The Vatican Speaks of an Alien Savior

This is probably the strangest blog that I have ever written.  I read a book by Cris Putnam and Thomas Horn, two writers that have been speculative in the past.  But this wild subject was jaw-dropping—it was hard to believe—but they supplied lots of proof, even more than in the past. And their conclusions are too radical to ignore.  So let’s take a look at it.  We’ll start by looking at the Jesuit priest Guy J. Consolmagno, a leading astronomer who often is a spokesman for the Vatican.  He is brilliant; he has worked for NASA and taught at Harvard and MIT.  Some of his time in 2013 was spent at the Vatican observatory at the summer residence of Pope Francis in Castel Gandolfo, Italy; the rest of his time, since, is at Mt. Graham in Arizona as Director (more on that later) and he is also President of the Vatican Observatory Foundation.  He is close enough to the Pope that he can be called his friend.

His time in public forums is lecturing on the subject of science and religion; specifically, would you believe, extraterrestrial life and its potential impact on the future of faith.  He authored a booklet entitled Intelligent Life in the Universe: Catholic Belief and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life. It was first authorized by Rome, but they changed their mind; it was pulled by the Vatican publisher in 2005, and is no longer available.  (This suggests that the higher authorities might have believed him, but decided the timing was not right to introduce it.)  But our authors persuaded him to send them a copy of this work.  Here is a partial quote, in which he stretches Jesus’ words in John 10:16 to a strange conclusion:

“…other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:  them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice…” 

Consolmagno’s interpretation:  “Perhaps it’s not so far-fetched to see the Second Person of the Trinity…coming not only as a Son of Man but also as a Child of other races.”

His reference of contrast between Man and “other races” says that he believes Jesus was referring to alien life when He said “other sheep…not of this fold.”  The acceptable interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is speaking about Gentiles, “not of this (Jewish) fold,” being evangelized for salvation through Him.  There are many references in Paul’s epistles to the effort to assimilate the Gentiles into faith. 

Jesuit Consolmagno was not alone in his belief about alien life.  Numerous Vatican astronomers, many of them Jesuits, are believers.  And the Vatican believes this enough to lay out a lot of cash looking for alien life--witness the purchase of Mt. Graham, and the attachment of expensive advanced scopes.  It is 80 miles from Tucson, and skirts Indian territories.  Indians, in fact, consider Mt. Graham to be one of the four holiest mountains in the Americas, and tried to stop construction of the observatories.  A large binocular telescope, one of the world’s most advanced optical telescopes, has a new device between its twin mirrors.  Officially, it’s a “Large Binocular Telescope Near-Infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research.”  And, yes, that name suggests it was very expensive.  Strangely, someone in the Vatican shortened it to L.U.C.I.F.E.R.--a name for the devil.  This name actually means ‘morning star.’)  Our authors traveled to Mt. Graham for interviews.  They noticed how Jesuit astronomers are earnestly searching for intelligent alien life.  Surprising to Messrs Putnam and Horn also was the Jesuit astronomers’ frequent reference to UFOs as well. 

Oh, yes…UFOs.  I, like a majority of Americans, was not a believer.  But what shocked me, on research, is the belief in them from sensible and scientific people—even many of the earlier astronauts.  Here is a list of believers and comments:

Edgar Mitchell.  The former NASA astronaut claimed in 2009 that alien life exists but that the US government was covering up the evidence.  Mr Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, made the claims in a talk to the fifth annual X-Conference – a meeting of those who believe in UFOs and other life forms.  He also said he had attempted to investigate the 1947 'Roswell Incident', which some believe was the crash-landing of a UFO, but he had been thwarted by military authorities.

He said: "We're not alone. Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. ... We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there.  I urge those who are doubtful: Read the books… start to understand what has really been going on. Because there really is no doubt we are being visited.

The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time."

Gordon Cooper wrote a letter addressed to the United Nations in 1978 asking the organization to set up a research program to study UFOs. In 1951 when the astronaut was piloting an F-86 over Germany, he spotted saucers.

Bill Clinton has openly spoken out about extraterrestrial life and UFOs and has been very forthcoming about his belief that E.T.s exist and that we’re not alone. Presidents may not be immediately privy to all the nation’s secrets, as Clinton claims to have had aides research Area 51 and Roswell during his presidency.  “If we were visited someday I wouldn’t be surprised,” Clinton said in an interview on Jimmy Kimmel Live that aired in April 2014. “I just hope it’s not like ‘Independence Day.’ … It may be the only way to unite this increasingly divided world of ours. Think about [it,] all the differences among people of Earth would seem small if we feel threatened by a space invader,” he said.

Jimmy Carter, US President from 1976 to 1980, promised while on the campaign trail that he would make public all documents on UFOs if elected. He said: "I don't laugh at people any more when they say they've seen UFOs. I've seen one myself."

General Douglas MacArthur, the Korean and Second World War soldier, said in 1955 that "the next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets. The politics of the future will be cosmic, or interplanetary".

J Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI from its inception in 1935 to 1972, said of a famous incident when flying saucers were allegedly fired at over Los Angeles in 1942: "We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."

Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a Vatican theologian, said: "Extraterrestrial contact is a real phenomenon. The Vatican is receiving much information about extraterrestrials and their contacts with humans from its embassies in various countries, such as Mexico, Chile and Venezuela."

Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding, commander of RAF Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain: "I am convinced that these objects do exist and that they are not manufactured by any nations on earth."

Ronald Reagan saw a UFO during a 1974 Cessna Citation flight.  He was with three other passengers. He alerted pilot Bill Paynter to the UFO, which was described as being elongated and moving at an incredible speed. Reagan told the story to the Wall Street Journal’s Washington bureau chief Norman C. Miller, according to the Discovery Channel.  He said, "I looked out the window and saw this white light. It was zigzagging around. I went up to the pilot and I said to him: 'Let's follow it!' We followed it for several minutes. It was a bright white light.  We followed it to Bakersfield, and all of a sudden to our utter amazement it went straight up into the heavens.  He expressed thoughts on the matter similar to Clinton’s:  He said in a speech to the United Nations in 1987, according to MSNBC: “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, the USSR's last head of state: "The phenomenon of UFOs does exist, and it must be treated seriously."

Richard Nixon: "I'm not at liberty to discuss the government's knowledge of extraterrestrial UFO's at this time. I am still personally being briefed on the subject."

And let’s not forget one of our smartest Christians, Dr. Walter Martin, who founded Christian Research Institute in 1960 and who authored the famous textbook, The Kingdom of the Occult. In a portion of his 1970 UFO presentation, he not only took the UFO phenomenon seriously, but he was also an eyewitness to a flying saucer. 

OK, let’s just say, on wild speculation, that there have been UFOs—aliens who have visited earth.  What would that mean?  Well, our authors Putnam and Horn believe that IF this has happened, these were visits by demons to prepare us for the devil’s greatest deception of all time. What might happen is, they eventually would land, show themselves to be much smarter than man; why not, demons are smart—when they are under a master strategist, Satan.  And, being from another dimension, they can perform unbelievable tricks as well.  The story that they could spread is, they created, or to use a popular term, “seeded” us.  And they stand ready to give us fantastic scientific and medical knowledge.  We could live a much longer time.  We could feel immortal, as gods.  And we could change our belief system to worshipping them, or their god.  With their presence as proof, it's possible that most people will believe this (in a desire for longer life), and a world religion will be born.  Christians, who believe in the “old, Neanderthal” theology of sin, judgment, blood and sacrifice, would be directly persecuted for trying to stop man’s evolution into the future.

As you can see, this directly feeds into the Bible’s vision of the future.  (I have other blogs on the future here).  I have always wondered, frankly, how a world religion, specifically mentioned in Revelation, would be possible in this conflicted world. As is intimated by two of our believers above, these invaders could suggest that all of mankind would have to decide on this new religion and man’s purpose and origin. That’s the only way I see to a world religion. But like I said—this is all a gigantic deception by the devil to pull us away from the real God.

But here’s another brain-blowing revelation—certain important Jesuits, with a lot of influence, believe this scenario and have expressed it.  Let’s take a look at Jesuit George V. Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory and its Advanced Technology Telescope—the one in Mt. Graham which is expressly looking for extraterrestrial life.  In addition to his duties as a Jesuit, he was a professor in the University of Arizona’s astronomy department, as well as associate director of the Steward Observatory.  He appeared with Richard Dawkins advocating a deistic form of Darwinism (hint: This blasphemes the Genesis record of Creation).  Jesuit Coyne stunned the high priest of atheism by promoting a radical form of pluralism, the idea that all religions lead to the same God.  (P.S. God does not hold to this theology, as many Scriptures attest).  Coyne stretches the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, even given Rome’s embrace of postmodernism.  On another occasion, he claimed that the Scriptures are scientifically inaccurate obscurantisms--music to the ears of secularists and pagans universal.  It seems Malachi Martin was right:  In his book The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church (1987), Martin asserts there is a “satanic cabal” among Jesuits, and he lamented that this sort of postmodernism has become the stock and trade of third-millennium Jesuitism.

Or let’s have a listen to Rome’s heralded demonologist, Monsignor Corrado Balducci (he died in 2008).  He was a theologian of the Vatican Curia, (governing body at Rome), a long-time exorcist for the archdiocese of Rome, also a friend of  pope Benedict, and a Prelate of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. No Catholic demonologist has more clout.   He asserted that extraterrestrial encounters “are not demonic, they are not due to psychological impairment, and they are not a case of entity attachment.”  Of course, this begs the question—How does he know? He further fulminates that “We don’t even have to waste a thought on the devil and his demons…they are purely spiritual beings, limited in their activity by God, and not able to bring all their hatred to us.”  (His suggestion that they are limited to the spirit realm is defying Scripture, which in many places show how angels—what demons are, only they became bad angels—have taken on material form). 

Or, how about a listen to Notre Dame theologian Thomas O’Mera, who is on the forefront of Catholic exotheology with his book Vast Universe, and his interviews with the Huffington Post.  Here is his blasphemous statement on Jesus’ claims about limitations of salvation:  “Is Jesus so central a figure that only he and his Middle Eastern religious world can reveal God?”  Of course, the fact that Jesus IS God should certify His centrality and ability to reveal God. This modernism also affected Vatican II, as one of its more influential figures in molding it, Karl Rahner, has proposed that a sincere Hindu or Buddhist can be saved without knowledge of the Gospel.  This view was explicitly endorsed during Vatican II. 

I should mention that Rome has never admonished any of the men mentioned above, despite their un-Biblical statements, nor removed them from any of their influential positions.       

   

Now I hope you’re ready, because I have the last bit of mind-blowing material for you.  Fr. Coyne (see above) was at least partially traditional when he said, “Should intelligent (alien) life be found, the Church would be obliged to address the question of whether extraterrestrials might be brought within the fold and baptized.”  In 2009, the Vatican had a 150^th celebration of publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. (Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation; but the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin, as it condemned and silenced Galileo. Pope John Paul II said that evolution was "more than a hypothesis;" and he has never been contradicted by popes since).  A leading American scholar of biology, Prof. Francisco Ayala, told the conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.  "The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse," he said.

"Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living world".  So the Catholic rulers agreed (any speaker has to submit an outline of his speech ahead of time) to having a speaker tell them that the choice they have, is either an imperfect designer-God, or Darwinism.  I have to disagree, folks—any imperfections we have is due to our sin, and our responsibility for it.  Scriptures are clear that God created the world perfect.

The latest word on the evolution of man starts with Jesuit priest Guy J. Consolmagno (see earlier).  He called his job reconciling ”the wildest reaches of science fiction (which he doesn’t think is fiction) with the flint-eyed dogma of the Holy See.”  He believes in “the Jesus Seed,” which says that every planet that harbors intelligent life may also have had a Christ walk across its methane seas.  Further on this is from the May 2008 L’Osservatore Romano (a Vatican approved newspaper), recording an interview with a Vatican spokesperson, Father Funes, who wrote “The Extraterrestrial Is My Brother.”  He was asked whether extraterrestrials need to be redeemed.  His answer:  “God was made man in Jesus to save us…if other intelligent beings exist, it is not said that they would have need of redemption.”  Thus, he asserts that some extraterrestrials are morally superior to men--as if he knew.  He asserts in his book Brother Astronomer:  Adventures of a Vatican Scientist that they may come here to evangelize us. Yes, we need to learn a new gospel from the aliens.

But let me give you one more infamous quote:  In a paper for the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science website, Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti—an Opus Dei theologian of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome—says these “spiritual aliens” should be respected.  He states that this would not immediately oblige the Christian “to renounce his own faith”….but that such a renunciation could come soon after as the new “religious content” originating outside Earth is confirmed as reasonable and credible.  Once it is verified, we are obliged to “conduct a re-reading of the Gospel inclusive of the new data.”  This is explained more thoroughly by former Vatican observatory vice director Christopher Corbally in his article “What if There Were Other Inhabited Worlds?”  He concluded that Jesus simply might not remain the only Word of salvation.  He quotes:  “Christ..is not necessarily the only word spoken to the universe…to aliens, it does not have to be a repeated death-and-resurrection…” (But Christ is the only Revelation of God, the Logos, the Word--says Scripture.) 

So, with such radical assertions, and backing, do Jesuits and Catholic hierarchy want us to throw away Scripture? 

My question to all this is, what is the alien gospel that they speak of aliens redeeming us?  What is its source?  I believe to have a world religion, if they exist, these "aliens" are really demons--and their source is Satan. Their gospel would be the same one Satan gave to Eve--"ye shall be as gods."  Because long, pleasant lives are waiting for us.

One final quote from Monsignor Balducci:  Extraterrestrials “were already interacting with Earth.”  This idea is repeated by Fr Malachi Martin:  “the highest levels of Vatican administration know what’s going on in space, and what’s approaching us…”  

So there you have it.  These Catholic “prophets” are preparing the world to listen to a new Gospel, and it's getting ready to happen now.  Their longing for extraterrestrials to teach us may lead many people away from the real Gospel, to eternal death.  They say, let’s throw out the old, get on board with the new, right?  No, wrong.  Let’s pray that none of this nightmare will ever happen. 

Acknowledgement:  Putnam and Horn, Exo-Vaticana:  The Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior

When Persecution Comes

I’m summarizing a great CD by David Bercot, about the possible upcoming persecution by the U.S. government against its Christian citizens, specifically those who “live out” the Bible. He begins by saying, there are two types of persecution: primary and secondary. Both are serious, in terms of possible death or imprisonment. Primary is defined as where the intent of a law is to outlaw Christianity itself, or to force everyone to worship another religion. The ancient Roman Empire made Christianity illegal around 90 AD, but thankfully, it was only enforced sporadically. Plus, Rome required everyone to believe in the divinity of Caesar. Today, primary persecution is practiced in North Korea, and in various sections of Near East countries under Islamic rule.

In secondary persecution, the intent is not necessarily to persecute Christians; but the law would require us to do something or say something that would violate Christ’s teachings. An example would be a conscription law requiring military service, which some Christians throughout the world would not do, maintaining that Jesus’ commands regarding the enemy are sort of the opposite of killing him.  Another example was where there were state churches established by the Catholic Church in the middle ages, and everyone was required to be a member, participating in its sacraments, thus acceding to all its doctrines. Many Waldensians, a serious Christian protesting group, went through the motions of attending Catholic services, but then had private meetings of their own. But other Waldensians still saw this as bowing to Rome, refused to do so, and came under severe persecution. In the end, all the Waldensians were declared heretical by Rome in 1215, nearly all killed in the 1600s, and survive today in small groups in Italy, Germany, the U.S., Argentina, and Uruguay.

Mr. Bercot doesn’t feel that the U.S. Christians will face primary persecution in the next 20-30 years (barring a possible Tribulation period), but considering how government can quickly and radically change, it’s better to be prepared now.

But he does believe that secondary persecution in the U.S. is more likely, as more laws create a conflict between U.S. government requirements and our Christian faith. When to rebel is sometimes uncertain, and Mr. Bercot sides with caution. Every time some anti-moral law is passed (abortion, for instance), it’s easy to feel rebellious. But remember, our first rule is to follow God’s Word in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Remember that Paul is writing during the time of one of the most violent governments in history, one that shortly would begin throwing Christians to the lions. Yet he doesn’t advocate open rebellion. So that means, for us: We obey the laws, period,

UNLESS obedience to the law would cause us to violate a law, or principle, of Jesus Christ.

Let’s not break Caesar’s laws lightly. To obey God’s Word, we should be the ones most conscientiously obeying the laws. But if the law demands that we disobey Christ’s commands, we ignore it. Follow the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of men.

Too many Christians break a law for light reasons. Here is an example of how we break the law simply because it’s “inconvenient” to our Christian work, and how we play games with our minds excusing our action. Say you run a food delivery and selling service to quite a number of people. The law requires that you have a commercial kitchen, subject to government certification and inspection and so forth. But you cut corners to keep profitable and to have more time to spend doing your Christian service for the church. If you seriously obeyed the law, you would have to slash the profits or take on another occupation. Since that would harm your time available for Christian service, you justify breaking the law. But the Scriptural point is, nothing in the food law requires us to violate Christ’s principles. The law is just inconvenient to our time for Christ. So the law is not persecution. And breaking it is illegitimate and not condoned by Christ.

Many Christians are upset with Supreme Court decisions making new laws. Well, consider how our system of jurisprudence works. We learned in school the simplicity that laws are made by legislators, and interpreted by courts. But the truth is, courts have a lot to say about how a law is made. In the process of interpreting laws, courts also help shape how they finally look and are applied. They fill in gaps that are left by the statutes the legislators have left, they decide how various laws interact with one another, they restrict the operation of certain statutes, they may strike down a statute as being unconstitutional, and they may interpret a statute in unexpected ways. Their interpretation IS the law. You can’t have 300 million people with different opinions of what a law means having a say; anarchy would result. You need a final arbiter—and that is the Supreme Court. We may disagree with the result, but we have to follow their decision as law. But as we said before, UNLESS obedience to the law would cause us to violate a principle of Christ.

Many Christians feel the Court does not respect freedom of religion. Keep in mind, that court cannot give us absolute rights for freedom of religion. An example is when your idea of freedom of religion causes you to infringe on someone else’s rights. Case in point: the Ken Miller trial of several years ago. A woman had a baby while she was in a lesbian relationship. Both women grew to love the baby. Later she became a Christian, broke off her relationship, and the Vermont courts had given the other woman visiting rights to the child, as a marriage would do. But she objected to the relationship of the lesbian with her child. She could not get the courts to change, so she decided to flee the country rather than comply with the court’s visitation order. Her relative (Ken Miller, a pastor) helped her in what amounted to a parental kidnapping, and he was later convicted for doing so.

Keep in mind, both she and Ken can believe or speak whatever they want about homosexuality. Ken is free to teach that to his congregation (at least for now). He is free to deny membership of a homosexual at his church (since membership is a “privilege,” not a “right.”) He is free to refuse to participate in the marriage of two homosexuals, since they only have the right to get married by a state official, not to force any minister they choose (we have rights of association). The first amendment has given them all those rights. But their problem is, they have infringed on the court-granted rights of another—namely the right of visitation. Now if the other lesbian woman was a known child abuser, this story would be different. But it is assumed that a homosexual is not automatically a child abuser, so the court stood by her visitation right and against the man who helped someone infringe that right. (The authorities never found her). The courts behaved properly, given the laws as they now stand.

On a related issue, the courts may also allow the state to force you to violate your first-amendment Christian beliefs, so long as they perceive that the state has an “overriding governmental interest.” For instance, the courts have already decided that the first amendment doesn’t allow for conscientious objection when a country goes to war, since the “overriding” state interest is for preservation of the state and its freedoms, and every man should be armed to defend themselves to maintain that--even though you believe that Christ’s commands about how to treat enemies do not include killing them (what if some of them are believers, too? You have killed your brothers in the Lord). Fortunately, Congress moved contrarily, and made laws anyhow to legislate conscientious objection—but Congressional laws are not inalienable, and can be revoked by another law or by a court in a flash.

In another situation that went the other way, in Wisconsin vs. Yoder, the court decided that Wisconsin didn’t have an overriding interest in how the Amish children were only taught through eighth grade, when the state required 10th grade. The Amish children, having then learned reading and writing, were then being taught superb vocational skills at home. The Amish and their kids were decent, tax-paying, law-abiding members of society, and not a financial burden on the state. Their breaking of the education law was for sincere religious purposes. So the eighth grade education was not shown to be harming society, and Wisconsin lost its effort to prove its overriding interest. The first amendment won here. (This story could be completely different if the court decided that Amish religion harmed the kids. Such an opinion would not upset too many people, in the current “spiritually asleep” culture).

Now you see that you can’t depend on court protection—but you can’t decide what to do based on it anyhow. The issue is, if they’re asking you to violate Christ’s commands, you have to rebel. Regardless of consequences. If the Congress took away conscientious objection, would that mean you would grab a weapon and start killing? No, I would hope not. All Mr. Bercot is saying, is, don’t be under any illusions about court protection or constitutional protection from persecution. Don’t assume the rapture has to get here before you can be persecuted. Christ told us that persecution would be our lot (Matthew 5). He was persecuted, to say the least—and are servants any better than their master?

What are the legal issues breathing down our necks in America to give Christians trouble today? Mr. Bercot picks two: (1) children; and (2) homosexuals. On (1), the government has become more and more involved in “protecting” our children, and taking them away from parents on sometimes unproven evidence. Maybe there is more child abuse going on, but maybe the problem is how the government defines child abuse differently than before. So far, it’s the cults that see their kids taken away, but don’t be surprised when people who are radical in the cause of Christ can expect to be seen as “cults” too. After all, some of them isolate their kids by doing home schooling, some restrict their kids from what they call “worldly” influences, and they dress funny (as opposed as the sexual apparel rampant today). Here is an interesting case that we can learn a lot from: the polygamous Mormon group in Texas in 2008. They had a thing for marrying young girls to men who wanted them obedient.  We disagree with their polygamous practices, of course, but hear me out for learning’s sake. The “child protection” that family services love to kick in, began from an anonymous call from a girl who claimed to be 14 and a member of the group, who told how she was sexually abused. The child protection services jumped and took away all the children of the group. I’m even talking babies and boys (who were not under any threat—just the older girls). When later it was proven to be a false call—it actually came from a young woman in Colorado, who was never a member of the group, who made the story up—but the state refused to give back the kids. They continued their investigation for several months before returning most of them. Consider what that means, Christian, down the road—here’s a Christian religious group, maybe meeting at home, maybe having some “activist” or “funny” beliefs, and someone who doesn’t like them could make a prank call, and suddenly you could have the trauma of having the kids removed for several months and investigated. Sounds to me like you’re guilty until proven innocent, and government watchdogs are ignoring the trauma of separating children and parents. They do what government likes to do—they’re heavy-handed and slow.

For those of you who don’t care about the state’s abuse here, since weird cults are not OK with you (even though this group had lived quiet peaceable lives), just keep in mind the quote from Christian pastor Martin Niemoller during the early days of the Nazi oppression of the Jews, when most people weren’t interested in helping the Jews: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist; then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist; then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew; then they came for me; and there was no one left to speak for me.” The day will come when serious Christians here will be under attack. Serious Christians are appearing as strange to more and more people, folks. What’s strange now (home schooling children), could become anti-public policy. And then WE will become a “cult.” I suggest we nip government arrogance by defending anyone whose rights are violated.

It’s important to realize that a lot of hand-wringing could be avoided if we just wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court, the President, et al are going to do what comes naturally, as government is not majority-controlled by serious Christians—as is true for most institutions. I have argued in a separate blog that most people in America, in fact, are not Christians, even though they say they are. The statistics back up my claim. My point is, it does no good to become fearful over every wrong cultural movement and try to elect politicians, when they really can’t make a difference. The real key to protecting our kids, and ourselves, is to learn to love God, as “perfect love casts out fear,” I John 4:18. Develop spiritual keys to defeating life’s downtimes. We can’t rely on politicians to bring us peace and protection—we rely on God, and His peace.

The second area of possible persecution for us are laws considering discrimination against homosexuals. An important sidebar is this—13 years ago, Canada made a law against “hate speech,” defined as speech or writing that “incites hatred against any identifiable group.” A devoted, but crude, Christian in Saskatchewan mailed out flyers, speaking against the public schools, how they endorsed homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. In 2013 he was guilty of violating the hate speech laws. What did he say, you ask? He said “now the homosexuals want to share their filth and propaganda with our children;” a sex education course “degenerated into a filthy session where gay and lesbian teachers used dirty language to describe lesbian sex and sodomy to their teenage audience.” I suspect if he smoothed his language, he wouldn’t have gone to court. But just because he is crude, do we strip him of his free speech? What group did he incite? There were no riots afterward. On the other hand, the media treated him as a Neanderthal, pathetic, hater. THEY incited people to despise him, only they did it with cunning finesse. The point of all this is, I can see hate speech legislation not far off in America. There are already many cries by people for us to be “politically correct.” We get blocked out on Facebook or websites that attempt to tell the truth about Mormonism, for instance.

There are many more important arguments that we could raise (such as people’s complacency about being saved when they’re not) to talk with people. You probably won’t win those arguments to them either, but you made them think about hell and heaven a little. Remember, neither Jesus nor His disciples spent a minute arguing against culture. As Paul said, he preached only Christ. The Holy Spirit will make them more moral, when they become saved. If we’re asked point blank about God and gays, I suggest we recite Scripture (people will make fun of it if it’s the Old Testament).  Work on your New Testament quotes, such as Romans 1:26 or Matthew 19—but don’t get any itchy trigger-finger to quote them. Let’s hope that simply quoting Scriptures will never throw you in courts as “hate speech”—but who knows when that may change?

Mr. Bercot sees the following in the future: (1) laws that require church and home schools to include homosexuality in the curriculum as an acceptable alternate lifestyle; and (2) laws that prohibit preaching against homosexuality as a sin, or as “wrong.” If a preacher wants to cover these subjects in his sermon, from God’s Word, it wouldn’t be a good idea for the church to record it—it can then be used against him in court.

Keep in mind that affected trades that are not desirable for serious Christians include: certified counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists, public schoolteachers, certain college professors, government officers—all of which will not certify you if you express the view that homosexuality is “wrong.” Stay away from these—along with operating a motel, an apartment, or running a B&B. You will be sued repeatedly for discriminating against homosexuals by not sheltering them overnight. If you’re a florist, someone will want you to decorate a gay wedding—the same idea goes for cake-making and videography. Christians are already losing regularly in courts in these areas.

So, what do Christians do? (1) Change the profession you’re in, or thinking of joining, if one of the above persecutes you. Or, if you’re a landlord, downgrade the renting out to only a few units—the laws are often different for small businesses. These actions could involve sacrifices and loss of money, but that’s the cross we should gladly bear for Him. The other major option is (2) Heed Jesus’ advice in Matthew 10:23:

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another …

Why not move? You say it’s a federal law that I'm persecuted for, so it doesn’t help to move—but remember, enforcement tends to be sporadic; it depends on local sensitivities. Moving out of San Francisco to Kentucky might leave you untouched til’ you retire. Before you move, study your possible new locations and the leaders of local society, carefully. Remember, don’t get paranoid yet—despite the Canadian hate crime law, nobody has been arrested preaching in a Canadian church (maybe that’s because the pastors are avoiding “hot” subjects). But if things get really bad all over the USA, consider even moving to another country. There are many that are kinder to Christians than the U.S., even right now.

If we face laws in the future that criminalize the way we educate our children, it’s smart to move before the state moves in to grab your child. Fleeing after that means you get charged with parental kidnapping, which is a felony—and kidnapping is a federal offense, which means the FBI is after you.  Parental kidnapping is a continuing offense, so the FBI never stops looking for you—the statute of limitations doesn’t even start until you’re apprehended. And don’t forget, if the state grabs your child, it’s smarter to work through the legal system, than to grab the child and run when you visit. Then if they catch you, you will most likely permanently lose custody.

If you do grab your child and are ready to run after a court order against you, beware of leaving “tracks” in the form of digital or electronic footprints. Emails may serve as silent witnesses against us. Just “deleting” it doesn’t remove it from your computer, unless you have a software program which buries it by overwriting it with countless lines of gibberish. That make the forensic guys crazy. Forensic guys can determine the date and brand of a flash drive inserted into your computer as well. They can also trace any Google searches you’ve made. You don’t want to give away information on where you’re headed if fleeing from the government. Keep in mind, emails that you have sent have a recipient—and emails that you receive have a sender, whose computer may be searched by the government as well as yours. Also keep in mind that g-mails are also stored on Google servers, which the government may access by forcing Google to turn them over. Any service provider, for that matter, may have a copy of your emails.

The solution? Don’t use emails to communicate sensitive topics. Try letters, using a trusted courier if speed is necessary. If you’re already under investigation, keep in mind, the government may open your letters. It helps to send out through a public postal bin in another town, leaving your name and address off the envelope. Or try face-to-face communication, if at all possible.

Cell phones are another problem. If you talk during your escape, you can be traced by the government by simply seeing what tower it’s pinging from. The phone also has GPS, which the government can trace you as well even if you don’t call anyone. Best to remove the batteries when you’re running. Turn off any other GPS systems (like Garmin), unless you absolutely need it for navigation (go back to Mapquest, maybe?)

When talking at home, remember that land lines have more privacy, since it’s harder for the government to tap—they need a court order. But they can obtain records on who you called—and the government might use them to help locate you, or they might use the call-recipient as witness against you.

Solution? Ditch the cell phone when on the move. Use public phones-curse their rarity. Thus, the way to beat the government’s high-tech capabilities is—go low-tech.

Finally, if you’re arrested, you will be advised of your Miranda rights. Take advantage of them. Say nothing except “let me call a lawyer.” Ignore the police’s telling you “it will go a lot easier for you” to confess. It’s a lie. Also, be aware of a document called “search incident to an arrest.” It gives the government freedom to search and attach whatever’s on you or close around you when they arrest you.  It’s best, if you can see the arresting officers approaching your door, to drop your cell phone, then go outside, close the door behind you, and then get arrested. If you’re in your car, with GPS, or computer nearby, it’s best to park, lock, and walk to the arresting officers, or get someone else to drive you to the police station. Finally, IF you’ve already been charged with a crime, destroying evidence after that is also a crime. My previous advice on deleting can be done before you’ve been officially charged. Keep in mind—an arrest does not mean you have been charged yet, don’t assume that.

Don’t forget, all communication with your attorney is confidential, so you need to be honest about your past. BUT don’t share your intent to engage in “crimes” in the future—that’s not protected by law, and your attorney can be forced to witness that against you. It is legal to discuss with your attorney “what if” scenarios to try to determine what’s within the boundary of the law. “What if” is not a crime yet (except in the movie Minority Report). Also keep in mind, everyone you involve in helping you could also be prosecuted with you. The less you tell them about what you’re doing, the better—or if you could do it yourself, that might be best. But you would miss out on the bonding experience of doing something “illegal” together for the cause of Christ. The day may come when small groups of Christians will have great causes and sacrifice their lives and reputations together.
Let us be wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves. Our lives mean nothing in the cause of Christ. Endure the hard times, to be with Him eternally—a much better goal, is it not?

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot CD, “When Persecution Comes,” Scroll Publishing.

Are Mormons Christian?

I have a problem with Pew Research, a widely respected poll firm. In a study released in May of 2015, called “America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” they included Mormonism as a Christian Faith.  The problem is, this would lead people to believe that Mormonism is an orthodox Christian religion.  But the fact is, they began from an occult practice, and are widely unorthodox, or non-Christian, in much of their doctrine.  Having Jesus in their official name (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) is an affront to Christ, rather than honoring Him. 

The Latter Day Saints (LDS) got their start with Joseph Smith Jr.  Born in 1805, he published the Book of Mormon when he was 24, in 1830. It was based upon his many visions.   In one of them, in 1823, an angel named “Moroni” directed him to a buried book of golden plates, inscribed with a Judeo-Christian history of an American civilization, which included the idea that Jesus visited America while He was on earth.  Smith translated the golden plates into English.  In that same year he organized a religion, what he called a “restoration” of the early Christian church (he considered all denominations since then apostate, carrying the wrong gospel).  But his attempts to find gathering places for his believers came upon hard times.  He was driven from Kirtland, Ohio, on a charge of bank fraud.  At Nauvoo, Illinois, his followers destroyed a printing press shop which criticized his church’s beliefs, particularly the practice of polygamy.  He was jailed, and then killed when a mob stormed the jailhouse in 1844. 

That’s the “sanitized” story.  Now for the dark side of the truth.  In his earliest years, he and his family engaged in religious folk magic.  Both his parents, and his mother’s father, received visions, which they asserted were directly from God. The family, in dire need of money, hired themselves out as “treasure seekers.”   In 1820 (he was 14) he received a vision from God who told him that all contemporary churches had “turned aside from the gospel.” In the 1823 “visit by Moroni” (he was 17), he not only was directed to the golden plates, which were buried conveniently at the Hill Cumorah, near his New York home, but with it were a pair of seer stones (which he called the “Urim and the Thummim”) set in an eyeglass frame, that when put on, magically interpreted the strange symbols (which he called “Reformed Egyptian”) on the plates to English.  Smith had a history with seer stones.  He used them earlier in his treasure seeking career to try to “find lost items” for people who paid him a fee.   Those attempts were unsuccessful. He also had to appear before a Chenango County court in 1826 for con-artistry “glass looking.”

He put the golden plates in a locked chest, he says, and the angel told him not to show them to anyone.  But his “business” associates felt he had double-crossed them, and after ransacking his possessions and not finding them, he felt it was a good time to get out of town, with his now-pregnant wife.  So they moved, taking the plates with him, supposedly.  Starting in 1828, he got help cleaning up the abominable English grammar from a new associate, Martin Harris. Either he, or Oliver Cowdery, or Smith’s wife Emma wrote the English transcription--by sitting on the other side of a curtain while Smith dictated with golden plates and seer glasses.  But then Harris lost the original English partial manuscript.  As a punishment, Smith said, the angel took away the plates and his power to interpret.  In this low time in his religious career, he attended a Methodist church—until a relative complained about the inclusion of a “practicing necromancer” on the church roll--him.  (Necromancy is talking to the spirits of dead people—in other words, a sorcerer). So he was forced out.  Later he told his associates he got the plates back.  But they’ve never been found.  Smith said Moroni took them back when he was through using them.

Smith’s associates were questionable characters.  Cowdery was expelled from the fledgling Church later, supposedly for practicing counterfeiting.  But the real reason Smith threw him out, though, was that he began claiming that he also had received revelations from God.  Soon after, so did several other original church members.  But Smith then received a revelation that he was the only prophet and apostle, and only he could receive revelations from God.  To permanently disconnect Cowdery’s influence from everyone, Smith then dispatched him on a mission to proselytize Native Americans. 

Cowdery got back at him for this humiliation.  He had originally testified that a miraculous appearance by John the Baptist told them to baptize one another, which they did; but later admitted that the “voice” of John the Baptist “did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon.”  Rigdon had a military background; during a Fourth of July celebration, he declared that Mormons would no longer tolerate persecution by the local Missourians and spoke of a "war of extermination" if Mormons were attacked. Smith implicitly endorsed this speech, and many non-Mormons understood it to be a thinly-veiled threat. They followed and hounded him even more.

Martin Harris (the transcript-loser) was also expelled from the Mormon church.  His reason for expulsion was that he supported a young lady “seeress” who claimed she could see the future through a black stone.  The truth in this decision was, simply, that Smith again showed that he wanted idolization focused on him, and to be the only one with supernatural power.  Harris had signed a paper saying that he had seen the golden plates. But as with Cowdery, when kicked out of the Mormon church, another piece of the truth came out—he later admitted that he only saw them “by the eye of faith.”    As a matter of fact, of the 11 people who had signed a document saying they had seen the plates, all those witnesses (except Joseph’s father and two brothers) had been expelled as apostates or had left of their own accord.  I suspect there were various reasons that covering for Smith’s lies wasn’t worth it.

Smith gained other followers by preaching to people who were emotionally inclined—he went to areas that had campmeetings which previously had reports of people having fits and trances, speaking in tongues, and rolling on the ground.  He told open-air crowds that they would soon receive an endowment of heavenly power, that he would lead them to a new Millennial kingdom, and he was going to find a site for the New Jerusalem.  But as the church grew, its leadership was constantly in dispute.  To distract attention, Smith spoke frequently of persecution and he threatened military reaction.  At one time, he led a paramilitary group which shot two of their persecutors to death, and lost one of their own.  There were later intense gunbattles in Missouri, where he was arrested, brought before the court on a charge of treason, but escaped custody in 1839.  Smith lamented that his Mormons were an “oppressed minority” and petitioned the federal government for reparations. Some of the government in Illinois felt sorry for him. He was allowed to legally found the city of Nauvoo, Illinois, with city-charter power to fend off extradition to Missouri.  The Nauvoo Mormons also formed a militia, granting them the power to arm the largest body of men in Illinois. He was now “Lieutenant General” Smith.  That’s when he began teaching plural marriage to his closest associates, and he raised the doctrine of baptism for the dead.  (His book Doctrines and Covenants reveal most of his theology—not the Book of Mormon)  

But Missourians kept hounding him, so in 1843 he petitioned Congress that Nauvoo would be an independent territory, and could call out federal troops to defend him. When neither Congress nor Presidential candidates listened to him, his huge ego caused him to declare a third party campaign for president—which went nowhere.  He also formed a secret council to help decide which state or national laws Mormons should obey. (As with most cults, they wanted to do anything they wanted, break any laws they want, without government restraint).

He was accused of having a sexual relationship with his servant girl in 1831, but she was probably the first of his estimated 46 plural wives (many of those marriages occurred after his death--by proxy, a part of Mormon doctrine).  He took many of these wives privately, but still denied it publicly, where he claimed not to teach or practice polygamy.  But after his 1844 death, Brigham Young (who followed him into presidency) made a startling public statement in 1852.  Young produced a paper, in Smith’s handwriting, that in 1843 Smith had a revelation from God.  A revelation from a Prophet means that it was “legal” for the whole church (though later illegal in civil law).  The revelation legalized polygamy.  In the text of the revelation, it also states that the first wife's consent should be sought before a man marries another wife--but also declares that Christ will "destroy" the first wife if she does not consent to the plural marriage!  If consent is denied the husband is exempt from asking his wife's consent in the future.  The revelation states that plural wives "are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth…and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men.”  

After this revelation was published, 20-30% of the church’s families became polygamous, and remained so even when the federal government declared an Anti-Bigamy law in 1862, but it was not outlawed by Mormons until 1904, with ex-communication if they didn’t obey.  The impression I get is, they were forced to give up polygamy. (But it’s still in their Doctrine & Covenants). A small part of rogue Mormons are still polygamous.  

Brigham Young, LDS president of the time, was tired of sneaking around and wanted this out in the open; he ended up with about 55 wives.  But many of these women were already married when they took up religious sexual union with Young and Smith—in at least one case, the husband knew about it—and approved!—saying the prophet could do whatever he wanted to do.  They married some young girls—a 14-year old, for instance—and married some in their 50s.  Smith’s first wife, Emma, remained a dyed-in-the-wool LDSer who claimed the first she ever heard about all this was 9 years after he died, even though she was shown of his 1843 revelation establishing polygamy at the time.  There have been studies and witnesses which conclude that from the 1830s to 1904, much seduction, rape, adultery, bigamy, and some abortions went on for practicing Mormons. 

The reason for Smith’s death was a hard act to follow.  He fell into a dispute with two of his associates in 1844, presumably over leadership, but the truth was more likely that he had allegedly proposed to "celestially" marry their wives!  When they gave him a hard time, he excommunicated them.  But they turned on him; going to civil authorities, they procured indictments against Smith for perjury.   They even made a newspaper decrying his doctrine of many Gods, and saying he used polygamy to seduce unassuming women.  Non-Mormons got heated up, and state militias were called up by Smith and by local citizenry.  Smith was jailed, facing charges of inciting a riot, and later treason.  It was there that he was shot by a jailhouse mob.  He is buried in Nauvoo, Illinois. 

Well, this is the real story about the glorious founder of the Mormon church.  Now let’s talk about their doctrines not being orthodox.  Keep one important thing in mind:  Prophets, the presidents of the Church, can receive revelations for Church life and rules. These come from God.  (But God changes his mind).  At the beginning, it was Smith only.  Later the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, was the prophet who could hear changes in doctrine from God.   This means their “Word” is not infallible, and can be changed whenever another vision visits a prophet.  As Doctrines & Covenants  21:1,2, and 5 says (they’re allegedly quoting God):

Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet… 2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof… thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

Cristian orthodoxy:  Marriage is between one man and one woman, and is for life on earth.  In heaven, there is no marriage.  Start with Gen2:22-24:

Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. ²³ And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” ²⁴ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Now Matthew 22:30, the words of Jesus:

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God[a] in heaven.

Mormon doctrine (has been remitted by manifest, but doctrine unchanged):  Doctrine on Sealed marriage often led to plural marriage—This means multiple marriages in heaven.  D&C 132:19-20:
(PS:  Note a couple other strange doctrines).

…if a man a marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is  sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise…they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the  seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods. 

An explanation of sealing:  A couple who has been sealed in a temple will be married beyond physical death into the afterlife.  In the marriage ceremony performed in LDS temples the words "until death do us part" are replaced with "for time and all eternity".  Civil marriages will not continue after death, but "eternal marriages" must be performed by priesthood authority. Eternal marriages are also performed vicariously for the deceased, by proxy.  Keep in mind that if a man’s wife dies, or is divorced, and he marries another, if both are sealed, he will be with both of them in heaven.  Thus, if the Mormons have their way, heaven will be populated with polygamy.  Thus they obtain those extra wives in the next life, if not in this one.  Brigham Young had the audacity to say:  "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866).

Christian orthodoxy:  There is One God Who has Three Persons (the Trinity):  I John 5:7-8:

 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (ie, Jesus, see John 1:1,14), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

John 10:30, a quote from Jesus:  I and My Father are one.

Mormon doctrine:  Maybe there are three Gods, maybe not:  Per the General Authority, Quorum of the 12 Apostles of 1972-1985:

Page 43:  "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods.  (But on Page 194, it says this):  As pertaining to this universe, there are three Gods: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All other supposed deities are false gods.  (And on Page 227): There are three Gods - the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection. (Some confusion here, obviously).

Christian orthodoxy:  God dwells in the hearts of believers.  See John 14:23:

 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

 .

Mormon doctrine:  Again, they seem to contradict themselves.  In the Book of Mormon, Alma 34:36: 

36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell

But in the Doctrines & Covenants, 130:3 has a comment about the Bible’s John 14:23 (above):

The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false

So the D&C (from God, remember) comes right out and says that a Bible verse is old, sectarian, and false.  This is antichrist.

Christian orthodoxy:  One’s salvation is originally by God’s grace:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Mormon doctrine: Salvation is by works.  Book of Mormon, Moroni 8:25:

…baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins

Christian orthodoxy:  Jesus is God and eternal.  In the beginning, He created an angel, Lucifer, who went bad.  God’s children, though, are only those who follow Him; those who don’t, remain in their state of sin.

 Let’s begin with  John 1:1,3,14 about Jesus:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory…(And Lucifer was part of creation).

Observe how Jesus speaks to unbelievers, John 8:44:

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it

Lucifer’s pride took him to evil deeds, and he became later known as the devil.  Isaiah 14:12-15:

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! ¹³ For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.. I will be like the Most High.’ ¹⁵ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.

Mormon doctrine:  God’s many children include Jesus and Satan, suggesting they were equal.  Jesus only became God through effort.  Jesus and Lucifer vied for God’s honor.   Satan is not presented as evil; he is presented as offering himself to be our Savior, and existing, as God, “from the beginning.”

This quote is from the Mormon’s official organ; online it’s lds.org.  Again, notice another strange doctrine there:

 “According to official Mormon teaching, Jesus Christ is the first spirit child conceived and begotten by Heavenly Father and one of Heavenly Father’s many wives (commonly referred to as “Heavenly Mother”). Just as Heavenly Father before him progressed to godhood, so Jesus progressed through obedience to the status of a god (prior to his incarnation on earth).”

In the words of the late Mormon Apostle and General Authority Bruce McConkie, Jesus Christ “by obedience and devotion to the truth… attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God. As such, according to LDS authorities, Jesus is not to be worshiped or prayed to as one would worship or pray to Heavenly Father.”

This is a total denial that Jesus is equal to God. 

More from lds.org:

Mormons teach that “Heavenly Father subsequently had many more spirit children…thus refer to Jesus as our “elder brother.” Moreover, Mormons believe that even Satan (Lucifer) is a spirit brother of Jesus.”

According to Mormons, Satan was willing to be our Savior!   As explained in their Gospel Principles:

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27)….Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor”

Satan is even presented as existing “from the beginning,” a claim that only God can make!  From Selections from the Book of Moses (copied from LDS.org, chapter 4, 1830):

 1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning…

Christian orthodoxy:  Man is born with a tendency to sin, inherited from Adam. By God’s grace, disciples of Jesus can enjoy God’s favors in heaven, under His sovereignty.  Romans 5:12:

…just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

Revelation 22:1,3:

And he showed me a pure  river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb…was the tree of life…The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. ³ And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants (us) shall serve Him.

Mormon doctrine: Men are inherently divine, and can become gods, or equal with God

This quote begins from Mormon official publication, lds.org.  It quotes specific Doctrines and Covenants.

“Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential…Each possesses seeds of divinity …In 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon experienced a vision of the afterlife. In the vision, they learned that the just and unjust alike would receive immortality through a universal resurrection, but only those “who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise” would receive the fulness of God’s glory and be “gods (D&C 76:53,58)” Another revelation soon confirmed that “the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him.”(D&C 88:107)

There are other doctrines that contradict God's Word, are un-Christian, such as a heavenly mother (see their quote above) and others.  But this is 7 pages already.  There is no way their Doctrines and Covenants come from God, as they claim, and no way are they Christian.

Sources:  Book of Mormon, Facts on Mormonism (Ankerberg), Is Mormonism Christian (Fraser).

Victory Over the Taliban

In a recent blog I mentioned a Bible verse that had “hyperbole.” Here's Luke 14:26 to illustrate the point:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Hyperbole, then, is willingness to go to extremes--but ridiculous terms are used-- to obey Christ.  He doesn't mean we should hate our parents--but if our love for our Savior is great enough, we get the point of what He is saying.  Now I would like to tell you a story—a true story recorded in Voice of the Martyrs—about what life can be like when you follow Jesus—in Afghanistan. When your father is a top Taliban leader. It is a perfect illustration of a hyperbole.

This story is recent, so the names have been changed to protect the innocent. The protagonists will be named “John” and “Mary.” In the beginning of our story, John was 23, had a wife and baby son, and taught Islamic theology in his home town in Afghanistan. He traveled to Saudi Arabia three years ago on a hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. As he slept on the way overnight, John dreamed of a man with shining face and shining white clothes, who said, “My son, I see that you are seeking after me, but the real faith is not in Mecca, and I am not there.” This made John think as he performed the rituals of the hajj—what he saw was different; he saw hypocrisy in worship. In another night on the trip, John had a vision (not a dream) of the man in white. “Who are you?” he asked. “I want to talk to you because I love you,” the man replied. “If I tell you who I am, you will lose seven things. You will lose the Quran and Mohammed. You will lose your parents. You will lose your child that you love. You will lose your relatives and everyone will hate you. You will lose your wealth. You will be homeless and they will drive you from your country. If you don’t accept the loss of these seven things, you won’t be able to find Me anymore. Before you were born, I had plans for you. What is your choice?”

“If you tell me your name, I will believe in you.”

The Man replied, “I am your God; I am Jesus Christ.”

Jesus touched John’s head and then he fell asleep. When he woke up, he felt completely different. “I was completely cleansed from the inside, and I felt like I was a newborn baby.” John immediately abandoned the rest of the hajj and flew home. He called his father from the airport in Kabul. Upon arriving home, “Why did you come back?” his father asked angrily. “There are still three days left for the hajj.”
“I found my God. And I don’t believe in your Allah.”
“Whom did you find?”
“I believe in Jesus Christ,” John replied.

“You are an infidel!” his father shouted as he began to beat him. “If you speak to people like this, I will cut out your tongue.”
“I want to tell people,” John said. “I don’t want to stop.”
“If you tell people you have become a Christian, I will burn you, your wife and little son!”

John’s father threw him into a basement bunker on the property that was used for detaining and torturing anti-Taliban insurgents. He was held there for nearly 18 months, enduring repeated torture and pressure to give up his faith in Jesus. No one in the family knew where John was—his father told John’s wife Mary that he was sent to Egypt to study. John was fed almost nothing. His captors put snakes in the basement, but they either died or had no effect on him when they bit him. They also released a vicious guard dog, but it immediately became friendly with John. They even tried to crucify John upside down.

Throughout John’s long, lonely months in the bunker, he often had dreams of Jesus. “God gave me power, and told me, ‘I am with you.’” His father finally released him with a warning. “I agreed that I would not talk about Jesus to him, but I did not promise that I would not speak to anyone about Jesus,” John said.

When John walked into his home that day, after he cleaned up, he went to his wife, Mary. He wanted to tell her about Jesus. “Mary, I have to tell you something.” He said “I have to tell you something first,” she said. She told him that throughout the time he was missing, she had had dreams of Jesus. He comforted her and promised her that her husband would come home. Mary had come to believe in Jesus, but she had not told the family. John joyfully told Mary everything, and the two cried with happiness.

John didn’t stop talking about Jesus. “I began to tell my mother everything about Jesus, and then all my family believed in Jesus. But they didn’t tell anyone because of fear.” John’s mother, sisters, aunts, and cousins all began to follow Jesus. Each night, when his father was gone, John would teach them what he learned through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Many in the community also learned of John’s new faith.

A few months later, when Mary became pregnant with her second child, John’s father instructed them to name the baby Sayeed Muhammed. “No” said John. “I don’t want to give my son an Islamic name. I am naming him Isa” (Jesus). His father exploded in anger and began beating John in the head. “Shut up, you infidel!” Then he threw John back into the bunker. When John’s father told Mary’s father (a mullah, an Islamic leader, and Taliban member), her father confronted her. “Your husband is an infidel,” he said. “You should abort the baby.”
“I believe in Jesus Christ too,” Mary told him. Her father slammed her forehead on the ground and hit her in the mouth, breaking her teeth. Then he began punching her in the abdomen. Then he tossed her limp body into the bunker with John. Her face was severely bruised from the beating.

While they were in the bunker, John’s father took their little son with him to meet some Taliban leaders in another city. Those leaders blamed John’s father for allowing his son to convert, and they ordered him to kill John. Mary’s mother heard about the plan and called John’s mother. She ran to the bunker and broke down the door. She handed John $2400, his computer, and a suitcase. “Please leave Afghanistan” she told them. “I’ll take care of your son.”

Although they didn’t want to leave their son, John and Mary knew that if they stayed at all, they would be killed. They fled. After three days and some distance, John found a Wi-fi “Skype” connection and called his mother. There was his 2-year old son sitting on her lap. John could see his son on the video screen but not her head. His son cried, “Papa! I am fine. Please come back. I miss you.” John’s mother also encouraged them to come home, saying the danger had passed. After the call, when John and Mary made plans to return, John’s mother called back again. “Don’t come back!” she warned. “The Taliban were standing right here when we were talking earlier, with a gun against my head. You must leave immediately.” John and Mary went on the run again, going as far as they could before the money ran out. They tried to register as refugees, but local Muslim workers refused to accept them because they were Christian converts.

But Mary was in severe pain, and could hardly move, having never healed from her father’s beating. A doctor gave them the bad news. The child in Mary’s womb had died, and Mary could die too if the fetus were not removed immediately. The procedure would cost $5,000. John didn’t have any money. That evening at home, John cried while Mary slept. As he prayed, he felt the Lord leading him to anoint his wife with oil and pray over her. John did, and prayed that Jesus would save his unborn son.  Eventually he fell asleep.

The next morning, Mary was up and around, so they went to the doctor. He delivered some incredible news. “The baby is alive! How is this possible?” John shared his whole testimony with the doctor and told him that he had prayed in the name of Jesus that his son would be healed. “It is a miracle” the doctor said. “I’ve never seen something like this in my life.” The doctor called others from the clinic into the room to see Mary and John shared his story with them too. Several people in the room believed in Christ that day.

The Taliban had continued to stalk John. He received threatening phone calls from radicals in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even Saudi Arabia. The Taliban issued a demand: they would return to Afghanistan and recant their Christian faith, or their 2-year old son would be killed. The deadline was October 4, 2013. John did everything he could. He spoke to the embassy. He went to the U.N. Refugee Agency. But no one would help. A few days later, John’s father turned the little boy over to the Taliban—in order to restore his honor among his terrorist friends.

A relative called Mary and John with the horrible news that their son died. “The Taliban put a picture of my dead son on their website” John said. The murder of the little boy shocked John’s mother and five sisters. They asked how the Islamic faith could justify killing a child because of his father’s actions. They told John’s father that his acts were shameful, and they then told their whole village that they, too, were following the Jesus Christ that John had shared with them.

“Very soon, we learned from my wife’s brother that my father killed his wife and my five sisters and buried them” John said. “We believe him, because we have not heard or seen anything of my sisters.” Although Mary’s brothers were Taliban members, they disagreed with the leadership about killing John’s son. And then, when the Taliban and John’s father killed John’s sisters, Mary’s brothers initiated a gunfight with other Taliban members. The body of her oldest brother was found days later with one hand cut off, but her youngest brother managed to escape.

When Mary’s father found out that his wife was the one who had revealed the Taliban’s plot to kill the couple, he killed her by feeding her rat poison. John and Mary could only weep and pray, saying, ”God, you know.”

In November 2013, John and Mary were baptized. In February 2014 little Isa was born, perfectly healthy. Because of continual threats from the Taliban, the family was forced to move six times in eight months. John continued to share Jesus with everyone, often speaking with Afghan tradesmen working in the markets. He once prayed with a medical assistant about her infertility, and later she called to tell him she had just learned that she was pregnant. John began using the internet to minister to Afghans around the world, including his former Muslim students in Afghanistan. Many have turned to Christ through John’s powerful witness. John continues to teach new converts. He leads hours of internet worship services with small groups several times a week.

In late 2014, John, Mary, and Isa were accepted as refugees in a Western country. And John continues sharing about Christ. “Every second I work for God I want more people to see Jesus. I don’t want people to see me; I want them to see God. I lost everything, so I want to tell people about Jesus. God said He made many houses in heaven; he needs people in them.”

So, it ended up that many of John’s beloved relatives were murdered—so what was the meaning of my title, “victory” over the Taliban? The answer is: Many souls were won to the Lord. John will see his relatives in heaven again. None of their lives meant so much to them—or him—such as to sway them from their indomitable love for Our Savior. They loved Him so much that their feelings for each other seemed like hate in comparison. Our Lord gave up His life for us. What should we be willing to do for Him?   What Jesus spoke was hyperbole in Luke 14:26 above, but John and Mary were the perfect examples of what it means.

Acknowledgement Voice of the Martyrs, January, 2015