act like they are the smartest people they know, when in reality they buy into fictional scriptures and throw away 10% of their income to perform silly handshakes. Ex-mormons aren't bitter, we're mocking you because we're smarter than you. Go back to reading about how the Americas were settled by Jews (which has no DNA backing, interestingly…). Haha
This was the conversations that followed the FOOTBALL GAME! Is it really the case that anti-Mormons become obsessed just because BYU is playing? Are they sitting their ruminating every time they make a touchdown, the venom and bile boiling just below the surface, waiting for a chance to spill out? Incredible.

Anti-Mormons are just full of hate. That's all there is to it! The fight was unfortunate. We expect more of the players at the Church's university. Just watch the news over the next week or so. Some kind of disciplinary actions will be taken. But nothing will quench the hatred and blood lust of anti-Mormons. G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-51155495633182464772014-12-11T21:20:00.001-05:002014-12-11T21:20:56.762-05:00Someone stole our name!The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism blog has been retired for some time now. If something really significant happens in the world of anti-Mormonism, but for the most part, we're focused on more positive things--like building up Zion.

We get a few visitors here and there and we keep the archive up just for that reason. However, we let our domain names expire and we don't actively engage the bad guys anymore. After four years and almost 400 articles on our old social network, we've done our part.

However, it was a little concerning to wake up this morning and learn that someone else has decided to commandeer the "spamlds" moniker for her blog. We received an email from Google this morning saying that a new verified owner of the name had been verified. If so, it was verified without our authorization. It appears that we still have co-ownership through another account, but the new owner has blocked all access. Strange.

We hold our breath and wait to see what firstname.lastname@example.com will do with our name. Will she be a well-meaning LDS defender who decided to pick up where we left off? If so, it would have been polite to send an e-mail before taking over the name, especially since we are still shown as an owner. It may be that some vindictive anti-Mormon has taken over the name with the intent to attack the Churh and cause embarassment. If so, it's only slightly surprising. In our years of dealing with anti-Mormons, there are no limits to the depravity they are capable of displaying in their hatred of Mormonism.

Let this serve as official notice that, as of 11 December 2014, Greg West, his associates, and the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism are no longer responsible for content published on spamlds.blogspot.com. The new "owner" has no connection to the original S.P.A.M. site and is not connected at all with spamldsarchive.blogspot.com.G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-9381909184412549772014-10-19T12:32:00.001-04:002014-10-19T12:37:23.995-04:00Time to focus on Jesus Christ

It is time for reconciliation. It is time to set aside petty doctrinal bickering. It is time for people of goodwill, whether they believe in God or not, to come together. It is time for them to realize that anti-Mormons are trying to do harm, not good. When everyone recognizes this, we can move past the quarrelling and strife.

For several years, during a peak of anti-Mormon activity that seemed to correspond with what the media called the "Mormon Moment," S.P.A.M. served as a source of good information about the Church and its detractors. As the Church expanded its online offerings, which were of much higher quality than ours, our usefulness declined. We retired from actively seeking out and countering anti-Mormon attacks. This archive of blog posts remains as a record and we continue to get a few dozen visits a day from people who are seeking answers.

I say the time for reconciliation is here because the entire world around us has changed. Judeo-Christian values are no longer the dominant force in society. Secularism and worldliness have replaced these values. Across the world, a generation has grown up not believing in anything.

This has come about for many reasons. Some were raised in "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" Christian homes. Their parents married and divorced, remarried, and divorced again. Parents were unfaithful to covenants of chastity, fidelity, and virtue. They had church-going parents who drank, used drugs, and watched pornography on premium cable channels. Their mothers had children sired by multiple baby-daddies, none of whom cared to become a real father. These parents took to heart the message that they were "saved by grace" and that nothing they did had an impact. They believe God will save them in their sins, not from them.

There were parents who sacrificed to send their kids to college so they might have a better life than they had enjoyed. The college professors imbued their students with secular knowledge and intentionally undermined faith. All educated people, they said, believe in evolution. All morality is relative, they taught. Religion is an outdated notion that denies people freedom of thought and encourages discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgendered, and other people who deny the moral teachings that came down to mankind from Mount Sinai. Thus we have college-educated people who can't find that the key to happiness and the solutions to life's problems is obedience to God's commandments.

Now it is the case that the unbelieving and the ungodly hold the upper hand on earth. In America, they have gutted the nation. Greedy bankers continue to accumulate wealth and grind the nose of the poor. Politicians seek power and ignore the growing cancer in the society around them. Judges ignore cries for justice. "Justice" has been replaced by demands for revenge by those who ignore true justice as contained in God's law. Entire communities tolerate murder, crime, and violence daily, but then riot when the authorities seek to take the guilty out of their midst. Their highest value is not "snitching" rather than bravely confronting and prosecuting the offenders.

The immoral majority has taken the reins of the government and is beginning to use the power of the state to silence godly dissent. The city of Houston recently subpoenaed the sermons and minutes of meetings that discuss homosexuality in a negative way. Although public outcry against this violation of the separation of Church and State made the government back off, it is only a matter of time before they feel emboldened to try it again.

When that time comes, do you think the enemies of godliness will make a distinction between Baptists and Mormons, both of whom claim to believe in Christ? Will the protest of the evangelicals that "Mormons aren't Christians" spare Mormons from facing persecution at the hands of the godless? Not at all. As Benjamin Franklin said, we will either hang separately or hang together.

For this reason, all the arguments that Mormons aren't Christian or that we believe in a different Jesus are completely bogus. The other side doesn't care. The spirit of antichrist in the world doesn't care. It simply wants to stamp out anything that professes belief in Christ.

I am not "prophesying" when I say this, but I am echoing and summarizing that which true prophets have said. These events are at our doorstep. The time is here in which Christians will be marginalized. Our ability to exercise religious speech will be curtailed. Legal actions will be initiated by the government to suppress Christian speech in the public arena. The free exercise of religion will be reduced to "freedom of worship." In other words, you can pick whatever church you want, but your religious rights only exist within that sanctuary.

Gay marriage is going to bring down legal "fire and brimstone" on Christians and our churches. They will seize your property and regulate your businesses out of profitability. Your children won't be able to say "God bless you" in a school when someone sneezes without facing disciplinary action.

Churches will be sued and taxed into "compliance." You will be painted as an extremist, as a danger to other people. Any religious opinion will be dismissed as invalid.

God's hand of blessing will be removed and instead the hand of cursings will be upon us. The wickedness of our society will pile up like snow in an avalanche. There are plagues coming--literal plagues. There are wars coming that will touch American soil. Foreign troops will occupy our cities. Rapine, blood, and destruction will follow them.

Likewise, race wars are also coming. Cities will be left in waste at the hands of their own citizens. The love of men is waxing cold even now. People will have to flee in search of safe havens and refuges.

Natural disasters will multiply to the likes of which we have never seen, but most of the destruction will come about because the wickedness of looters and opportunists.

Hunger and starvation are coming to America and to the world. Only those who will have the Holy Spirit to be their guide will endure and survive to accomplish God's purposes. Many faithful people will be called home.

There is no longer time to have debates about whether Mormons are Christians or not. It will not matter when Mormons and Christians stand side by side with their necks in the noose, waiting for someone to pull the lever. We must either stand together for Christ now or we will die together for Christ.

If you have allowed yourself to be deceived by anti-Mormons, it's time to turn away from them and let them perish in the darkness that is of their own making. They are on the wrong side. They are not interested in truth. They are of the side of Judas, Caiphas, and Pilate. It is time to drop the arguing over tenets and to proclaim the word of Christ: "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Focus on Christ. Do what he would do. Follow him.

We need to tell the world--together--that faith in Christ is the way and that keeping his commandments is how we show our faith in him.

We can do this. Together. Now.

G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-70569941939978539032014-10-18T21:24:00.001-04:002014-10-18T21:24:55.382-04:00Church surprises critics with openness about "magic underwear"Critics and adversaries have often mocked and ridiculed Church members over our beliefs, particularly over temple clothing and the sacredness with which we consider it.

S.P.A.M. treated the subject with this article several years ago. It has been one of the top articles on the blog for all that time.

"Magic Underwear" or Distinctive Religious Symbols?
So it is with great satisfaction that we discovered the Church's new video on the topic. If there has been a hallmark of President Monson's presidency it is the increasing openness and transparency with which the Church has addressed its critics. This video is a marvelous treatment of the topic that explains reverently our beliefs regarding the temple clothing and actually displays it in a proper, dignified manner, unlike our anti-Mormon critics.

G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-86663099080999491272014-10-18T21:12:00.001-04:002014-10-18T21:14:31.317-04:00Phoenix Temple Open House

If you search the S.P.A.M. archives, you'll find that the Phoenix Temple was the topic that dominated the anti-Mormon world for about a year in 2009-2010. The announcement of the temple was met with fierce opposition and protests both in Phoenix and in Salt Lake City. Protests included an 80-foot tall inflatable gorilla and balloons flying at the 120 height of the proposed spire. The Church considered the protesters' complaints and redesigned the temple, making it a single story and lowering the height of the spire.

S.P.A.M. documented how it's the pattern for anti-Mormons to use zoning boards to try to block temple construction. Their complaints usually claim that the temple will increase neighborhood traffic and noise, that there will be inadequate parking, that the lighting will be disruptive, and that it will change the residential nature of a neighborhood. We showed that, if the Church announced that the temple would be build completely underground, with no visible signs on the property, they would still find something to complain about.

Here are some links to the original articles of the time. Some of these may not be active after four or five years.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/People-continue-opposition-against-construction-of-LDS-temple-80447187.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705330723/Phoenix-neighbors-voice-opposition-to-LDS-temple.html

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/01/08/20100108-mormon-temple-opposition.html

http://www.azcentral.com/community/northvalley/articles/2011/03/04/20110304phoenix-mormon-temple-parking-ruled-sufficient.html

http://www.azcentral.com/community/northvalley/articles/2011/05/06/20110506phoenix-mormon-temple-protest.html

http://www.azcentral.com/community/northvalley/articles/2011/06/08/20110608mormon-temple-north-phoenix-neighbors-reach-agreement.html

Anyhow, after all the anti-Mormon hoopla, the temple stands, beautiful and completed. It is now open for open house to the residents and community. My son visited and said that there was still one lone protester out on the street, shouting at the visitors.

Anti-Mormons will never quit--even if they will never win.

Source: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/phoenix-arizona-temple-opens-for-public-toursG. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-4774282246605676202014-09-25T22:51:00.000-04:002014-09-25T23:21:46.152-04:00Is Google anti-Mormon?Political conservatives gripe continually that Google search results are biased. They claim that searches reflect the liberal bias of Google's creators. Google says their search results are just the work of algorithms that are based on statistics. Nevertheless, Google's leadership does lean to the left as do many of their young employees.

Likewise, a curious thing happens when you do a Google search on Mormonism. The overall results are almost overwhelmingly anti-Mormon. If it's just statistical, there's an incredible amount of anti-Mormon web sites out there. What is especially weird is the consistency of anti-Mormon sites in the number one slot.

If you have a Mormon-themed site that use Google AdWords, an advertisement placement program that monetizes a site, it will frequently display anti-Mormon ads from various anti-Mormon ministries. On the original S.P.A.M. site, we used a free social network service that embedded ads on our social network. It was Google-based and, as it scanned your site's content, it found extensive use of the word "Mormon" and it would tailor ads to that subject, and it would load up anti-Mormon info.

When ads from the Church are in the mix, those are usually sponsored ads that the Church pays for. Paid ads are prominent on the search page because Google makes money from them. Often, if it wasn't for the Church's paid ads, you'd see very little favorable information about Mormonism.

Recently, the Deseret News ran a story where Google displayed anti-Mormon information about the Church to the query "What is Mormonism?" The source of the definition was supplied by RaptureReady.com, which is an evangelical Christian website that promotes anti-Mormonism. The Deseret News article said that social media users discovered the definition and contacted Google to complain.

Complaining to Google is pretty fruitless. The inspired guidance given to Joseph Smith regarding anti-Mormons who publish lies about the Church is contained in Doctrine and Covenants Section 123. Section 123 suggests:

...gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them by the people of this State [Missouri at that time];
2 And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property;
3 And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out.4 And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat;
5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom...
One of the things that S.P.A.M. has done is to expose who are the anti-Mormons who operate in the dark on the Internet and expose them to the light of scrutiny. The Internet requires web site owners to register their web sites and domains with Internic and other regulatory organizations. That information is publicly available. Thus, using these common tools like "WHOIS," we can often identify those who lie against the truth and fight against God.

The Google definition that was put at the top of the list was placed there by a man named Todd Strandberg, the proprietor of Rapture Ready bookstore in Benton, Arizona. He has a web site for the bookstore. The WHOIS information for his web domain gives his public contact information. It is shown below:

Domain Name: RAPTUREREADY.COM
Registry Domain ID:
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Registrar URL: http://networksolutions.com
Updated Date: 2012-09-05T00:00:00Z
Creation Date: 1999-03-16T00:00:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2022-03-16T00:00:00Z
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Registrar IANA ID: 2
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8003337680
Reseller:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: STRANDBERG, TODD
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 1103 Watson Pl
Registrant City: Benton
Registrant State/Province: AR
Registrant Postal Code: 72015
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.5016806733
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: STRANDBERG, TODD
Admin Organization: null
Admin Street: 1103 Watson Pl
Admin City: Benton
Admin State/Province: AR
Admin Postal Code: 72015
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.5016806733
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: email@example.com
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: STRANDBERG, TODD
Tech Organization: null
Tech Street: 1103 Watson Pl
Tech City: Benton
Tech State/Province: AR
Tech Postal Code: 72015
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.5016806733
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Name Server: NS1.RAPTUREREADY.COM
Name Server: NS2.RAPTUREREADY.COM
DNSSEC: not signed
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:27:47 UTC

I don't post this information with the intent that anyone should harass Mr. Strandberg. I only do it so that his name will be indexed with Google's records and linked to the term "anti-Mormon." Section 123 doesn't urge us to boycott businesses, to threaten the livelihoods of individuals, or to use compulsion, or coercion in any fashion. We should not send nasty e-mails or try to get his Internet service provider to take down his site. Freedom of expression requires us to respect Mr. Strandberg's rights to say what he wants, no matter how execrable or untrue it may be.

The Lord simply inspired Joseph to make note of the facts and the individuals connected with circulating false information. Section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants tells us that, what is written on earth is also written in heaven. Mr. Strandberg's efforts to harm Mormonism will fail and, at the last judgment--unless he repents, he will stand before Jesus Christ and have to explain and justify why he chose to fight against the Lord's saints and seek to harm Christ's own Church. What is written here will bear witness of his deeds. Hopefully, he will choose to repent.

It does seem that Google is anti-Mormon at times, but it is more probable that the vast amount of anti-Mormon activity on the Internet is reflected in Google's searches. It's one of the signs of the times. For decades, we latter-day saints felt like we were gaining acceptance. However, as Zion rises out of obscurity, the Gentiles are beholding it as "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners" (Song of Solomon 6:10). Our growth and visibility frightens them. Satan knows his time is short and he exercises influence over those who heed his voice. Unfortunately, he has often found those who claim excessive religious zealotry to be easy to motivate and easy to deceive.

S.P.A.M. urges its readers to pray for Mr. Todd Strandberg, that his heart will be softened, and that the spirit of repentance will touch his heart.
G. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-48212134786127988102014-09-23T17:35:00.002-04:002014-09-23T17:36:21.061-04:001 in 4 Protestant pastors struggle with mental illnessOne of the old saws that is passed around the Internet is that Mormons are all depressed because of their religion. Anti-Mormons try to cite statistics of anti-depressants prescribed that they allege to show a spike in depression in Utah.

I've written about this before, about how these statistics are manipulated and abused by our adversaries. That's not surprising. If you Google for stories about evangelical Christians and depression, you'll find lots of articles written by non-believers claiming that religiosity in general correlates with depression. Then, if you Google atheists and depression, you'll find articles written by Christians saying that atheists are more prone to depression. It's a bogus argument to try to base whether or not Mormonism is true (or any other religion) based on whether or not believers face depression or not.

Anti-Mormons want you to believe that being a Mormon will lead you to depression. That's why I found this article especially interesting today:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/23/survey-reveals-the-percentage-of-protestant-pastors-who-have-suffered-mental-illness/

A study by a Christian organization, Lifeway Research, reveals that one in four Protestant pastors have struggled or currently struggle with mental illness. Twelve percent received clinical diagnoses.

I don't mean this in a tit-for-tat way to bad-mouth Protestants. It just shows that they--and their clergymen--are just as susceptible to depression and other mental illness as anyone else. In the case of Mormons, considering that all of our men act as clergy in one fashion or another, it wouldn't be surprising that they have suffered from the pressures and expectations of living a very visible gospel lifestyle.

So can we just drop the whole Utah-antidepressants thing, anti-Mormons? Get the anti-Mormon "beam" out of your own eye and help your pastors with some kindness and support. If you did that, you'd have less time to look for Mormon "mote" in our eyes.

G. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-21753128242631956212014-08-03T21:04:00.002-04:002014-08-03T21:06:22.010-04:00Pay attention to the '...' An ellipsis is a punctuation device that allows a writer to omit words from a citation that are superfluous or able to be understood from the context. It's the little "..." that you see in a formal paper or text. It's a way of making writing with lots of quotes from other sources flow more naturally. You see them all the time, but usually they are used incorrectly in more casual writing like emails and text messages.

The ellipsis is often used by religion writers to abbreviate a scriptural text so that it will flow with the other written content. For example, an original passage from the New Testament might read:

 5 ¶And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

 6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

A writer or commentator discussing this passage might introduce the scene in his own words, paraphrasing the setting, and transitioning to the meat of the subject saying a man approached Jesus and asked him, "...Lord, my servant lieth at home sick...." The ellipses at the beginning and end of the citation omit information that isn't necessary to understand the context. Nothing vital is lost. We get the full meaning of the phrase without the additional words that would clutter up things for the reader. The writing is conversational.

However, the ellipsis is notoriously used by sectarian preachers to omit important passages from scripture that don't fit their church's doctrines. It's all the more common if the passages are important ones that substantiate Mormon beliefs. They want to avoid those at all costs!

I saw an example of this today. I was reading an article titled, 3 Common Traits of Youth Who Don't Leave the Church on a Protestant web site called Faith It. The article is focused on ways to keep youth from drifting away from faith when they go off to college. The author, Jon Nielson, college pastor at College Church in Wheaton, Illinois, makes many valid points. I couldn't help but smile when he quoted an important scripture and used an ellipsis to omit a passage that gives Protestant-Evangelicals some heartburn. He quoted Ephesians 4:11-12 from a modern translation in this manner:

But youth pastors especially need to keep repeating the words of Ephesians 4:11-12 to themselves: "[Christ] gave…the teachers to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ." Christ gives us—teachers—to the church, not for entertainment, encouragement, examples, or even friendship primarily. He gives us to the church to "equip" the saints to do gospel ministry in order that the church of Christ may be built up.
 In this case, it's important to note what he left out with that little "..." in the citation. Here's the full original without the ellipsis:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

 I highlighed in bold print the part omitted with the ellipsis. You see, the passages says the Christ gave APOSTLES and PROPHETS to perfect the saints, for the ministry, and for building up the church. In the Protestant-Evangelical world, where are their prophets? Where are their apostles? They don't have them. Their doctrine prohibits them because their creeds banned the possibility of any revelation after the biblical times. Is that "superfluous" information to be omitted?

You may consider this nitpicking, but we see it all the time. My dear, departed mother-in-law read her Bible every day using a Methodist-produced study guide. In decades of reading the Bible, she had never ever seen the words "baptism for the dead," even though it's right there in 1st Corinthians 15. How could a person read the Bible for almost an entire lifetime and not see that? Easy. She used the study guide that was prepared by Methodist theologians. They were careful to edit that out.

In France, I saw a missal in a Catholic cathedral. If you're not familiar with it, it's kind of liturgical book used to celebrate their masses. There was a page in it that had the Ten Commandments in it. I noticed right away that these Ten Commandments were different from the ones in the Bible. They conveniently omitted the commandment that says we are not to have any graven images or bow down to them. That left 9 commandments, so they split the last one about coveting into two parts, saying not to covet someone's wife and to not covet his property. That gave them an even 10.

As I looked around the cathedral, I understood why. It was filled with graven images of saints to which people would bow down and pray, in violation of the commandment. They had to omit that one or face uncomfortable questions from the faithful seekers of truth in their midst.

You find this is almost every Church. They will teach that you are saved by grace and omit the dozens of passages that say that you will be judged according to your works. They will cite the verse that says "no man can see God" but omit the 20 verses that speak of God appearing to various prophets.

If you will be careful and wise, you need to check the doctrine against the scripture. You will find that the other guys always have some interesting omissions in their presentation.

Mormons believe the whole Bible. We believe all of it. We practice all of it. We believe all that God has revealed and that he will continue to reveal his will today. Pay attention to the "..." whenever you read a religious article. When you see them, look up the original and see what was omitted. You may be surprised.

G. firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-2081297952152443082014-07-21T09:44:00.001-04:002014-08-03T20:27:45.366-04:00An act of faithScientific types always dismiss the claims of the faithful, not knowing that their own scientific research is an act of faith. Think about it. If all things are equal at the start of an experiment, how do you select a hypothesis to begin with. One of them will seem more viable, more plausible than another. The moment of selecting how to act and move forward is an act of faith. The scientist trusts his instincts, his experience, and his gut. That one hypothesis stands out above another comes from discernment--a spiritual gift. Abraham chapter 3 goes all into this premise via a syllogism using Kolob as a metaphor.

This past week, there was an article in which NASA claimed that they will find life in outer space within the next 20 years. This is a statement of faith, every bit as much as the believer's confession that there is a God that exists, but whom he has not seen. The billions of dollars dumped into this NASA research is evidence of faith on their part. Why would anyone put those great resources into something that is yet unseen and of which no proof exists presently? NASA "believes" that there is life out there and they are sure they will find it. Yet the fact that they have no proof doesn't stop them from asking Congress to give them lots of money, does it?

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/264761/speedreads-nasa-we-will-find-alien-life-within-20-years

When we think of faith in the terms that Joseph Smith described it, that it is the cause of all action on our part, suddenly faith becomes more evident. Whether we decided to plant a garden, lose 10 pounds, buy a home with a 30-year mortgage, or look for aliens in outer space, those are all acts of faith, because we can see what we desire in our mind's eye and act upon it even though we cannot yet see the finished product.

Everybody has faith. Everybody believes in something. Those who demand proof and evidence of faith need only look at their own actions for understanding how faith works. The question then becomes, "Do you believe in something that is not seen, but which is true?" G. email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-39595014907961797952014-07-10T21:00:00.000-04:002014-07-10T21:08:51.926-04:00Watch for the pattern

Johnson was excommunicated in 1979

The headlines today inform us that Kate Kelly--recently excommunicated for her gathering women to oppose and protest against Church teachings on priesthood via an organization called Ordain Women--plans to appeal the judgment of her bishop to the next level. Church disciplinary procedures allow options for her case to be reconsidered by her stake presidency and the high council. If the member is not satisfied with the judgment, an appeal may be made to the First Presidency of the Church. This is ultimately what Kelly wants.

The appeal process is neither automatic nor required. The stake president can examine the testimony and evident of the case, which in this case isn't secret, and determine that the bishop's original decision can stand. Or he can re-hear the case with the high council.

After Kelly made public the results of her first hearing, the news media predictably trumpeted that she was excommunicated by a panel of three MEN. Certainly, if her excommunication is upheld by the stake presidency and the high council, the headlines will read that her ousting was reconfirmed by 15 MEN. No matter what, men hold the priesthood keys that determine whether she regains her membership or whether she stays excommunicated. The headlines will reflect the mantra that evil, misogynistic Mormons are too inflexible and backward to get with the times.

It is more likely than not that Kelly's excommunication will stand. The reason she was excommunicated is that she is in open, public rebellion against those who hold the keys of the kingdom. The Lord' has said "he that receiveth you, receiveth me...and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me." A person who has a testimony of the restored gospel will understand that the Lord's servants represent him. He has given them authority and power to act in his name. He sustains their actions and they are sealed in heaven and on earth. Jesus gave the apostles authority to remit or retain sins. Those keys are delegated to bishops and stake presidents.

Unless Kate Kelly repents of her stubbornness and rebellion, we will watch a familiar pattern unfold. She will inevitably slide into full-fledged apostasy out of resentment and bitterness that she could not force God's Church to bend to her will. Here's how it will play out.

After each stage of the appeals process, she will garner media attention. The liberal media are drawn only by the lure of controversy and the desire to discredit any power that does not come from the state and the elites who own their news corporations. The Book of Mormon warns of the proud who are rich and the proud who are educated. The media is beholden to both. The media seeks to make anyone who doesn't play their game look foolish, backward, or out-of-touch.

Then, once the appeals are done, the media will begin to lose interest. There are always new, fresh controversies that will fill airtime. The world really doesn't care about Mormons anyway except when it serves its interests, garish or prurient. When that attention starts to drift, Kelly and her followers will resort to crazy, outrageous steps to try to regain the media's attention. I'm talking about things like, marching down the streets of Salt Lake City wearing only their temple garments or some stupid PETA-like stunt. They'll do something like partner with some other denomination, probably Unitarian Universalists, and hold a mass "baptism" or something like that.

Even then, the media's attention will drift. After a year or two, she won't be able to even get media coverage short of getting herself arrested. At that point, the inefficacy of her efforts will stick in her craw and the bitterness will make her seek to damage the Church. At this point, many apostates ally themselves with anti-Mormon ministries or parachurches.

It's possible that Kelly might try to pry her way into membership in the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized LDS Church), but they'll know she's a troublemaker. They'll avoid giving her any power because they won't want anyone to make waves. They tried ordaining women once before and lost a quarter of their membership--and they're not that big to begin with! Unless she can be in charge, she's not going to want to follow any other leadership.

Since Kelly's liberal bent would most likely steer her away from evangelical parachurches, she'll probably gravitate toward the more secular anti-Mormons. These are not as organized. I call them the "Reddit" crowd because a lot of them hang out there and bash the Church. Then it's on to Recover From Mormonism or ExMormon.org.

Helen Radkey

Kelly's life will become obsessively centered around getting attention for her dying causes and it will affect her family. Hubby will get tired of the constant conflicts. The spirit of apostasy thrives on conflicts and those conflicts begin to erupt at home. Soon it'll be splitsville for the couple. Brothers and sisters won't even be able to carry on a conversation about anything with her unless it revolves around her bitterness toward the Church. This is what happened with Helen Radkey, who came to the media's attention several years ago when she tried to use the genealogical records of the Church to embarrass it. Her son said in an interview that the family really felt alienated from her because she became a crank over her cause.

Even after some time there with those "harpies," they'll tire of her and the need to find greater recognition will drive her into the arms of more weird, radical groups. Take Sonja Johnson, who was excommunicated for her attempts to divide the Church over the Equal Rights Amendment in the seventies. I recall leaving a regional meeting of the Church near Washington, D.C. and seeing an airplane flying overhead with a banner reading "Mother in Heaven loves Mormons for E.R.A." It was chartered by Johnson and her supporters.

Johnson ended up spiraling downward after her excommunication, losing her husband, her children, going into a lesbian relationship. That relationship was so disatrous that Johnson ended up calling lesbian relationships "dangerous patriarchal traps" and wrote essays against all marriage-like relationships. Johnson ended up writing that "sex is engineered as part of the siege against our wholeness and power." She founded and failed with a women's commune called "Wildfire." Now, at the age of 78, she lives with her female partner and runs a B&B called "Casa Feminista." Today, anyone under the age of 50 says, "Sonja who?" when they hear her name.

What did Sonja Johnson do that harmed the Church in any way? Since 1979, the Church has more than doubled its membership. It is more active, more influential, and more far-reaching than ever before. In 1979, we had 15 temples. Now there are well over 100. We had under 50,000 missionaries in the field at the time, now we have around 88,000. We have latter-day saints in China, Yemen, Dubai, Russia, the Baltic states, Indonesia, India, and almost everywhere. The Permanent Education Fund assists thousands of young people in third world countries, transforming their futures. We have donated hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian assistance throughout the world, responding to global disasters in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and throughout the United States.

This is what Johnson tried to stop, but the work rolls on. She could have had a hand in it, but she chosed to try to destroy it. She ended up growing old, outside the Church, without the comfort of eternal family ties, destined to be alone in eternity, most likely in the telestial kingdom.

This is what awaits Kate Kelly. Watch for the pattern. It make take years to unfold, just like it did for Sonja Johnson and Helen Radkey, but it will follow the pattern. The scriptures tell us that the devil does not sustain those who follow him, even those who do so unwittingly. He always leads them into darkness and abandons them. It is an unfortunate fate for a child of God.

Fortunately, the way back is clear. Repentance can heal and restore. The hand of fellowship will remain extended if she will abandon her desires to harm the Church and seek to build up Zion once again. Zion will be built with or without her. It would be a shame to have to stand on the outside trying to slow down those who are building it up despite her absence.

G. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-20269777617860634932014-06-28T00:54:00.000-04:002014-06-28T00:54:58.869-04:00BOM show producers reject LDS movie ad

The Book of Mormon Broadway musical has been a runaway hit, praised by the degenerate and the worldly. It mocks God and his servants. In the middle of the "Mormon Moment" while Romney was running for president, people saw it as a parody on Mormonism and religion in general. The producers repeatedly said they didn't hate Mormons and that the play wasn't anti-Mormon in nature. They harbored no ill will toward Mormons, they said. Bull. Just bull.

The Church has never been one to shy away from an opportunity to share the gospel and our leaders apparently saw it as a good-natured move to advertise in the playbills for the show. The publicity probably led to at least a few converts. I think that irked the producers of the show, but oddly, the theaters didn't turn down the Church's advertising money. Hypocrites. That's what they are.

But even the goodwill that can be bought with money eventually comes to an end. The show has rejected advertising from an LDS film called the Saratov Approach. The movie is the true story of two LDS missionaries who were kidnapped and held for ransom in Russia. The producers rejected the ad because, unlike their bigoted, hateful portrayal of missionaries, the movie portrays them in a positive, even heroic light.

So there you have it. The purpose of the play is not to entertain, but to foster cruel, bigoted, and hurtful stereotypes--and make money doing it. Sad. Just sad.

Now, we're waiting for the well-timed lightning bolts...

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/27/faith-based-films-distributors-say-they-were-in-for-a-surprise-when-they-tried-to-advertise-in-book-of-mormon-broadway-program/G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-26373325253642633952014-06-14T15:39:00.002-04:002014-06-14T15:39:51.912-04:00Ron and Cathy Den Boer: Anti-Mormon TrollsI'm one of two national LDS columnists for the Examiner web site. I've written over 200 articles for Examiner in the past five years. I appreciate the chance to write and have my articles on my faith be seen around the world.

Unfortunately, a couple of other people have decided to jump on the bandwagon and ride my "coattails" with the intent of spreading an anti-Mormon message. It has been my experience that a Mormon can never stand up anywhere in the world and declare his testimony without Satan providing an opposing voice to try to drown out that testimony. It is uncanny how it happens. I have likened anti-Mormons like the "Agent Smith" character in "The Matrix." It seems that anyone, anywhere can transform in to an anti-Mormon. That's because, everywhere you go, there are people over whom the devil has influence.

In the comments section of my Examiner articles, if I enable comments for the articles, inevitably some anti-Mormon will chime in and try to defame my faith. Over the last couple of years, I have acquired two "trolls" or "stalkers." Their names are Ron and Cathy Den Boer.

The Den Boers are peculiar in that the comments they post rarely have anything to do with the content or topic of my articles. They've simply subscribed to my Examiner feed and they get an e-mail when I post anything new. In knee-jerk fashion, they find a cut-and-paste section of text from CARM or some other anti-Mormon web site, and they paste it into the comment field.

Examiner only allows for about 1000 words in the comments field, so very often, the Den Boers must post multiple comments. I have written articles 500-700 words in length, only to have them post 2,000-5,000 words of anti-Mormon stuff in the comments! You see, they're not generating original material, they are plagiarizing the stuff from other sites without attribution. I guess no one told them plagiarism is dishonest--or either they don't care to be dishonest when it comes to their fight against Mormonism.

The Den Boers, Ron and Cathy

It's a quandary for me sometimes. I hate that they might scare other readers from commenting on the articles. It's a form of cyber-bullying in that sense. I could just not enable comments, but that doesn't give people the opportunity to ask sincere questions. There are reasonable people out there who want to have a conversation. The Den Boers want to shout them down and stop that conversation from happening.

Who are the Den Boer's anyway? Ron's Facebook profile can be found here. Their public profile says he worked at the Coast Guard Pacific Northwest, went to Sunnyside High School, and that they live in Vancouver, Washington.

Cathy works at Educational Service District 112, which "...equalizes educational opportunities for learning communities through innovative partnerships, responsive leadership, and exceptional programs." Cathy studied at WSU Vancouver and received her BS in Psychology and a Masters in Education. They have children and grandchildren. They have thing for schnauzers, too.

Gosh, they seem like such NICE people, don't they! But there is a Jekyll and Hyde quality to anti-Mormons. It's a dark, hidden obsession, like pornography. They are all pleasant and nicey-nice to their friends, but those friends just can't imagine that the instant the topic of Mormonism is raised, Ron and Cathy's guts just start growling and they can't rest until they have attempted to stamp out the threat it poses.

When I post an article on Examiner, within a matter of minutes sometimes, they respond with hateful anti-Mormon tripe. Would their friends expect that of them?

The Den Boer's aren't alone in this. There are many like them. One of the most vicious anti-Mormons I ever encountered was a 73 year-old woman, a professor of music, a recording artist, and a music therapist. She and her husband operate a prestigious vineyard in northern California. She lives in a million-dollar home and is considered quite the socialite. Like the Den Boers, her friends can't imagine that she spends hours every week for years, posting anti-Mormon stuff on Internet forums.

You might think it mean-spirited of me to post the Den Boers' information like this. Like Rush Limbaugh, I'm just a "harmless, loveable, fuzzball." I mean no harm by it. I believe that it's instructive to provide the information because the Den Boers attack me and the Church with every article I write. People need to know who anti-Mormons are. They need to see that haters can wear their religion like a mask, hiding the hate that's underneath. Let's take off the mask.

I hold no ill will toward them. I don't know them. The Den Boers have just made it their mission to tear down Mormonism. They've taken it upon themselves to post anti-Mormon cut-and-paste attacks on a large number of my Examiner articles. I thought you'd like to know who they are the next time you see their names in the comments section of my Examiner articles. Anti-Mormons don't like to do their work in the light of day. Now their names and picture will soon be Google-able and anyone who wonders why people act like the Den Boers can ask them why they hate Mormons so much.G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-6720372926347878352014-05-11T17:34:00.002-04:002014-05-11T17:38:03.289-04:00Happy anti-Mormon Mothers' Day

My Google Alerts brought this to my attention today. A woman who is in the process of falling away from the Church posted this yesterday on an exMormon/anti-Mormon forum, just a day before Mothers' Day.

"So since I have lost my faith I have been slowly distancing myself from the church. So there are definitely signs for hubby to read...... I stopped wearing my garments...not a word from hubby.... I got released from my calling....I started only goi g to sacrament meeting......now I often just stay home all together. This is mostly all ignored by hubby. Mostly, except for the overt new push to extra indoctrinate the kids....his efforts to overly talk religion when we go to my family's... anyway, you get it, typical passive aggressive mormon behavior.

"So tonight, around 6 he mentions that he is subbing for one of our little ones primary class tomorrow, (mothers day) and would I come help him, oh and would I do the lesson?

"I just laughed and said no I wont do the lesson. This is just a little manipulation because he knows I don't plan on going to anything but sacrament. And he made sure he brought it up in front of little one, who was thrilled at the idea of having mom and dad in their class. (Little one has a hard time going to primary alone)

"Hubby could care less what I think or believe..... he just wants that role of faithful wife and mother filled to complete his mormon image. (Spelling and capitalization as in original.)

This brings to mind a situation I ran into back on the original S.P.A.M. site a few years ago. I discovered that one of the anti-Mormons who had joined our site was a former member who was trying to undermine his wife's faith in the Church. He was still married to her and he was conspiring with anti-Mormons and apostates on an open Internet forum about the best way to destroy her faith. It makes my blood run cold to think that such evil exists. We know there are wolves in sheeps' clothing lurking in the Church, but to have the wolf in your own family must be a horrible thing to discover.

At the time this was going on, I wrote two articles, found hereand here. These became the S.P.A.M. articles that had the most pageloads. The first one received nearly 30,000 in a day and eventually exceeded 70,00 pageloads. These articles drew criticism from shallow-minded saints as well who didn't bother to actually read the ample scriptural evidence I provided, alongside the words of modern General Authorities. The consensus of the scriptures was clear, no woman has the obligation to follow her husband into apostasy. Divorce is a last, final option that may be required to save the faithful member and the children when other remedies have failed.

It seems that the more common scenario is the one I described in the articles, a husband gets dragged down by Satan and he attempts to compel his wife to follow him into darkness. The post I cited above from to day is from the less common situation, where the wife falls away.

When you read the woman's comments above, given to a known group of individuals hostile to her religion, you might wonder why the woman won't seek counseling. She accuses her husband of passive-aggressive behavior and says this is typical of Mormons. This is likely a case of projection. Who is hostile here? The woman or the husband? We don't know the husband's side, but it sounds very much like he is a concerned husband and father who sees his wife abandoning him, their children, and the sealing ordinances that would lead them into exaltation.

Passive aggressive behavior is typified by certain behaviors including:

Procrastination

Behaving beneath customary standards

Pretending not to see, hear, remember, or understand requests

The silent treatment

Sulking & withdrawal

Gossiping

Aren't these behaviors present in what we can read in this woman's comments? Almost all of them are present! Instead of having frank, open, and confidential discussions with her spouse, she has resorted to gossiping behind his back with nameless, faceless devils whose only motive is to damage her faith and the Church. Out of the entire discussion thread that ensued, there was only one reasonable commentator who suggested that, if she hoped to save her marriage, she should drop the hostility toward the Church. It certainly would be possible for love to prevail and tolerance to take root. How likely is that so long as she is willing to bad-mouth her eternal companion to the anonymous wretches who can't move past their own personal apostasy without reliving it again and again for others?

The woman claims that he "...just wants that role of faithful wife and mother filled to complete his mormon image." Perhaps it is the case, but is it also possible that he is distressed to lose his eternal companion?" Is he not worried about the destructive effects of her hostility toward the Church on their children? The woman was fuming because her husband expressed his hope that she might set aside her personal struggle for the sake of the children on Mothers' Day. Unfortunately, she is so steeped in selfishness that breaking the hearts of her children is no longer a consideration. Apostasy almost always has its root in selfishness. It often emerges from an unwillingness to wait on the Lord and the unreasonableness to demand that God follow our timelines, not his.

A crisis of faith can happen to anyone. We get through those times by leaning on others who have faith, not abandoning it. Like President Uchtdorf said, we should learn to "doubt our doubts" first, before doubting our faith. A patient, concerned husband is praying and hoping every day. There are small children who pray with childlike faith that their mother will choose to be with them forever in heaven instead of following the voice of the Adversary into oblivion.

My prayers are with this mother on Mothers' Day. May God's love and the love of her family soften her heart and return her back to the arms of those who care about her most. May his love tear her from the clutching arms of exMormon and anti-Mormon demons who lie in wait to deceive.
G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-78027114162608798562014-05-01T22:25:00.001-04:002014-05-01T22:25:52.100-04:00Why "Truth is not a tactic"

Anti-Mormons who visit S.P.A.M. often leave with consternation about our motto, "Truth is not a tactic." They return back to their anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon forums and make snide comments. Some have suggested that this means that we don't rely on the truth. That would be a misguided assumption.

When we say truth isn't a tactic, I would refer the reader to the definition of the words, truth and tactic.

Truth is simply what is. It doesn't follow anyone's agenda. It doesn't bend to politics, persuasion, or influence. It just is what it is. It's "just the facts, ma'am." It doesn't matter who declares the truth because it doesn't change. If a Mormon tells the truth, it's just as true as if a Catholic, a Baptist, a Buddhist, or an atheist declares it.

A tactic, unlike truth, is an action or strategy that is "planned to achieve a specific end." Synonyms include "trick," "ploy," "dodge," "ruse," and "machination." As you can see, truth can't be manipulated. Ultimately, it stands on its own.

Here at S.P.A.M., we just tell the truth. We don't manipulate it. We just present it and explain it as we see it. We have shown repeatedly that anti-Mormons depend on tactics, not truth. We have identified those tactics:

1. Use of non-authoritative sources and out-of-context quotations
2. Attack the story of the Book of Mormon's origin, not its contents
3. Distort Mormon doctrines by comparing them to the unscriptural teachings of Christian creeds
4. When all else fails, lie!
5. Use slander, personal attacks, and character assassination
6. Accuse your opponent of doing the very thing you are doing
They have to use these tactics because the truth doesn't sustain their side. They just can't tell a person to read the Book of Mormon and see for themselves. They have to stop that person somehow from even considering the possibilities. They have to misrepresent statements by slicing and dicing them into something unrecognizable from the original text. They compare our beliefs to their own interpretations. When the Bible agrees with us, they say we're interpreting it, or that it's just a metaphor. They lie about our beliefs and doctrines to other people all the time because, if people really knew what we believed, it would seem reasonable to them. They slander Joseph Smith and the leaders of the Church. Then they use the psychological device called projection--they accuse us of lying when they are lying. They accuse us of character assassination when that is what they are doing to us.

Our motto, "Truth is not a tactic," means that we will stand by the facts. We will declare the whole truth, not half-truths or innuendo. The more determinedly we declare it, the more irrational their opposition becomes. The more they resort to tactics. Thus, truth can never be a tactic. It stands independent in the sphere where God has placed it to act for itself. Let the seeker decide for himself. We are happy to leave it to the seeker and God to find confirmation of our testimony. We know that God is faithful and that, as James wrote, anyone who seeks wisdom should "ask of God." If the other guys don't have the confidence to let God guide you, what does that say about them? Where is their faith? We trust in God and encourage you to take it to him in prayer.G. firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-72182227493984164422014-04-26T09:38:00.000-04:002014-04-26T09:38:00.586-04:00Insincere questions

Most of the the people who are devoted to destroying Mormonism are religious people from other Christian sects. Statistically, this is primarily because there are more people who believe in a supreme being than people who don't. There are atheists who wish to destroy all religions, but they represent a much smaller part of the population. There are former members who lose their faith and harbor some kinds of resentment towards the Church and seek to damage it, but there are yet fewer of them. By and by, most people are tolerant and are willing to live and let live. Thus, people who go about trying to destroy a religion usually have some deeper motivation--one that allows them to cover their hatred with the veneer of virtuosity. Jesus said that there would be people who would seek to destroy his followers and even put them to death, thinking they were doing God justice.

Because anti-Mormons who come from other Christian sects want to appear righteous to others, they will often devise trick questions to hide the hypocrisy that would otherwise be apparent in their actions. The Bible tells us that ancient Jews did the same thing to Jesus. In fact, the whole of the 12th chapter of Mark's Gospel is about this topic.

Jesus starts out the chapter with a parable about a man who plants a vineyard, puts a wall and a tower in it to guard it, and lets it out to husbandmen to cultivate it. Over time, the man sends servants (prophets) to check on the progress of the husbandmen (the House of Israel). To his dismay, the master's servants are beaten, abused, and even killed. Finally, the man sends his own son, figuring that the husbandmen will respect him. Instead, the husbandmen kill him. The master comes and destroys the husbandmen and gives the vineyard to others. Jesus' message was clear to them. The religious "authorities" who ruled over the minds of the Israelites were going to be destroyed because they rejected God's prophets and were, at that moment, rejecting God's own Son. The religious leaders wanted to arrest Jesus, but they were afraid to act at that time.

So, fearing the people, they decided they'd try to discredit Jesus using sophistry. Sophistry means "the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false." They devised some scenarios to trip up Jesus and make him look foolish. Of course the wisdom of the Son of God was superior to theirs, but our mission here is to study their methodology and compare it with the tactics of anti-Mormons today.

There were various sects among the Jews at the time, just like there are various sects and denominations of competing Christian churches today. Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc. all have doctrinal differences with one another. Catholics don't believe Protestants will go to heaven. Protestants teach that Catholics won't be saved. Baptists don't believe Methodists will be saved, because they baptize infants, etc. They all have their differences. They don't agree on but a few things. Each condemns the other.

Among the Jews of Jesus' day, there were the Pharisees, the Herodians, and the Saducees. There were probably others, but these three sects show up in Mark chapter 12. They disagreed on fundamental doctrines, but they set aside their differences to combat God's Son and his Church. Sound familiar? In my years of studying anti-Mormonism, I've seen evangelical Christians go team up with atheists to swap and compare notes on how to gang up on the Mormons. I've seen people of different denominations set aside their deepest, most profound doctrinal convictions just so they could show a united front against Mormonism.

I once watched two Christians battle it out over whether the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three separate beings or just one Trinity-in-unity kind of being. When I took the side of the guy who said he could show dozens of scriptures that prove that the Godhead were three separate beings, he actually changed his tune and changed sides because the Mormon agreed with him--but I digress.

First the Herodians come with a question about paying taxes. Jesus answers them with the "Render unto Caesar..." line that was so profound. When we read that, we have to understand that the question was not about obeying the laws. The Herodians were baiting him. If he was indeed their "Messiah" (and they misunderstood that the Messiah should be a secular, Davidic king), why should he pay taxes to Caesar's government instead of overthrowing it. They were trying to get him in trouble with the Romans. That was the point of their insincere question.

The next insincere question comes from the Sadducees. The text in Mark 12 tells us that the Sadducees denied belief in a resurrection of spirit. They were like the Stoics, but Jewish. So they come to Jesus asking a question about the resurrection of the dead. They had a logic problem to show how there could be no afterlife, and that problem dealt with the complications of a woman who had multiple marriages.

You see, people who believed in a resurrection also believed in eternal family relationships. They believed that marriage would endure beyond the grave. The Sadducees posed a problem about a woman who kept outliving her husbands and remarried several times. Who would have her in the resurrection? The logic of the Saducees told them that this problem easily illustrated that there would be no resurrection. Jesus told them flatly that they were wrong. Their question was insincere in that they focused on the topic of marriage, but the real purpose was to undermine Jesus' teachings about the resurrection of the dead.

Finally, one of the scribes came to Jesus asking him which commandment was the most important, hoping to get him to stumble somehow. Jesus answered scripturally, with a passage from the Torah. The first commandment was to love God. The second was to love your fellow man. He said that all other commandments were connected to these two. The law and the prophets were based on these two greatest laws.

If you are a member of Christ's church today, you must realize that our self-declared adversaries have designed questions to undermine your faith. They intentionally try to word things in such a way as to make you stumble and doubt yourself. You have to realize that they are not sincere. The rest of Mark chapter 12 teaches lessons about hypocrisy. That's the point of those lessons. People who try to trip you up are not concerned for the welfare of your soul. They want to destroy your faith. They are not misguided, but well-intended. They are not listening to the Good Shepherd's voice.

If you follow your heart, you will be able to discern them. You may have a friend bring up one of these fake questions that are intended to trip you up, but they'll preface it a certain way. "My pastor says that Mormons believe in a different Jesus. Is that true?" You can know they're sincere because they are your friend. But you'll find others who will be like, "Oh, you're a Mormon. Don't you believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" There's a difference in spirit that you will feel in these instances. You can discern a true, concerned friend from someone who has been programmed to be an attack dog when Mormons are mentioned.

I've seen anti-Mormons emerge in the most unusual places, especially on the Internet. There's a lady who runs a food blog that now mostly writes anti-Mormon garbage. There's a guy on a mixed martial arts forum who keeps a constant anti-Mormon discussion going. You'll meet some "nice" neighbor lady who is a Sunday School teacher in her church, who will start bringing you anti-Mormon tracts from her pastor, even though she never took an interest in speaking to you until she learned you were a Mormon. She'll be so warm toward you that you'd think butter would melt in her mouth, but your skin just crawls when she's around you. You'll feel it. Follow the Spirit and discern how you feel about these people.

When someone asks you an insincere question, give them the answer to the question they SHOULD HAVE ASKED. When they say, "So, I heard that you have to believe in Joseph Smith to go to heaven," just go back to the beginning. Testify of Jesus Christ and that Joseph Smith was a modern witness of Jesus' resurrection and that Jesus called him to restore the ancient Christian Church back to the world. Put the rightful focus on Jesus Christ, but show that Joseph was called to be a servant of the Lord. Joseph Smith points us to have faith in Jesus and bore witness of the resurrection, just like Peter or Paul.

When you follow the Spirit and trust your gut, you will be able to give better answers and not be flustered when someone tries to corner you with a cleverly devised question that intended to make you err. Just testify of the truth and what you know, and everything will be fine. G. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-71600529433254946692014-04-19T19:48:00.001-04:002014-04-19T19:48:17.553-04:00Easter and the RestorationThis is a reprint of an article I wrote back in 2010 for the Examiner. Easter weekend is upon us once again and it has been a busy week. I thought I'd share this still-relevant article and wish you all a happy Easter. --Greg

Easter and the Restoration: The resurrection confirmed anew

Most of us will have a hectic, busy week this week, so here's an opportunity to pause and think about the things of an eternal nature. Here's wishing a Happy Easter to everyone. What a beautiful time for contemplation of these things:

From Matthew:

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it . . . And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen..."
From John:

"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you ..."

"And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
". . . After that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days . . ."
". . . And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
From Peter:

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
From the Book of Mormon:

"And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them: Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him. And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them. And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying: Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world. And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven. And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying: Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."
From Joseph Smith, Spring 1820:

"I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"
From Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, 1832

"And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father— That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."
The most joyous news that any Christian believer can receive today is not only the glad tidings that Christ is indeed risen, but also that he has appeared again our day, confirming the ancient scriptures and the testimony of the ancients is true.

On this Easter, all Latter-day Saints raise their voices in praise to God for the resurrection of his Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. It is in the certain testimony of his resurrection that we find comfort in times of loss and assurance of the promises of eternal life if we are obedient to his commandments and receive his Grace. Our unequivocal testimony is that he lives today.
G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-68501120812686542422014-04-18T18:21:00.004-04:002014-04-18T18:54:02.733-04:00A couple of interesting articlesThere were a couple of interesting articles on the FAIR Mormon Blog this week. I jokingly, but respectfully call FAIR the "footnote" apologetics site because their articles are generally very academic in nature. They research the critiques of our anti-Mormon foes and document where they're wrong. They are great at demonstrating where our adversaries use out-of-context quotes or bad statistics to try to gain some kind of leverage against us. While FAIR focuses on debunking their claims, SPAM is interested primarily in the "why" and the "how" of anti-Mormonism. It's the motives and intentions of anti-Mormons that interest us. What are the underlying causes of their hatred of Mormons? What tactics do they use?

Although our approaches are different, I respect FAIR's work, even if it's a "snoozer" for most people. Nevertheless, every now and then, they do generate some interesting work. Here are two recent studies they did. The first is an example of how anti-Mormons who support ordaining women to the priesthood are using out-of-context quotes to bolster their position. That's #1 on our list of anti-Mormon tactics. Click on the link to check out the article:

Poignant Bumper Sticker Memes

Then there's a now infamous 2009 study that showed that Utah led the nation in pornography consumption. That study suffered from several important structural flaws in its decidedly unscientific methodology. Of course, that didn't stop anti-Mormons (particularly among atheists and secular critics) from claiming that Mormonism is sexually repressive and it drives men to consume porn. A more scientific study has been published recently that places Utah much lower on the list, around 40th out of the 50 states. Specifically, the data shows that in any state where there is a sizable Mormon population, it accounts for a significantly greater than average reduction in porn consumption. However, you can be that 10 years from now, anti-Mormons will still be quoting the first survey without any reference to newer, more accurately tabulated data. Here's the article:

Rethinking Mormons and Porn: Utah 40th in US in New Porn DataG. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-70024324635891779692014-04-14T20:07:00.000-04:002014-04-14T20:07:11.791-04:00Atheists target Salt Lake City

I always loved to see Emmitt Smith run the ball. Sometimes he would have five or six guys on his back, holding onto his legs, and he would still be driving forward to the goal. He was unstoppable. The defense might be able to slow him down some, but he was inexorably on his way to the goal line. He would get there no matter what.

In football, the only guy the defense is interested in tackling is the guy with the ball. They have no interest in anyone else on the field. Every effort is focused on stopping the guy moving the ball forward toward the goal. This is an analogy we can apply to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is steadily moving forward in its mission to prepare the world for the Lord's return. There's a good example of this in the press today.

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Dave Muscato, the PR guy for American Atheists, which is having its annual convention in Salt Lake City. Muscato says the group hopes to convert (my word, not his) ex-Mormons into atheists. According to the WSJ,

"A lot of Mormons who have become atheists call themselves ex-Mormon and part of our campaign is to get them to move away from ex-Mormon" and simply call themselves atheists, thus taking pride "in their non-belief."
In the past couple of years, atheists have started to organize themselves into "churches" of sorts, where they socialize and do the kinds of events churches hold (hearing sermons, singing "hymns" like John Lennon's "Imagine," potluck dinners), but with a non-theistic approach. Does this remind anyone of the antichrist Sherem in the Book of Mormon?

Does it seem like Salt Lake is becoming ground-zero for the godless? After all, there are big cities everywhere with lots of churches in them, why do they target the city of the saints? If atheists want to go after a religion, why not confront the world's billion Catholics or two billion Muslims? Perhaps it's an example of the football analogy: the guy who they want to tackle is the one who has the ball and is advancing steadily toward the goal line.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579491492525002948G. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-30245119220076150692014-04-13T11:16:00.001-04:002014-04-13T11:17:36.043-04:00Why is it necessary to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet?

Continuing the "wolves among the sheep" theme that started in the last two posts, this article was prompted by a discussion between a group of members in another Internet forum. As I lurk around several of these forums, I am always amazed at the lack of doctrinal understanding of many members. I understand that many of them may be new to the faith and have not had the opportunity to search the scriptures as more seasoned members should have done, but the answers they receive are often shockingly wrong.

In high schools and colleges today, Information Literacy is often a required course subject. Students have to be taught how to do research on the Internet and how to identify valid sources of information. You have to take almost all Internet-based information with a grain of salt (including this site) because uncorrected errors can occur. The Internet gives legitimacy to people who can simply make an attractive, professional-looking web site. S.P.A.M. has outed a number of anti-Mormon ministries that are merely blogs (like this one) and are run from some guy's apartment in a bad neighborhood. (See "Getting Real" from May 2010.) Even a well-meaning person can make mistakes. An ill-intended person can mask his malevolence with a professional-looking site or forum.

On several LDS-themed discussion groups, there are often anti-Mormon wolves hiding among the sheep. In some cases, they pretend to be members or they are disaffected members. The site from which I'm drawing today's question has several members who have been excommunicated for apostasy. Their personal apostasy came from their trying to force their extremist political views on members, claiming that their interpretations of certain prophecies regarding the United States' future is correct and that the leaders of the Church are intentionally trying to misguide the members.

The question that came up on one of these sites today was a personal one. One of the men married outside the Church. His wife "got saved" as evangelicals call it and she felt like she needed baptism. The guy proposed that his chums, the Mormon missionaries do the baptism. The wife began taking the required missionary lessons, but she didn't want any part of Joseph Smith. The missionaries had integrity and wouldn't baptize her unless she was converted.

The member's question—which I found stunning—-was this: "Why does someone have to accept Joseph Smith to be baptized?" After posing the question, the wolves among the sheep began their work. They focused on scriptures that rightfully teach that baptism is a covenant that we will take upon us the name of Christ, always remember him, and keep his commandments, so we can have his Spirit to be with us. Some of them went so far (and these are the ones who are outside the doctrinal zone of safety) as to suggest that it was a form of idolatry to require an acceptance of Joseph Smith to be baptized. The sheep in the flock were at a loss to argue with this because they don't know the scriptures and they don't know the doctrine.

Salvation is in Jesus Christ. We rely upon his atonement for salvation. The Book of Mormon and the Bible are clear on this. We must keep his commandments. Jesus himself told a man that, to obtain eternal life, he must keep the commandments of God (Matthew 19:17, John 14:15). One of those commandments is to be baptized (John 3:5, Mark 16:16). The first four principles and ordinances of the gospel are: faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and they laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (Articles of Faith).

The fifth article of faith tells us that a man must be called "by prophecy, by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority" to preach the gospel and administer its ordinances. In this article of faith is the key to the question about acceptance of Joseph Smith and the connection to the saving ordinance of baptism. If a person believes in Christ, he (or she) will repent and request baptism for the remission of sins. Sins are not remitted (forgiven) until a proper baptism is done. In the Doctrine and Covenants, it tells us that the power of godliness—GRACE—is made manifest to us in the ordinances of the gospel (D&C 84:20). To obtain saving grace, it comes through an ordinance. That ordinance must be administered by someone with authority.

In Protestant churches, there is a general rejection of authority in favor of a doctrine called the "priesthood of all believers." This generally means that no priest or intermediary is necessary. Anyone can do a baptism or that baptism is simply optional. In Orthodox or Catholic churches, there is a believe in authority, but we can show in history that their claim is not valid. A general apostasy occurred long before the Nicene Council, to which these churches can claim their birth. In other words, no church has authority from God unless God gave that authority again in the post-apostolic times. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that authority was restored through Joseph Smith by Peter, James, and John.

Baptisms performed by other churches that don't have this authority are invalid. They are pleasant demonstrations of belief, but they don't remit sins. How does one get into heaven without getting their sins remitted?

Jesus taught that we must be born "of the water" and "of the Spirit." The baptism of fire or the baptism of the Holy Ghost is to receive the laying on of hands, by one in authority, after one has received a remission of sins through proper baptism. Joseph Smith said:

"You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost." (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/born-again?lang=eng)

The laying on of hands to give the gift of the Holy Ghost is called confirmation. You are confirmed a "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" at that time. Thus, there is no salvation in this dispensation unless you received baptism and confirmation at the hands of someone who has received authority that descends down to us from Joseph Smith.

You don't have to accept Joseph Smith to be saved. You have to accept that the authority comes to the Church to perform a legal gospel ordinance came to us through him. If Joseph Smith didn't receive that authority, then you need to find someone else who did. If you can't find it, then Christ's Church isn't on the earth. If Joseph Smith did receive it, then the only authority to perform baptisms for a remission of sins and to give the gift of the Holy Ghost abides in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In John 13:20 (and it is also rephrased in Matthew 10:40 and Mark 9:37), Jesus told his apostles, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

The ancient Israelites rejected Jesus Christ, even while they claimed to believe in the Father. What they were saying in essence was, "We don't believe God sent you. We don't believe you have authority to say what you say and do what you do." This enabled them to reject even his miracles, explaining them away as having been done by the power of the devil. Because Jesus did indeed act in the authority of his Father, even God, his adversaries rejected God the Father and were condemned.

Thus, there is a line of authority at work here. Jesus extends that line of authority downward. To accept those to whom he gives authority (priesthood) is to accept him. To accept him is to accept the Father. If you lived in the first century, you could not believe in Jesus Christ without accepting Peter, or Paul, or John, etc. If you rejected Peter, you could not come unto Christ who sent him. Likewise, if you live today, Joseph Smith is the one who was given the keys of the kingdom for our dispensation.

If you lived in the times of Moses, you had to come to God through the keys of authority given to him. If you lived in the days of Noah, or Melchizedek, or Elijah, or Peter, it would be the same. Noah is a very graphic example of the danger or rejecting a prophet's authority. Joseph Smith is like Noah. Noah was sent before the flood. Joseph was sent before the day of burning. Joseph Smith received the keys of the kingdom and the keys of all previous dispensations to prepare the kingdom of God for the coming of the Lord. If you reject him, you reject Jesus who sent him, and the Father who sent Jesus. That's the principle involved here.

Jesus alone saves us, but he has commissioned and sent his servants. He has given them authority. All who come to Christ will receive those servants. Rejection of the servant is a rejection of the Master. To the brother who asked the missionaries to baptize his wife, but not into the Church, he needs to understand this principle.

I testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that he was sent by Jesus Christ to prepare the world for the Second Coming. The authority and teachings God gave him continue in the Church. There are living apostles and prophets to day that bear this mantle of authority. If you seek salvation today, if you seek Christ's church, you should prayerfully ask God where this authority is found. I testify that it is found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-27574856613150139642014-04-12T15:44:00.002-04:002014-04-12T15:44:39.086-04:00Tolleson LDS church rebuilt after arsonIn July 29, 2012, an arsonist burned down an LDS meeting house in Tolleson, Arizona. S.P.A.M. reported on the incident previously. The arsonist was never arrested. After almost two years, a new stake center has been constructed on the site of the former one and it is holding its open house this weekend. Read the report about the open house here.

For more information on anti-Mormon incidents, arsons, and other acts of violence against the Church, please see the S.P.A.M. Incident Log. G. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-59659166690128040972014-04-11T22:34:00.003-04:002014-04-11T22:36:05.154-04:00No ordinary church

The painting on the right is one I always find moving and inspiring. It shows a pioneer family burying their child in an unmarked grave on the prairie, which they will leave shortly. They will bear their sorrow and turn their faces toward Zion and begin pulling the handcart through the trackless snows.

It is this legacy of sacrifice that inspires us to keep moving forward. If we quit, their sacrifices to give us this kingdom are all for nothing. We understand that to inherit the glory they received from God in eternity, we must live to our covenants and never give up.

In yesterday's article, I related the story of a so-called TBM (true blue Mormon) who has apostatized, but has made the evil decision to stay in the Church and "fake it," while he works to bring the Church down from the inside. One of the things he said has stayed in my mind:

"...one sunday I was sitting there thinking "why the f*** do I have to do all this stuff just to worship god?"- home teaching, calling, responsibilities, tithing.. this is not what an ordinary church would do." (Capitalization and punctuation in the original)

He has unwittingly hit upon the answer to his own question in posing this one. This is NO ORDINARY CHURCH.

Why do most people go to Church? In my experience, being a convert to Mormonism and having attended and studied many religions in my search for truth, most people go to Church to feel better about themselves. For some, they like the social contacts with others, the reaffirming that they are not alone in their opinions and beliefs. For others, they feel an emotional uplift from singing, praying, and sharing feelings.

Others go to assuage feelings of guilt. Their parents pressured them when they were young and they feel guilty if they don't go. Hearing messages of forgiveness and reconciliation are comforting and give them hope.

Some people go because it's a social necessity. If they don't go, people might talk. It's like President Obama, one of the few presidents who's not a big church-goer. He gets flack for that. If you're a community leader, a politician, an entrepreneur, or hold some public position, it assures others that you're an honest, God-fearing person. You're trustworthy.

There are probably lots of reasons for attending any church, but one more I'd like to mention is hypocrisy. Some people go to church services (in any denomination) who go there simply because they like to feel better about themselves because they can look down on others disparagingly. They donate time, money, and service to earn the praise of men.

In most cases, people don't want to have to do anything. Church meetings, especially among Protestant evangelicals, have become religious entertainment. A Methodist minister once lamented to me that he found it absolutely draining to have to "fill the cups" of his congregation every week. In his view, a true Christian church would have people come together, some with spiritual cups brimming to share, others half-full, and others needing filling. Ideally, he said, they should be sharing from one another's cups. Instead, because that didn't happen, he felt the obligation to try to fill his cup each week, only to have it drained to the dregs by a bunch of spiritual parasites.

Is that what this brother wants--to become a spiritual paradise? If he wants to find a church that will require no obligations of him, there are a lot of choices out there. There are churches that have concerts every week. Some are like holy pep rallies. Others are sedate, tranquil places where the pastor drones on in soothing tones, gently numbing the conscience to the incessant call of the Holy Ghost to repent. There are churches where he won't have to wear a tie or a suit or even clothing! Yep, there are even nudist churches.

With such a variety of choices, why not pick another church instead of trying to destroy his own? It doesn't make sense.

Meanwhile, if you're really into Bible religion, as most claim to be, you should be looking for a Church that demands the surrender of everything. Sacrifice, service, and obedience are what Jesus demanded of those who joined his Church. Consider this passage from Matthew:

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it (Matthew 10:37-39).
And this one...

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me (Matthew 19:21).
And this from Luke...

57 ¶And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
58 And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke chapter 9:57-62)

When a man came to Jesus asking how to have eternal life, Jesus simply told him "...[I]f thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). He didn't tell him to accept Jesus as his personal Savior and then sit back with a free-grace-get-out-of-hell-free card in his pocket. The Lord Jesus told the guy that he needed to keep the commandments. Obedience is necessary. Anyone who says otherwise contradicts the very words of Jesus himself.

Jesus isn't trifling with you and me, brother. He demands it all. He wants your entire heart, soul, and mind. He wants your absolute devotion. He wants no other gods before him. He wants you to walk the walk, not talk the talk. He wants you to pray and to serve and to give until you are spent. Only then will you find that the reservoir of faith you have spent gets refilled with something divine. The wellspring of the Holy Ghost refills you and sanctifies you. It changes you. You become a better person, one more like Jesus.

You're not going to get that in one of those religious pep rallies, not matter how hard you try. That's the churches of men, not the Church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith taught that a religion that does not demand the sacrifice of all things doesn't have power to save a person into the celestial kingdom. If you are going to spend eternity with people like Abraham, Moses, Daniel, Peter, and Paul, you are going to have to be the kind of person that they were. You are going to have to clear a high bar of faith and devotion. Imagine yourself in heaven consorting with these men, those who gave all to the Lord's cause. Many of them laid down their lives for their testimonies or offered huge personal sacrifices for the cause. What will you have to compare to them--you didn't go to the Gap on Sunday? What kind of sacrifice is that!

Indeed, if you intend to inhabit the celestial worlds with our forebears who pulled handcarts across the plains, you're not going to get there by complaining to God about home teaching or holding a calling. Be real. Heaven is a real place and it's not for the spiritually lazy. Time to man-up, brother. Stop complaining. Put your hand to the plough and don't look back. Don't spend time looking back in the rear-view mirror pining for the ease of Egypt when a Moses is leading you to a promised land that flows with milk and honey.

This is no ordinary church. It is the Church of Jesus Christ himself. It is the one Church that has the keys, powers, and authorities to save your soul.
G. Westhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-88929687887909832102014-04-10T21:47:00.000-04:002014-04-10T21:49:22.739-04:00Wolves among the sheep

The devil is real and he works to destroy the happiness of Jesus' followers. He uses persecution outside the Church from secularists, the irreligious, and religious bigots. However, one of the more insidious threats to one's testimony can come from right within our ranks. Check out the kick-off of one topic on an anti-Mormon site:

This has been likely done before but:

I want to advocate a new blogsite called "the secret mormon project". I am a TBM who has had a lot of bad experiences with the church. I recognize that the church's social, teaching and leadership structure is deeply flawed. The things I see wrong with the church focus mainly around these things rather than historical issues with Joseph Smith, the BoM, etc.

The church has too many massive elephants in its rooms, or in other words so many enormous problems which cannot be spoken out about or dealt or even focused upon by its members. I cannot publicly challenge anything, if I do I'm going to be punished for "apostasy" and face goon squads and a lot of ward gossip.

So I proceed to create the "secret mormon" project, where I, an anonymous member will discuss problems with the church. The church is oppressive, it is also totalitarian. Its caused me a lot of heartache and one sunday I was sitting there thinking "why the f*** do I have to do all this stuff just to worship god?"- home teaching, calling, responsibilities, tithing.. this is not what an ordinary church would do.

It's time for me to speak out, mormonism needs bringing down from within. If you are on here and you still "active", then you need to establish a "secret mormon" blog too.. if we can make a movement we can REALLY HURT THIS ORGANISATION.
WHO'S WITH ME?

Yes this has been done before; Judas comes immediately to mind. It is the height of self-deception to declare oneself a TBM (true blue Mormon--Internet slang for the faithful LDS members) and at the same time be plotting with those who hate us to "REALLY HURT THIS ORGANIZATION."

We are entering into period that the world has not seen since the 1st century tribulation of the Church. In that day, Paul spoke of "false brethren unawares brought in...that they might bring us into bondage" (Galatians 2:4). He warned, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29).

There are anti-Mormons hiding in the Church, disaffected brethren and sisters who have malicious intentions. They may be teaching your child's Sunday School class or leading the scout troop. Pay attention to your gut. The Spirit of the Lord will help you discern danger. Pray for the spirit of discernment to be upon our bishops an stake presidents.

Having studied anti-Mormonism for several years, I am sure that the "thrill" these individuals get from covertly trying to undermine the saints will not be satisfying. The evil spirit that abides in their hearts seeks escalation and conflict. Satan loves contention and the more he can generate, the better he likes it.

How do we counter this? With genuine love and charity. There's one thing the devil can't stand--that's righteousness. So treat everyone with kindness. Care genuinely. Listen with empathy. When they can't stand it any more, they'll leave and the danger leaves with them. Or perhaps the spirit of repentance will call to them and they'll turn back to the Lord who loves them and his Church.
G. Westhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-21903625170222514932014-04-06T20:07:00.001-04:002014-04-07T00:48:44.170-04:00That ye may not be deceivedIt was a wonderful weekend watching General Conference. As I had mentioned earlier, the Ordain Women protesters tried to get some traction in the media. As expected, they were denied access to the Priesthood Session and they sat it out, watching it on their cell phones, iPods, or other mobile devices.

Kristi Boyce, one of the protesters, told a reporter "I love my prophet and I feel like this is a way to show devotion to a church I owe so much to."

"Ex-squeeze me!" as they say on Wayne's World. What kind of fragmented thinking is this? She loves the prophet--the president of the Church, the man she sustains as a prophet, seer, and revelator--yet she opposes the fundamental concept of his prophetic authority? She admits that she owes much to the Church an wants to show devotion to it by undermining the revelatory priesthood keys, the Rock upon which the Church is built? Are you kidding me? These women are deceiving themselves with these kinds of rationalizations. Here's what Jesus himself told the founding prophet who received the revelations and angelic ministrations that restored the lost priesthood to the earth:

14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations—
15 Wherefore he that prayeth, whose spirit is contrite, the same is accepted of me if he obey mine ordinances.
16 He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.
Jesus provides us patterns for the purpose of comparison. If something doesn't fit the pattern, it is an easy way to perceive the error in it. We don't have to spend a lot of time debating it. The adversary works in trickery. Jesus gives us straight-up patterns that are easy to discern. Those patterns are in the scriptures. It's why he tells us repeatedly to search the scriptures. We'll know the patterns of what he has done in the past and we can see how the present fits into it.

One of the patterns the Lord has shown us is how to discern false teachers who would lead the men and women of the Church astray. True servants of God will be prayerful. They will have a humble, contrite spirit, not a haughty, pretentious one. His or her speech will be meek and edifying, not grating and derisive. Even if a leader or teacher has those two qualities, there is one last, supremely important one that is qualified with an "if" statement. If a person has all these qualities AND he or she obeys the ordinances of the gospel, that fits the pattern.

Priesthood ordination is one of the gospel's ordinances. Anyone who advocates ordaining women is not of God because they are out of harmony with the revelations. Case closed.

It all comes down to whether you believe the priesthood was restored and that the living prophet holds the keys and powers that were conferred upon Joseph Smith by Peter, James, and John. This is the dividing line between what is Mormon and what is not. If you go through the temple recommend interview questions, for example, most Christians would answer the first couple questions the way we do. They believe in God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. They believe in the atonement of Christ and his role as Savior and Redeemer.

The third and fourth questions have to do with the Restoration and the authority of the modern prophets and apostles who direct the Church today. These questions would divide the "sheep from the goats" to use a biblical analogy. They separate the true followers of Christ from the pretenders. The priesthood keys are what divide the kingdom of God from the telestial world on its borders. Inside those borders is peace, harmony, order, and clarity. Outside those borders is schism, confusion, division, and disorder. The saints of God are one people. The pretenders are a quarreling family of shepherd-less sheep. Satan would reduce the saints to such a state of confusion if he could. Safety and peace are on one side of the line; danger and contention on the other.

The confusion in the mind of these unfortunate sisters is indicative of which sign of the line they're on. Do the leaders of the Church speak for God or are they just ordinary men who represent traditional patriarchy? The answer you give to that question depends of whether you understand the true nature of priesthood authority and whether these men possess the keys they claim to hold.

Sources:
Story-- http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_10468.shtml
Video-- http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_10468.shtmlG. firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8099813764233766772.post-211655096955651682014-04-01T00:18:00.000-04:002014-04-01T00:18:45.964-04:00Typical anti-Mormon "Christian"I really try my best to give grace to those who fight against Mormonism. Most of them are either misinformed or misguided. Someone they trusted--usually a pastor, priest or parent--filled their minds with prejudice and falsehoods about Mormons and then told they they were doing a service to God in bashing Mormons whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The sad thing is that the obsessive, knee-jerk reactions they manifest are almost Pavlovian. Because they do what they have been programmed to do, they cease to be driven by Christian compassion. All they are looking for is a "weakness" to exploit and score a point for their side. A case in point is one commentator on an article Glenn Beck published about the passing of his father.

Beck eulogized his father and honored him. Although he was not devoted to sectarian religion, he was a good, honest man who worked hard all his life, taught his family to be honest and upright, and served other people with kindness. On his deathbed, Glenn said his father received heavenly "escorts" to take him to the other side.

"My father slipped in and out of consciousness for a while," Beck recalled. "And then he sat up in bed, looked up at the ceiling corner as if someone was there, and he said, 'Yes? OK. I understand. I'm ready. Take me with you.' And he closed his eyes."

Beck shared this tender, personal experience with his readers and many of them related their condolences and even some similar experiences at the passing of their loved ones. Amidst the outpouring of kindness and gentleness, one anti-Mormon saw the chance to score. "Smokey Bojangles" wrote:

"And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.' No coffee,hot tea, or hot chocolate
You can only eat critters during 'winter, or of cold, or famine.'
'The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones…' God and Jesus are just regular folks…And so are Angels.'If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.'
' In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees.' Three degrees of Heaven?
It beats being an Atheist,but I still wouldn't want to be a Mormon."
It's a classic anti-Mormon "shotgun" attack wherein the attacker throws out a bunch of points without context or introduction to try to make Mormonism look strange, with the intent of ridiculing, demeaning, and overwhelming the Mormon defender's ability to answer all the accusations.

Just think of this. In Glenn Beck's moment of grief, a supposed "Christian" had the opportunity to console and offer comfort to a person in mourning. His anti-Mormonism overcame any natural instinct toward kindness, empathy, sympathy, or charity. The love of God is not in this person. It is that way with all anti-Mormons.

Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice." The ones that fight against Mormons who say that Jesus still speaks today are proving by their actions that they are not Jesus' sheep. They follow another master. They will get the reward of him whom they serve.

S.P.A.M. extends its condolences and sympathy for brother Glenn Beck's loss and we celebrate with him the truths that affirm that God is real, that he loves his children, and that angels attend us even today. What peace and comfort the gospel brings. Why would anyone fight against it?
G. firstname.lastname@example.com