Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Defending the Church

Unfortunately money is to be made from writing material against churches _ "bash material". Though I could easily write such stuff myself, how could I ever face God after having done so (apart from the spiritual damage to myself)? Many who write these things do so in total ignorance, and are just out for the money. There are, however, some few (and I hope for their sake it's very few) who do it knowing the truth but deliberately blinding themselves to that testimony; for those we should feel saddened.

The first thing most writers of bash material attempt to do is to appear knowledgeable of the subject. This means quoting statistics about the church. Often these statistics are incredibly out of date, and one gets the feeling from reading on that the person has taken other bash material and just taken bits from each. Most of the bash material, that I have read against churches, has been written by seemingly ignorant people.

The next thing done in most cases is the writer praises certain aspects of the church, such as no smoking, or drinking of alcohol, the sports and youth programs, unpaid missionaries, the genealogical facilities, etc. The purpose in this is to make the writer sound as if they are without prejudice. This is often mingled with the first step in smaller or more direct publications. Some bash material will continue scattering this approach throughout the publication in order to remain sounding unprejudiced.

First Things To Look For

Having stated these techniques let's look at some generalisations about the material. Firstly you will find the arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. The larger the material, the more the contradictions contained therein. A classic is the claim I have often read, that we don't believe in Jesus Christ. Yet the same material will go on to state that Joseph Smith claimed that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Some will go on further to state that The Book of Mormon claims that this same person we supposedly don't believe in (that is Jesus Christ) visited the Americas. Any thinking person should be able to see from these latter two claims that (a.) We believe that He lived, (b.) That He still does, (c.) That He has power therefore over death, and, (d.) Is in special favour with The Father.

I have also seen claimed that Joseph Smiths' mother was a Gipsy, and that he was a gold digger. Yet the same publications will often go on to state that the family were on a farm at the time of the first vision. This is an unusual place for Gipsies and gold diggers. My encyclopaedia tells me that Gipsies did not arrive in North America till the late 1800's_ making her about 100 years before her time (though one could not expect the average reader to be aware of that).

If the writer has been a member of the church they will often exaggerate their involvement by quoting general authorities they've met as being "friends".

Innuendo and misrepresentation are what makes up almost the whole material in smaller publications. And/or it will go for the shock/scare approach.

Never be conned by the pamphlet or another person into adopting a point of view that it/they tell you Mormons have. To quote an example of this: While on my mission my companion and I had opportunity to bare our testimony before about a third of a minister's congregation. Before we started however, the minister butted in and said to them, "by the way they do this because they believe that this testimony will be brought up against you at the judgement". My companion then went on to bare his testimony in that attitude, instead of with love and concern. What the minister said was correct _ we do believe that the testimony will be brought against them in the judgement; but in most cases, testimony is given so that people may feel it's truth and be converted. If you do not like the way the church doctrine is defined, redefine it. If someone says, "Well that's what this material is saying," Then you say that once they are more familiar with Christ's' doctrine, that they will come to sense what is wrong with it, (assuming that you cannot define what is wrong with it).

The main way this problem arises is in the material's automatic assumption that you must defend every word stated anywhere, by any general authority. In fact some will quote statements they made before they even became one.

What Do You Really Need To Defend

In 1890, and in 1978 declarations were put before the general membership of the church, and were sustained as Scripture. Sections 137 and 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants have recently gone through the same process. These joined the rest of the Scriptures sustained by the general membership in our Standard Works, ie. The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. As stated by President Harold B. Lee, "These are the standard by which we judge". He goes on further to state that any statement made that is not couched and supported by the standard works should only be regarded as opinion, regardless of the position of the man who said it. These statements do not mean that the prophet doesn't receive revelation. What it means is that you should not attempt to defend anything other than what you know to be accepted by the general church membership as Scripture ie. The Standard Works.

If you attempt to defend anything else, (1.) You are being unfair to the church membership; and (2.) You will come unstuck, as you find yourself trying to defend more and more obscure books, and by people who may not even have been general authorities (at all, or when they wrote them). You probably do not know the name of every general authority who's lived, and the people to whom you are speaking wouldn't either. I remember an instance when some members were listening to some bash material and circumstances had me there to defend the church. The person from another church said, "well Brigham Young said that his discourses are as good as Scripture". To which the Holy Ghost inspired me with the reply, "If I say something is as good as done, is it done or not?". The man said something about that not being much of an answer and quoted Brigham Young again, to which the Holy Ghost said to again give the same response. Don't be conned by someone into thinking your answer isn't satisfactory. The Standard Works are all you should, or need to defend, and you stick by that regardless of what they say, EVEN IF THE STATEMENT IS EASY TO DEFEND. If you defend one such statement, you have shifted ground. DON'T

Personal Preparation

The first thing to know is that there is an answer to every argument. Be assured of that. If you don't happen to know what it is don't be afraid to say, "well I don't know everything yet. I know there is an answer to your question, as the church is true, but I do not at this time know what it is". Let me add though that to date I have never had to say that, in my many experiences, and some going for 2-3 hours. This I mention for two reasons. Both of which are important to remember. (1.) That there truly is an answer to every argument against the church. And, (2.) That you should seek, and pray for the guidance of the Holy Ghost, in any spiritual endeavour. If you feel you have trouble getting things from the Holy Ghost, I would suggest reading Luke 11: 5 -13.

How much more would God give the Holy Spirit to one attempting to serve another?

Do not feel you have to have all the answers before you can answer claims against the church. However it would make your job a lot easier if you read the Standard Works you are attempting to defend. So an important part is regular personal Scripture study. Think about what you read so it becomes alive to you, and part of you _ you can see it's fulfilment around you; those who hate are not happy, those who love have the peace inside Christ promised, etc.

Plant firmly in your mind that you aren't there to argue your point with contention. The Holy Ghost will have difficulty communicating with you if you are contentious. If you find yourself feeling irate in a conversation of this nature recognise that you are probably irate at the ignorance, lies, and deceit. So put your interest in the person's personal welfare back firmly as first thought. Then the Holy Ghost will come to you as you're feeling love and concern.

Church History

This is the easiest area to deal with, yet some bash material only contains allegations about church leaders, and other notable (and sometimes some obscure, I should add) characters of church history. Many and varied are the allegations.

We have the claim that the three witnesses denied that they saw the gold plates. Yet we have witness that they did not.

A man was paid a large sum of money to go around and find people to sign affidavits against Joseph Smith. Some (at least) received money to sign them _ compensation for their time (though Joseph Smith obtained enough real enemies). Yet on the other hand we have witness of great people who highly praised him. The same goes for other church leaders. So the arguments are meaningless. Nothing can be resolved, or proven as there is as much for, as against. Neither side can prove the truth of either side of the testimonies. That stories, and testimonies exist against him would only stand as evidence that he was called of God, rather than the other way. We see evidence of this in the New Testament where the guards were bribed to claim that the apostles had come and taken the body of Jesus (Matt 28:12 -13). This evidence, from the guards, was used to make the apostles look like thieves, and liars. Verse 15 of that chapter states that the story against them stuck _ it did not go away. Today it would be the kind of thing put in bash pamphlets, and books. So while the stories and testimonies for and against church leaders, past and present, may leave us nowhere, these opposing testimonies do serve as a necessary sign in their favour. Jesus Christ clearly stated that all manner of evil would be said against His followers (eg. Matt 10:25). If you lived at the time of Christ what could you say in defence against these allegations against His apostles? So when faced with any allegations about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc., regarding anything they supposedly did, you just say that the arguments are meaningless as nothing can be proven either for, or against. I found this out from experience. Even having answered all the arguments put to me against Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith, people would say, "Well your story of those events is different to those stated in this book." Therefore they were left unsure. So the best thing is to just tell them why it is a meaningless discussion and suggest that your discussion should turn to something where things can be resolved by someone earnestly seeking the truth.

The most important tool you need for such conversations is the Holy Ghost. Having him there you will be able to answer anything.


yeti said...

interesting thoughs there about Defending Joseph Smith you got there. Because it is very true that I don't think that there is an unbiased history of the life of Joseph Smith. Yet when the Bible says to test Prophets, it tell us to look at their fruit. I have heard it said that the Book of Mormon is his fruit, and well, i don't buy that. I am not exactally sure what Jesus meant by the fruit, but I am thinking he didn't mean book. I believe that their must be a more gerenal meaning to that. And partly I would think life, fruit of the Spirit, Christ-like choices, disciples? what do you think. I guess the thing is that I feel a need to investigate the character of Joseph Smith to some extent to determine if he is a prophet. I also know that there are lies about him from people who oppose your Church, and that it is hard to detremine that truth. Often times it is Smith who keeps me doubting the Mormon faith.
-seer stones?
-talking to dead people?
-marrying young woman?
-joining the free masons?
-the authenthisity of his writings?
-The Book of Abraham?
-The Jupiter Talisman he carried with him to his death?
-the multipul first vision accounts?
-his martyrdom?
-unrepentant racism?
And like you said you don't have to defend any of those things, and they might not all be factual, but they cast some doubts and some shadows. When I look at that list, I am not sure if Smith is someone who I want to follow. Right? Either Smith was a liar, a lunitic, or a true prophet, and I feel like if you are believing that he is a true prophet, then you should be able to defend that. If someone comes up and says that he wasn't a true prophet, and gives an adaquat preposition as to why they think that, I hope you can defend your prophet, and honestly look into the claims they make. Even if you do not defend it to the one who speaks to you, I hope you can defend it for yourself.


Doug Towers said...


I feel that fruits of a person are anything that the person produces or is involved in the production of: Just as the fruit of a tree.

I see the church as his fruit. I see the Book of Mormon as his fruit. I see the other Scriptures, other than the Bible, as his fruit. The only thing on the list that I see as his fruit is the Book of Abraham.

I've seen and heard dead people myself. So I have no struggle with that whatsoever.

Marrying young women; Abraham at 120 married Keturah and other females who must have been at least 60 years his junior. And most likely where young women. Jesus Christ would have married a female of about 12 or 13. So I can't see that as a crime.

Free Masons perform no crimes by virtue of their teachings, that I'm aware of.

The authentisity of the Bible is questioned. Can you prove that Moses wrote the first 5 books. In fact I can prove that he could not have. So is Moses a false prophet? Show me the evidence to prove that Joseph Smith didn't write what he claimed to have written.

What of the Book of Abraham. A wonderfully inspired book.

He carried a talisman that had some significance to him. And?

The different versions of the first vision written years apart are a testimony to how genuine they are, not how false.

Are you posing that a person being killed makes them a potential false person??????????

Present to me your explanation of why God has demonstrated racism, if you doubt Joseph Smith's explanation.

I am aware that Joseph Smith made human errors. But the things you quote don't seem to present any of those.

If you said he had arguments with his wife. If you said that God had to tell him to get his family in order. If you told me that he made directional mistakes at times, I'd have to agree. He also changed his doctrinal opinions. This is called "learning." I should demand that of a true prophet.

yeti said...

of note you said nothing of the seer-stones, though I geuss you might add that they are like the urim and thumin(S/P?) in the OT.

Deut 18:10-11 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.

I don't think consulting with dead people is a good idea. Yes Jesus met Moses and Elijah on a mountain, but I do not think he consulted with them. Also command over what Jesus did.

I have no reason to believe that Jesus Married young woman. I guess the biggest concern would be if Joseph Smith did it against the will of the woman.

I cannot quote it for you, but I did read somewhere (D and C?) that Joseoh Smith said that you should not join other organisations with religious affiliation (e.g. Masons), but then he did? You might want to look into Free Masonry before you say that it is all okay.
it is very likely that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, but he also never claimed to. (I think he probably did, but that doesn't really matter) Did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon? how much did he take from other sources? What about the Book of Abraham? Did he translate it, or make it up? how come the pyparus which Joseph Smith translated from is does not contain the words found in the Book of Abraham?

Is it okay to rely on other such things, like talismans for protection? is that a token from another god? to whom did he pledge alliegience? was it an idol for him? was it a stored possesion? did he feel he needed it to be protected? Why would he carry a marker of another god? what is the very essence of a talisman?

one would just think that an experience like what Joseph Smith claimed to have with the first vision would be more easily remembered, more carefully treated. Especally if you are going to found a Church on it.

Was his martyrdom more like a gun fight in which he just happened to die? what did he call out as he died? was it a cry to God, or a Free Mason's code?

I don't think God is rasist. I dont think he has ever chosen specific rases, one over the other. In the OT there is a Specific people group, the lineage chosen for Jesus, but it is not about a race. In Matthew 1, Jesus' Lineage includes Rahab and Ruth. It was not about Race, but about a promise. (I do not know Smith's explanation)

I also wonder about the changes that have been made to the Book of Mormon and the D and C. if they are suposed to be moer right than anyother book then why has the Church made a multitude of changes to them, but has not made any offical changes to the Bible?

And what about prophesies that Smith made? have they all come to pass? are some still gong to come to pass? what about the ones that have not come to pass?

I realise that he is a human and will make human errors, but some of these bigger things... and was he the one who said that the modern prophets would never lead the Church astray?

Doug Towers said...


Plainly you have been reading a lot of negative stuff about the church and Joseph Smith. But I would say that you have allowed the material to manipulate your thinking.

You have been persuaded to see things that I believe you would have seen otherwise had it not been for the sensationalism and persuasiveness of the writer.

Just think for a moment. You have an enormous experience. It has all these fine details within it. You have lots of thoughts in your head. Someone tells you to write about it. Are you telling me that with your enthusiasm you are going to write every detail of your thoughts and experience?

If you believe so I can assure you that you are wrong. I have had this experience many times. People have asked me to tell them about wonderful experiences that I have had. They have asked to hear about it several times over a long period. Yet EACH and EVERY time someone says, "you didn't mention that last time." You have it the wrong way around. If he said the same thing every time I would THEN doubt.

The urim and thumin are the "magic specticles" referred to in anti material, yes.

You have come to accept some Oggy Boogy about some trinket that JS liked. Take a look at women around you. Are they all wearing these strange trinkets to honor some strange god? Don't make something out of nothing.

Are you an expert at Egyptian Hyroglyphics? Are you aware of all the contention of interpretation amoung Egyptologists? All I do is read the end result and see the wisdom in it. Don't buy into all the hype. There is no proof that there is some fault in the translation. Such proof is virtually, if not, impossible.

I know enough about masonary to know that it only plays a basic lip service to religion. Its religious part doesn't have any basic tenants whatsoever.

God's instruction against dealing with the dead is for the purpose of stopping people getting absorbed in spiritualism and loosing sight of the gospel. It doesn't mean we can never talk to dead people. Husbands and wives lose their partners and often feel them close and communicate with them. Don't turn them into sinners.

The Book of Mormon was printed at a time when you couldn't just put it onto a computer and print out piles of copies. The same can be said of the Bible. In the cursive writings alone over 120,000 differences exist in the manuscripts. Which is the most correct? The church didn't have the earliest version that existed of the Book of Mormon. It was finally bought from the Re-organised Church when they sold it to us, as they needed the money.

200 armed men charge a prison and you ask whether he enduced the gunfight?????

God may have allowed others to join Israel. But they had to join.

How is it fair that one person is born in a black neighborhood and another is born in a white neighborhood? Don't you believe that God is no respector of persons?

In regard prophesies read D&C 87.

Wilford Woodruff said that the president of the church wouldn't lead the church astray. He wasn't stating that no flaws would be made. He was stating that no major directional change would occur that would stop people from obeying God's laws according to what he was proposing for the general membership of the church at the time. - The circumstance was relative to the removal of a gospel principle, and it was questioned as to his right to do this.

Jesus either married a young woman or a much older woman than himself. Be it your choice.

yeti said...

normally i try to think for a couple of days before replying... it makes my thoughts more logical and less emotional.

but really? forced to join? what do you mean? have you read the book of Ruth? Joseph married an Egyptian. do you think that maybe 2 half tribes of Israel were part black?
RACES DON'T EXIST! we are not like breeds of Dogs. a black and a white person may share way more common DNA than two Black people.
And what about being born in a white community or a black community? that has NOTHING to do with skin colour. do you think one person is worse off than the other? do you think there is something wrong with being born in a black community? I don't get your point.
"Don't you believe that God is no respector of persons?" i dont know what respector means or what this question means.
okay, i will read D and C 87

Doug Towers said...


I didn't say that the Egptians at the time of Joseph were black. Nor have I said anything of an inferior DNA.

But as to communities; the statistics show that people born in black communities are more likely to commit crimes and are more likely to suffer from crimes. Stating this doesn't mean I hate black people or see them as any way necessarily inferior. Yet they are plainly disadvantaged GENERALLY SPEAKING.

As this is the fact (whether we like it or not) people born in black communities are less likely to live the kind of lifestyle essential to obtaining eternal life. So we have God creating people in better positions to obtain eternal life? - God told Abraham that he knew Issac would turn out well because Abraham was his father. That wouldn't be fair if there was no pre-existence.

The only way we can have an impartial God is if all people were different before coming here and God has given people position according to their individual needs.

And this is all Joseph Smith was acting in regard to. I see his point as making sense.

yeti said...

We don't have "Black communities" in Canada, so I am dealing with a foriegn concept. Also I dont think it is by living Gospel Princables that one gains eternal live, but by the grace and forgiveness of God. And being that the one who is forgiven much is the one who loves much, coming from a place of crime doesn't seem all that bad.
"26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." (acts 17)
perchance God places people in different situations, but the one situation is better than another, but better for that person. that is sorta what you said, only you seem to also think some situations are better to be placed in. like if you weren't as good in the pre-existance, you should get less of a chance on earth?
I'd suggest that pre existance is not nesicary for God to determine where people should live, because he is their creator, and he knows us because of that, and because he is God.
what about white people born in Black communities? what about the growth of Christianity in Africa?

yeti said...

in regard to D&C 87, I am not sure I get your point... was this a fulfilled prophecy? again, not going to lie, my American history is not the greatest.
but even if it is a fulfilled prophesy, that does not negate the fact that other prophicies are left unfulfilled. and I guess that is sorta what matters. what does Deuteronomy say about people who make false prophacies?
God is Jealous, so I don't think that think that he would be okay with Smith treasuring another God's trinket.
I think the Book of Abraham has more than just a few small errors in translation. The part of it whaich has been recovered shows no similarity to what is written in the Pearl of Great Price. While it is only a part of what was written, if you read the Claims written about the Book of Abraham, the validity breaks down quickly. You can look that one up for yourself.
I am perfectly okay with believing that Jesus wasn't married at all. Sorta like what paul talks about his singleness allows him to be focused on the kingdom and not have his interests divided. If he was married, it was of great insignificance.also, the Church is his bride.
I think That Joseph Smith wrote somewhere (perhaps in the D&C, maybe you can varify?) about how they should join no other organisation with creeds or such like that. then after writing that he joined the Masons... do you see why that doesn't line up in my mind?
wouldn't the Egyptians at the time of Joseph be black? If you lived in Sudan, having white skin woud be a curse.

Doug Towers said...


Your statements have lots of innuendo, but no facts. You have made piles of claims but presented no evidence.

Prove to me that God opposes jewelry in the NT.

We have you claiming that somewhere in the book of Abraham doesn't relate to Egyptian Hyroglyphics. Yet, AGAIN, no evidence.

If you need to know about crime in black communities, Google it.

I have written demonstrating that the Bible clearly supports a pre-existence. Read the post.

The church runs boy scouts. Does this also infringe upon your version of other organisations that Joseph Smith must have been referring to? Have you even read his full quote to see what he was talking about?

D&C 87 was a prophesy that was fulfilled. You have made innuendo of prophesies unfulfilled, but, AGAIN, no evidence.

No, the Egyptians at the time of Joseph weren't black. They fought with the black Nubians to the south.

Your statements about black and white are somewhat grey. What are you saying?

I'd suggest that if you are going to read anti material that you find something that actually says something that we can discuss, rather than ones that just make unsupported claims.

yeti said...

I replied to your original post, not trying to prove Joseph Smith wrong, but with attempting to say that Joseph Smith needs some defence. I was wondering if you would defend him. I think the point I was trying to make was that there are arguments against Joseph Smith, and if you refuse acknowledge them or to come to peace with them then you are an ignorant fool. (was that a little harsh...I am trying to think of a nicer way to put that, but do you get what I mean? Do be offended, because you do, at large, defend him.) So the claims I made where not well thought out proofs backed up with reliable resources. They are just things I have heard around, or conclusions I have come to in my own mind. If you want, I can do the research, and look for information in regards to Joseph Smith. Though, like I have said before, I do not know if there is an unbiased source around. Do you want me to show you all the prophecies unfulfilled? I really don’t think that God despises jewellery (if I was going to try to defend that point I would use 1 Peter 3:3, or 1 Timothy 2:9, but I do not think that God despises Jewellery) I do think that God has a problem with graven images. I think he has a problem if we trust in manmade objects. I think he has a problem if hold on to that which represents another God. I think he has a problem if we do not forsake everything to follow him.
As for the book of Abraham, I seriously challenge you to do some research on this before you defend it. If you are not up for the challenge, then I will look into it and tell you what I have found.

Test all things. Cling to that which is good

Doug Towers said...


I can only be a fool if I have buried my head in the sand and not done anything to consider arguments against the church.

I once found myself in a situation where I had to defend the church against 2 Jehovah's Witnesses that ran a particular meetinghouse. I had with me a guy who had only just joined the church about a week before. They had a great big book with stuff against the church. The Holy Ghost answered everything through me. At the end, when they had given up we went outside. The guy I was with raved to everyone all week of how I'd slaughtered them.

I had a guy come to me with piles of books written against the church. He went through them a book at a time with the parts he wanted to challenge me on. As I answered each book he would place it on the other side. After about an hour and a half he looked at the books on one side. And looked at the books he had left (about 8-10) and then at the ones I had answered (about 25-30) and just pushed the books across to the other side. I said, "what are you doing?" He said, "Well, you've answered all those, so it's obvious you are going to answer these also. And so he joined the church.

I had an experience of a Seventh-Day Adventist who came over to confuse some members. The members asked if I would come over and join in the conversation? I did. For 2 and a half hours the Holy Ghost answered all claims against the church.

You making innuendo means nothing. Put up the facts and we will discuss them together.

I once wore a tiki around my neck because I liked it and it reminded me of this series I'd watched. It held absolutely NO religious significance to me whatsoever.

I knew a woman who wore a piece of jewelry because it was her grandmothers. I find that watching war movies brings home the need to follow God. See? Our mind is ours. How we view something is individual. If you would have religious trouble having this thing JS supposedly wore then I strongly advise you not to wear one. Paul said to not harm others with the freedom of the gospel. You are quoting the law of Moses. I would ask do YOU have any likenesses of anything in the heavens above or the earth beneath or the water underneath the earth? Do you have any photographic likenesses of anything? The Israelites had NO art for good reason.

I have never claimed that Joseph Smith was some kind of perfect guy who never made any mistakes. I see in him the same kind of growth that I have had to make in my lifetime. I see in him the mistakes that I've made in learning. I see a man who contradicted himself as he learned that which he didn't know before.

But as I read parts of the D&C I weap with the truth of it that I have seen in my life. His unique doctrines I have seen to be true in things that have happened to me and that I have seen and felt. Even some long before I ever heard of Joseph Smith. People don't just guess such things as these. Our greatest philosophers and psychiatrists don't hold a candle to what Joseph Smith would have to have invented, for it to be his ideas.

I suggest you study the material that was used in court and proved that the Book of Mormon is an authentic history of the ancient American people. In spite of the decision being contested by appeal it won again. So anyone telling you that they have some way to prove the Book of Mormon is a fraud is telling you nonsense.

yeti said...

Honestly I don't feel the need to prove Joseph Smith a fraud. Maybe one day when I have some time I will look up some arguments.

Doug Towers said...


You have made many accusations against Joseph Smith and the church. Yet have not put forward one shread of evidence in regard any of them. If you wish to make claims and have me keep your comments on my site, without deleting them, then back up any accusations you make in the future, please.

yeti said...

I am sorry if I have offended you in anyway, that was not the intent. My intent was to understand your perspective on defending th Church, and my curiosity about how you faced the claims against Joseph Smith.


Doug Towers said...


Don't take my comment as that you have offended me. My defensive stance is due to my concern that lies are presented through innuendo, and I strongly oppose lies.

It is not about you as a person. My concerns at that you and others can be influenced to reject the truth because of such statements.

If you wish to hear my defence to such statements then present them. But give me something to work with, not just, "Jim Brown is a crook," type stuff.

Anonymous said...

I personally don't feel the need to defend the church.

The truth is intended for those who are willing to recieve it. It is not ment for those who mock it.

The lord in the scriptures never directly addresses those outside of those who He has made a covenant with.

But He certainly pounds on those within the covenant who stand in need of correction and the conseqences and curses are aimed dirrectly at us with the inference that those outside the covenant who are also wicked, will suffer like fates if unrepentant.

We must never falsely assume the Lord is speaking of those outside of His Covenant without first understanding He is speaking to us.

And for that reason, we have wickedness within the covenant that is ALWAYS being addressed by God and must be viewed from that perspective.

If not viewed from that perspective and we always view the enemy as being those outside the Lord's covenant who attack us, then we begin making the false assummption that ALL polices that have become part of our church are in sync with the Lord's will.

Careful study of the writings of ancient prophets concerning our day and the Doctrines that Joseph Smith restored and founded by virtue of what past prohets had written, are the only sure defence of knowing EXACTLY what it is you should be defending.

I would say if we should be defending the church against anything...It should be defending it from ourselves as those who have entered a covenant with God and have distorted many of the original doctrines.

We place ourselves in the danger of equating the true doctrines that are never changing, with the notion that doctrines and people equate to the same thing.

People can personafy true doctrine but they are just as capable of distorting it.

So don't worry so much over ignorant comments made by those who don't understand, but rather worry for those who SHOULD know but don't and wind up defending a good cause with poor understanding of the real truth.

Doctrines and not people should be the ONLY thing to defend. As well as the members of the God Head who personify those Doctrines.

But never place blind trust in ANY man here on earth. Only trust in God.

Doug Towers said...


I'd go along with the thrust of that. Though I don't see anyone as my enemy exactly. I see false ideas as the enemy; and try to aid those believing in them.