THE DAY

of DEFENSE

,N

A. Melvin McDonald
m
 THE DAY
of DEFENSE

by

A. Melvin McDonald
 Copyright 1963, 1979
By
A. Melvin McDonald

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be

copied or reproduced in any form without prior written
permission from the publisher.

ISBN 1-886472-53-2

Revised Edition — First Printing August 1994

Second Printing August 1995
Third Printing April 1999
Fourth Printing April 2001
Revised Fifth Printing October 2003

Published by
Sounds of Zion
9298 South 500 West
Sandy, UT 84070
www.soundsofzion.com
 Table of Contents

Proceedings 1

Appendix 1 65

Index 171

Book of Approach 175

 PREFACE
The roots for "The Day of Defense" have their origin in

the late I950's in the Southern States Mission. There a

young Salt Lake Missionary named Robert M. McDonald

and several of his companions engaged in a series of public
debates with ministers from other religions. Elder
McDonalds brother, A. Melvin McDonald, heard tapes of
the debates only one month prior to his departure for the
North Central States Mission.

Melvin McDonald began to collect and assimilate the

scriptural arguments that detractors would attempt to use
against the church during his mission. During the course
of his mission he was called upon on a number of occasions
to publicly confront these detractors. Elder McDonald felt

a need to collect these many arguments and to prepare a

written response to these arguments in a book. He created

a hypothetical trial setting so that the positions and

scriptures used by detractors could be presented in an
orderly and interesting format. Three weeks before the
conclusion of his mission, Elder McDonald sat down at a
typewriter and prepared the book. The first edition, which
comprised only 80 copies, was printed from an old second-
hand printing machine in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Elder
McDonald distributed the original copies of the book to

his fellow missionaries in the North Central States

Mission.

The book filled such a void that original copies printed by

McDonald were reproduced and began appearing
throughout various missions of the church. The book was
so successful Peter C. Covino of Alpha Publishing
published it in 1973- "The Day of Defense" has assisted
thousands of missionaries to answer questions of both
investigators and detractors since its original publication in

1963.

After completing his mission in 1963, Elder McDonald

returned to his home in Salt Lake and attended the
University of Utah. He graduated from the Utah College
of Law in 1968 and moved his family to Arizona. In 1974,
after a successful career as a prosecuting attorney in

Phoenix, Arizona, he was elected by the voters to serve as a

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge. He held that

position for seven years. In 1 98 1, he was appointed by
President Ronald Regan to serve as the United States
Attorney for Arizona. He held that position until his
resignation in January of 1985. McDonald entered the
private practice of law and is presently a partner with the
law firm of Jones, Skelton and Hochuli in Phoenix,
Arizona.

Editor

READ THE REFERENCES AND ALLOW

THE HOLY GHOST TO TESTIFY THROUGH
YOUR PRAYERS WHICH DOCTRINE IS OF GOD.

tii
 PARTICIPANTS

Prosecutors: A Priest of the Roman Catholic Church

Ministers from the Lutheran Church
Ministers from the Methodist Church
Ministers from the Church of England
Ministers from the Presbyterian Church
An Elder from the Church of Christ
Two Representatives from the
Jehovah's Witnesses
A Representative from the Christian
Science Reading Room
A Seventh Day Adventist
A Captain from the Salvation Army
A Bishop from the Greek Orthodox
Church
A Minister from the Baptist Church
An Evangelist from the Pentecostal
movement
Representatives from the United Church of
Canada (a combination of the
Methodist, Presbyterian, and the
Congregational Churches)
An Atheist
An Agnostic

Defense: Two LDS missionaries (Elders) serving a

full time mission.

Judge: A Jewish Rabbi of the Orthodox Jewish

Faith

*III
 PROCEEDINGS
JUDGE: Gentlemen, we are here today to establish the
truth among a confused Christian world. The prosecution
has chosen for their council, representatives from all the
major Christian Faiths, to question these two young men of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about their

beliefs. We will remain until the truth is established.

The prosecution has maintained that the defendants are

spreading false doctrine and bearing false witness. Their
desire is to promote truth this day and during this trial.

In examining my notes, I find the issues of interest to

the prosecution relate to the questions of revelation, the
authenticity of the Mormon apostles and Prophets, and the
truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I feel it is the

responsibility of the prosecutors, likewise, to prove false,

the statements made against their respective churches by

the two defendants here today.

Although all of the prosecutors have claimed to be
inspired men, none of you have made one claim of "divine

revelation," or an appearance of God and his supposed Son,

Jesus Christ, to your leaders. I now turn the time over to
the prosecution.

PROSECUTION: (Headed by Dr. David Martin, an

Atheist) During this trial the prosecution will establish

once and for all that the claims of The Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints are false. We will prove from the

scriptures that Joseph Smith was a false prophet; that
Mormon revelation is out of harmony with Holy Scripture;
that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants,
and the Pearl of Great Price are not the work of God; and
that they are in direct contradiction to the written word of
God, as accepted by my colleagues, the Holy Bible.

Each one of my friends has done a great deal of study

and preparation, and has examined the teachings of their

respective religions, as well as those of the Mormon

Church. We will expect an answer for each point we bring
up, and we in turn will answer all questions directed
towards our respective churches. We are not here to argue,
but to find and establish truth.
I now turn the time over to Father Cook, a

representative of the Greek Orthodox Church.

FATHER COOK: Gentlemen, I have a question that

should close our case immediately, and establish the truth.
It is well known in my Church, and in many of the
religions represented here, that the last revelation given to

man was given to John on the Isle of Patmos. Now, I refer

you to John 1 6: 1 3 , which reads, "Howbeit when he, the
Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for

he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear,

that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
Now, if Christ gave the "ALL TRUTH" to His apostles,
how can you possibly claim "MORE TRUTH" was given
to Joseph Smith the Prophet?

MISSIONARIES: We would like to express our

appreciation for being here today as representatives of our
Church.
Christ DID give the all truth to the apostles through
the Holy Spirit, but did the apostles give the "ALL
TRUTH" to man? Mathew 10:1 tells us that Christ chose
twelve apostles, and Mathew 10:8 tells us that He gave
them great powers. We read in Acts 2 where they received
the Holy Spirit, and in Acts 8:13-20 where they gave it to

others. However, the "ALL TRUTH" in John 16: 1 3 was

only given to the apostles, and we only have the writings of
approximately five of the seventeen apostles chosen in New
Testament times.
Now, sir, five-seventeenths is less than one-third.
Christ told the apostles, "Because it is given unto you
(apostles) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,
but to them it is not given." (Matt. 13:11). Here Christ
plainly gave truth to His apostles that He did not give to
the people. Also, Peter did not know all the truth that was

to be revealed — only all the truth that was necessary for his
salvation.

If you doubt this, you will find that Peter was killed in

66 A.D., supposedly at Rome. Recognizing that he had

been dead lor thirty years, do you maintain that Peter

KNEW everything that was to be revealed to John? If this
is true, then the Book of Revelation was not "needful."
This, you claim, is a requirement for revelation.

FATHER COOK: I guess he didn't.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, I can prove to you that the apostles

did not reveal the "all truth" to mankind. If I can prove to

you that the "all truth" was not given to men, then will you

admit that we can still receive truth?

FATHER COOK: Yes, but I don t believe there is such a

scripture.
MISSIONARIES: I refer you to 2 Cor. 12:2-4 where Paul
states that he was taken away in a vision. It reads, "I knew
a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the
body I can not tell; or whether out of the body, I can not
tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third
heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body or
out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth;) How that he
was caught up into paradise AND HEARD
UNSPEAKABLE WORDS, WHICH IT IS NOT
LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO UTTER:"
I ask you, did Paul and that other man know something
that is not recorded in the Bible?

FATHER COOK: I guess they did. I didn't think of that

scripture.

METHODIST MINISTER: Hold on now! Not so quick.

I still maintain that it was given. 2 Tim. 3: 16-17 tells us
that, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God." So how
can you claim that there is more to come?

MISSIONARIES: I am surprised that you would really try

to use that scripture. Did you ever read the verse before,

which answers it for you? It reads, 'And that from a child

thou (Timothy) hast known the holy scriptures, which are

able to make thee wise unto salvation..."

So Paul was speaking specifically to Timothy. Also,

John had not yet received his revelation on the Isle of
Patmos, so "all scripture" could not have been given. The
scriptures they had in the time of Timothy were merely Old
Testament scriptures. So, this is merely the definition of
scripture.

I'm sure that I have made it clear to you. I believe we

had established that the "all truth" was given only to the
apostles (John 1 6: 1 3) and was not given to man (2 Cor.
12:2-4, Matt. I 3:1 1). Also, we don't have all the writings
of the apostles.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Lets get down to some basic

Mormon beliefs and establish the truth.
Mormons teach that God has a body of flesh and bones
as does Jesus Christ (D&C 130:22-23). I maintain that
this is absurd. John 4:24 points out that, "God is a Spirit:"

and nothing more. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that

God has a physical body. In fact, Colossians 2:9, speaking

of Christ, tells us that, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness
of the Godhead BODILY." Genesis 1:26-27 was speaking
of a spiritual creation, not a literal one. You will notice that

the pagans worshipped a god like to corruptible man in

Romans 1:23, of whom Paul said in verse 25, "...changed

the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator."
I assert that your claim that God has a physical body is

blasphemy. He can take any shape or form, because he is all-

powerful.

MISSIONARIES: I can see how Paul felt as he stood

among the Greeks and read the inscription, "TO THE

UNKNOWN GOD." Gentlemen, "Whom therefore ye

ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

We do believe that God has a body of flesh and bones

as tangible as man s, as does the Son. John 4:24 points out

that God is a spirit, but notice it says, reading on, "...and

they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in

truth." Brother Caldwell, do you leave your body home

when you go to church? It says that WE MUST
WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH.
The context of the scripture informs us that the people
of Samaria were not worshipping the Father in truth
a woman, "Ye worship ye
because in John 4:22, Christ told
know not what:" 2 Kings 17:28-34 points out that these
people were pagan worshippers, so Christ merely pointed
out that God also had a spirit, and was not a pagan god.
The "God is love" (I John 4:8),
scriptures also say,

"God is light" (I John 1:5), and "God is a consuming fire"

(Heb. 12:29). So God can be and do many things. To say
He is only a spirit is nonsense. Your scripture in Romans
1:20-25 was somewhat facetious, proving God was without
a body. Read it carefully; people were worshipping birds,
four-footed beasts, and creeping things also, along with
their statue of a corruptible man.
Christ was really declaring an eternal truth when He
told pagan Samaria that God was a spirit, and was not a

graven image. Acts 8:12-20 will prove to you that those

good people never really received the "word of God" until
Phillip preached to them. Therefore, if they had not
received the word of God, they were living by another word,
or gospel.
Now you mentioned Colossians 2:9, but here you used
a scriptural railsplit. Col. 1 : 1 8-1 9 informs us that Christ
was the head of the Church, the firstborn of every creature,
and it so pleased the Father that in "Christ" was all fullness

of the Godhead to dwell — in his mortal tabernacle of flesh.

John 1: 16 tells us that He gave of His fullness to His

followers. This fullness was, "The way, the truth, and the
life." You will also notice that interpreting the word
"Bodily" as meaning Christ's physical body is very
facetitious, for if you accept that literally, then you must
accept the next verse literally, which reads, "and ye are
complete in him." He was speaking, of course, of the
Church — as you can tell.

METHODIST: You may be right, but I am still waiting for

the passage where it read that God has a body of flesh and
bones.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, there is no passage in the Bible that

states that God has a body of flesh and bones — but it is so

plain that anyone who wants to find the truth can see it.

Hebrews 1:3 tells us that Christ was in the EXPRESS

IMAGE of his Father, and as Stephen was being stoned, he
looked up into heaven and saw God, and Christ standing at

His right hand.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: This is wrong to suppose

Christ had a body as does the Father.
I Peter 4:6 tells us that the gospel was "... preached
also to them that are dead, that they might be judged
according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in

the Spirit." Therefore, Christ did live according to God in

the Spirit.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, I disagree with you emphatically,

and if you accept the Bible to be the Word of God, you
cannot maintain that Christ laid down His physical body

after His resurrection. We read in Luke 24:36-39 that

Christ, after His resurrection, said, "Behold my hands and
my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit

hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." In acts 1:9-

II, as Christ bid farewell to His apostles, we read that,

"This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven,

shall come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into

heaven/' And James 2:26 informs us that, "For as the body
without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead
also/'

Now do you believe that Christ died twice? His spirit

had left his body once (Luke 23:46) and entered back into
his body three days later, marking the first resurrection.

Death would have entered His body again if His spirit had
separated from it. Paul wrote that this was an impossibility
in Romans 6:9-10 when he said, "Knowing that Christ

being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE; DEATH

HATH NO MORE DOMINION OVER HIM."
These scriptures prove very definitely that Christ has a

body with Him in heaven today, and that since Christ is in

the express image of His Father, then His Father also had a
body of flesh and bone.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: Elder, didn't you know that in

the scriptures the words spirit and breath are used

interchangeably? For instance, in the creation, Jehovah
breathed the breath of life, and a few seconds later you see

the word spirit used for breath.

MISSIONARIES: I will grant you that in some instances

the words can be used interchangeably, but your group
maintains that man has no spirit. Isaiah clearly

distinguishes between the two in Isaiah 42:5, which reads,

"Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and
stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that
which cometh out of it; he that GIVETH BREATH
UNTO THE PEOPLE UPON IT, AND SPIRIT TO
THEM THAT WALK THEREIN:"
Zech. 12:1 tells us that the spirit of man "has form". If
you interpret "breath" to remain spirit, it can be quite
humorous. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, it

would read, "Blessed are the poor in breath, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven/' After that sermon, I believe I would
have been at the bottom of the mount with a basket full of
onions for sale!

In John 4:24 we would read, "God is a breath: and they

that worship him must worship him in breath and in truth."

I believe we have that there is a difference, as Isaiah pointed

out, between breath and spirit. If you have any more

questions on the differences, you could read Job 32:7-8 and
I Cor. 2:9-15.
Now back to the subject of Gods body. Christ said,
"He that hath seen me hath seen my Father." (John 14:9)

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Hold it now. Christ was alive

when He said that. You keep jumping back and forth. His

Father was greater than He in all ways, and that would have
included perfection. Hebrews 5:8-9 informs us that

perfection did not come until He had suffered on the cross.

MISSIONARIES: I want to thank you for your logic. I

will use it. Christ then, was perfect after His resurrection
and He had a body of flesh and bones which He has today.
Now, if He was going to His Father, who is also perfect
(Matt. 5:48 for Father, Heb. 5:9 for Son), what kind of
body would the Father have? Does Stephen say there was a
difference? Which would be the most perfect, the Son with

a body of flesh, bone, and spirit, or the Father with only a

spirit? Now let's get logical. One or the other has to be

perfectly created. One is the express image of the other.

CATHOLIC PRIEST: I am afraid I will have to break in

here. One of the weaknesses of the prosecution is that we

are not united in our own beliefs. However, the majority
here is of the belief of the Triune God. Now, after we are

through with this point, I am sure that truth will have been
established once and for all.

John 10:30 plainly states, "I and my Father are one,"

and the scriptures in John go on to say and teach this very
fact. Gentlemen, pay careful attention as I read from the
Douay Version of Christ's personal witness concerning
Him and his Father. The King James Version is almost
identical. The Elders took this scripture out of context, so
I will give it in it's true light. John 14:5-9 reads, "Thomas
saith unto him; Lord, we know not whiter thou goest; and
how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the
way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the
Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would without
doubt HAVE KNOWN MY FATHER ALSO: and from
henceforth you shall know him. And YOU HAVE SEEN
HIM. Philip saith to him: Lord show us the Father and it

enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a

time with you AND HAVE YOU NOT KNOWN ME?

Philip, HE THAT HATH SEEN ME SEETH THE
FATHER ALSO. HOW SAYEST THOU: SHOW US
THE FATHER?''
Judge, from this scripture, what would you say?

JUDGE: I would say your scripture is quite convincing, but

I would like to hear the reply from the defense.

CATHOLIC PRIEST: Judge, I am not through. We are

going to prove Mormon revelation false and blasphemous.

I John 5:7 in the King James version reads, "For there

are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

10
 Now we can use the Book of Mormon to support our
belief in a triune God. In Mosiah 15:3-4 of your book it

reads that Christ is the "Father and the Son." In several

instances in the Book of Mormon we read of Christ as the
"Eternal God." I also call your attention to the testimony

of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon which states,

"And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the
Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen." I would have said

Amen, because they were teaching the doctrine that Joseph

Smith declared in the Book of Mormon and denied in the

Doctrine and Covenants.

I believe that the missionaries of your church had better

go back to their Bibles and look for the truth instead of

getting all mixed up with this senseless literature of the
Mormon Church.

MISSIONARIES: The Lord once told Job, "who is this

that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job

38:2) You have done quite a job in fulfilling the Lord's

words to Job. I made no attempt to explain
noticed that you
the account in Acts 7:55-56 when Stephen saw both the
Father and the Son. How could Stephen have seen two
personages, and yet Christ teach one? It's an easy answer.
Christ taught that there were two personages and that he
was separate from his Father.

In John 8: 1 7- 1 8 Christ spoke with the Jews who

accused Him of being an imposter because He was the only
one who bore witness of Himself. It was the rule in Jewish

law that the testimony of two or three witnesses was true.

Christ replied, "It is also written in your law, that the
testimony of TWO MEN is true.

I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father

that sent me beareth witness of me." Here Christ compared
himself and his Father to the two men. Now, if they were

1
not two men, why did Christ make such a comparison?
Christ states in John 10:30 that he and his Father are
one, but in John 17:20-21 he explains what he meant when
he said, praying to the Father, "...that they may be one;
(referring to his disciples) as thou, Father, art in me, and I

in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may
believe that thou has sent me/' I challenge you to take this
scripture literally also. Here Christ prayed that his disciples

would be one as he and his Father are one. They were one,
but one in purpose and unity.
When Peter bore witness that Christ was the Son of
God in Matt. 16:15-19, it was Christ that said, "Blessed
art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Christ, at this time, had a body of flesh and blood, yet told

Peter that flesh and blood had not borne that witness, but
his Heavenly Father.
In answer to John 14:5-9, Christ explained that He and
his Father were separate in verse 12 when He declared,

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the

works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than
these shall He do; because I go unto my Father."

Why would He go unto His Father, if he were the

Father? This teaching is abominable. It would be so

senseless for Christ, in the 26th chapter of Matthew to
pray to the Father and ask if the "bitter cup" might be
removed, if He were the Father. What mockery it would
have been in Gethsemane to pray to Himself, being the
Father. After His resurrection, He told Mary Magdalene
not to touch him, "for I am not yet ascended to my Father."

(John 20:17)
Also Jesus said only His Father in Heaven knows when
Jesus will come again. Now, if Jesus really is the Father, why

12
didn't He know when He was coming again? Furthermore,
when Christ was baptized, a voice from heaven said, "This
is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The
example of the Father and Son as two separate people is too
obvious to even debate.
The creed which was the birth of this triune doctrine
was created by a group of uninspired men in the third

century who met at Nice at the command of Constantine,

a Pagan worshiper. This creed was later revised to "add to"
its understanding by a canonized Saint of Roman
Catholicism, St. Athanasisus, who, I might add, is

considered inspired by the prosecution in general. I would

like to put the creed on trial this afternoon, after I have
answered these supposed Book of Mormon contradictions.

We have established beyond a doubt that Christ and

God are separate personages, and will now establish what
was meant in the Book of Mormon and by the three

witnesses. Did you know that the Bible refers to Christ as

the "Everlasting Father" and "The Mighty God?" Isaiah

9:6 reads, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is

given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and

his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, THE
MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The
Prince of Peace."
Now, how was Christ the Mighty God? Colossians
1: 16- 1 7 tells us that "by him (Christ) were all things

created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth." Therefore,

He is the Eternal Father and a mighty God because He was

its creator. God was with Christ at the creation, hence, "let

US make man in OUR image," (Gen. 1:26-27) and this is

pointed out in Eph. 3:9.

Now, what the Three Witnesses had in mind when they

said that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one God

[3
was the same thing Christ had in mind in John 17:20-21,
or one in purpose. Christ was the way, the truth, and the
life, and "learned in all things from his Father/' So you see,

it really wasn't a contradiction, after all, but a revealed

truth.

I present to you now, a copy of the Athenasian Creed,

accepted by the majority of the prosecution, to prove and
produce evidence from the Holy Scriptures that many of
the plain and precious parts of our Lords divinity have

been destroyed and that they strip the Godhead of their

identity.

Athenasian Creed

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity is

Unity; neither confounding the persons nor

dividing the substance. For there is one person of
the Father, another of the Son, and another of Holy
Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, is all one. The Glory equal,

the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such

is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father
uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost
uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son
incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son
eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal and yet there
are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there
are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible,
but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So
likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,

14
 and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are

not three Almighties but one Almighty. So the

Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost
is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one
God. So likewise the Father is Lord, and the Son
Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three
Lords, but one Lord.
Gentlemen, I would feel safe in letting the greatest

minds on this earth explain that conglomeration of words.

It begins by stating that the Church worships one God in

trinity, but does not divide the substance. Then in the next
verse we are introduced to three different substances in the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Near the end of the creed
they put our minds at rest by stating once again, that they
are undivided. If the creed teaches us anything, it is that the

Church believes that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost

are incomprehensible. The dictionary defines
"incomprehensible" as "that which is not understood.'
Judging from the creed's explanation of the Godhead,
that is the understatement of the year.
I will now judge the creed in the light of scripture and
show it to be diametrically opposed to the word of God.
Bearing in mind that God is to the prosecution,
"incomprehensible", I refer you to 2 Peter chapter I, and
put the creed on trial.

Here, Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, in the

opening two verses, bids the saints God's grace, "through

THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, AND OF JESUS
CHRIST OUR LORD."
You will find in a book of antonyms that the opposite

of incomprehensible is knowledge.
We go to read in verse 3, "According as his DIVINE
POWER HATH GIVEN UNTO US ALL THINGS

is
THAT PERTAIN UNTO LIFE AND GODLINESS,
THROUGH THE KNOWELDGE OF HIM THAT
HATH CALLED US TO GLORY AND VIRTUE/' It
goes on to explain what one must do to obtain this
knowledge of him. Found in verses 5, 6, and 7, it says that

we must have faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance,

patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity.

Now if we have these qualities in our church, verse 8

gives us a wonderful promise. "For if these things (verses 5-

THEY MAKE YOU THAT YE

7) be in you, and abound,
SHALL NEITHER BE BARREN NOR UNFRUITFUL
IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR LORD JESUS
CHRIST." If these things are in us, we will abound in

knowledge. If these qualities are not in us, we will find a

creed like this one drawn up, which Peter describes in verse
9 as being, "Blind, and cannot see afar off."
John 7:1 3 tells us that, "This is life eternal, that they

might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou has sent." An yet the creed tells me that I can't

know them because they are "incomprehensible."

Now any doctrine out of harmony with the Holy

Scriptures, according to these educated scholars, in false,

and the church is false. I have just proven that the members
of Christ's Church abounded in this knowledge, and that
the Catholics and Protestants are just the reverse in

accepting a creed inspired by the devil and robbing the

Godhead of their true identity.

I have been told by some ministers that the mystery and

incomprehensibility is the beauty of the doctrine, and after
reading these past few verses, you see the false nature of
your thinking. And, hence, since you do not comprehend

[6
the Godhead, you don't know what shape He is in; if there
are one, two, or three Gods; if He has a body, and if He
does, what it is. And so it is a mystery to you.

CATHOLIC PRIEST: Young man, did you know that

Eph. 6:19 speaks of the "mystery of the Gosper* and that
Col. 4-3 speaks of the "mystery of Christ'? So you see it

was a mystery.

MISSIONARIES: The word mystery, and you can look it

up if you'd like, is defined as, "a spiritual truth which was

once hidden, but now is revealed, and which, without
special revelation, would have remained unknown." (Bible

Dictionary). So sir, I would like to thank you for that

argument. You have just proven that these truths were
revealed and that your church has drawn away from the
simple truth as laid out in the Word of God.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: Elder, you have done a

splendid job of defending your faith by twisting our

doctrines. Now, we are going to put you on the defensive
and are not going to move until you answer this Book of
Mormon contradiction.
Alma 7:10 in the Book of Mormon reads that, "He
(Christ) shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the

land of our forefathers," while the Bible informs us in Luke

2:4-11, that Christ was born at Bethlehem in the city of
David. Now, just look at any Bible map, and you will see
Bethlehem happens to be five miles south of Jerusalem.
How can Bethlehem be Jerusalem?

MISSIONARIES: I will show you just how ridiculous

your logic is.

17
 Would you please turn to 2 Kings 14:20, so we can find
that very same contradiction in the Bible as you point out
in the Book of Mormon. Your argument claiming the Book
of Mormon to be false, without a doubt, proves the Bible
false. It reads, "And they brought him on horses: and he was
buried at Jerusalem, with his forefathers, in the City of
David."
Now, if the City of David, according to the New
Testament, is Bethlehem, how could he be buried at both
Jerusalem and Bethlehem? If you had read the Book of
Mormon, you would have learned that Almas ancestors
were from Jerusalem, and Alma knew that Jerusalem was in
the Old World. The Lord had Alma where the Son
to tell

of God was to be born. Of course, Alma had never been to

Bethlehem, so it was difficult for the Lord to relate to

Alma's understanding where the Son of God was to be

born. God solved the problem by telling Alma that Christ

would be born "at Jerusalem/' Alma was therefore able to

make the connection between the land of his forefathers

and Jerusalem.
Now if you would only look up the word "at" in the

dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "at" as

a word which expresses exact or approximate position.

Therefore, by the wisdom of the Lord, He chose the
approximate position where Christ should be born. I hope
that answers your question.

JUDGE: It does.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: I assure you that there are

more than one or two contradictions in the Book of

Mormon. How any man can accept that book as divinely
inspired is beyond me.

18
 Upon the crucifixion of Christ, we read in Luke 23:44
that, "It was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness
over all the earth until the ninth hour." Then we turn to the
Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 8:20-23 where it reads that
darkness covered the land for three days. Now, was it three
hours as the Bible stated, or three days as the Book of
Mormon pointed out?

MISSIONARIES: Reverend, do you mean to tell me you

think that is a contradiction? I see you like to tear down the
face of the Bible. We have identical experiences in the Bible
where darkness prevailed for unusual periods of time in one
area, and where it was light at the same time in other areas.

We read in Exodus 10:21-23, 'And the Lord said

unto Moses, stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that

there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness
that may be felt. And Moses stretched forth his hand
toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land

of Egypt three days. The saw not one another, neither rose
any from his place for three days."
You will notice that the Book of Mormon incident

was nothing more than a repeat performance of the

experience suffered ''in the land of Egypt." As 3rd Nephi
8:19 points out, the corresponding three hours to Luke
23:44 were among the most perilous of the three day
ordeal. However, the wisdom of the Lord prevailed, as it did

in Egypt, and this continent remained for three days in

darkness.
There is another reason why the American
continent had three days of darkness, but we will point this
out later as our discussion progresses. As you can see,
however, your Bible would have answered that question for
you.

19
 PART TWO
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: Elder, I have a question that
will require detailed explanation. If I am not mistaken, the
Latter-day Saints claim that Jesus of the New Testament
was Jehovah of the Old Testament. Now if this is the case,
I have two scriptures that definitely prove your own theory
of the Godhead false.

We find in Psalms 110:1-2, "The LORD said unto my

Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies
they footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength
out of Zion:"
Now, who sat at the right hand of the Lord Jehovah?
Acts 7:55-56 tells us that it was Christ — and the capital
letters in the scripture refer to Jehovah.

Acts 3:13 establishes once and for all that Jehovah is

the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It reads that, "the

God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our
fathers, hath glorified HIS SON JESUS; whom ye

delivered up." I refer you to Exodus 6:3 which shows that

the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was none other than
JEHOVAH.
These two scriptures prove absolutely the Mormon
theory of God false.

MISSIONARIES: You are to be commended for your

choice of scriptures, because both are excellent questions

and will require detailed explanations.

We do believe Christ of the New Testament to be

Jehovah of the Old Testament. In answer to your reference
in Psalms, would you please turn to I Corinthians 15:24-
25- It will prove that the Lord in capital letters was Christ.
It reads, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have

20
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all

authority and power. FOR HE MUST REIGN, TILL HE

HATH PUT ALL ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET." So, it

was Christ that was to put all enemies under his feet, and
since you said that LORD in capital letters refers to
Jehovah, by your own admission he must be Christ.
If you ask who the "Lord" was in small letters, you will

find in Acts 3:19-21 that it is referring to God our

Heavenly Father.
Your reference to Acts 3:13 will require a more detailed
explanation. Using other scriptures, we must first establish
that Jehovah of the Old Testament was Christ of the New.
Isaiah 12:1-2 informs us that the God of our Salvation,
the Lord Jehovah, was Isaiah's strength and his song. It also

says, "HE ALSO IS BECOME MY SALVATION."

Acts 4:12 refers to the fact that (speaking of Christ),
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we
must be saved." Therefore, as we have clearly established,
Jehovah was Isaiahs salvation and Jesus was Peter s

salvation. Since Jesus was the only name given under heaven

whereby men could be saved, Jesus was Jehovah.

In Zech. 12:10, the Lord Jehovah was speaking and
said, "and they shall look upon ME whom they have

When we read in John 19:37, "they

pierced." shall look on
him whom they have pierced," we learn that the "ME" in

Zachariah was referring to Christ on the cross. In your own

New World Translation of the Bible, Revelations 22:12-13
reads, "Look, I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is

with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the

Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning

21
and the end/' Verse 1 6 tells us who is "coming quickly" —
Jesus Christ. Therefore, as the scripture pointed out, Christ
was the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the
beginning and the end. Now turn to Rev. 1:8 in your New
World Translation. It reads, "Iam the Alpha and the
Omega, says Jehovah God, the one who is and who was and
who is coming, the Almighty." Without any doubt, your
own version of the Bible has proven that the Alpha and the
Omega was Jehovah and who, in chapter 22, was Christ.
If you still doubt that Christ was Jehovah, turn to Rev.
1:8 and read carefully until you come to verse 17 and 1 8. It

reads, "Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last (the
definition of Alpha and Omega), and the living one; and I

BECAME DEAD, BUT LOOK: I am living forever and

ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." From both
translations of the scriptures we have established Christ as
Jehovah.
We also read that, "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1), and Paul pointed out in
Col. 1:16 that, "by him (Christ) were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth."

Peter was faced with a difficult situation in Acts 3:13

because he had to testify of Christ and still put over the
point that, though he was Jehovah, it was God the Father
that had raised him from the dead.
The people understood clearly that man had a spirit. So
Peter spoke of their spiritual creator, who WAS THE
CREATOR OF THE SPIRITS OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC,
AND JACOB, and could therefore be called the "Father of
their spirits", our Christ's father. By so doing, he would not
confuse them with the creator of all physical bodies, Christ,
who as Colossians pointed out, "created all things that are
in heaven and that are on earth." Making this distinction,

n
he easily pointed out that the God of Abraham's, Isaac's,

and Jacob's spirits had glorified His Son (who was the
physical creator and, therefore, also the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob) whom they had delivered up and crucified.
Hebrews 12:9 speaks of the "father of our Spirits" which
would be the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So you see,

both God and Christ were the "Gods of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob." Only one was the creator of Spirits, and the other
was the creator of bodies.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: That is ridiculous, because you

will notice that Jehovah breathed into men the "Breath (or
Spirit) of life." Therefore Christ would have been the
creator of their spirits, and your argument collapses.

MISSIONARIES: Just because Christ placed the spirit in

man doesn't make Him the creator of that spirit. And we
have already established that the breath and the spirit were
not the same thing. Therefore, by reading the scriptures, we
can place the correct interpretation when we take the

scripture in its context. Notice in Eccl. 12:7 when the body

dies and returns to the earth, the spirit of man returns to

the God who gave it.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: You know, this scripture

reaffirms our conviction of only a spiritual resurrection.

The Latter-day Saint plan of salvation teaches that a man's
spirit leaves his body and goes to a spirit world to await
resurrection. This is both illogical and absurd. Eccl. 9:5
informs us that, "the living know that they shall die: but

theDEAD KNOW NOT ANY THING, NEITHER

HAVE THEY ANY MORE A REWARD; for the memory
of them is forgotten." We go on to read in verse 10,

23
"Whatsoever they hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;
for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor
wisdom in the grave, whiter thou goest." Now if there is no
more wisdom, knowledge, work, device, and the dead know
not anything, why do you teach "work in the spirit world:
and baptism for the dead? Why is your doctrine so radically
opposed to the word of God?

MISSIONARIES: I believe that of the many doctrines

that are taught in the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine of the
spirit leaving the body is perhaps the clearest of all, along
with the Godhead. I maintain that the two scriptures you
have just referred to are speaking only of our physical
bodies. We also believe that they will return to the dust and
that in the grave they will not know anything nor have
wisdom, because our spirits will not be in the grave with
our bodies but will have returned "unto God who gave it."

(Eccl. 12:7).

You see, by such a doctrine, you have created a major

problem in your movement. We read in Matthew 17:3 that
Moses and Elias appeared to Christ, Peter, James, and John,
"talking with them," yet Deut. 34:5-6 teaches us that,
"Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of
Moab, according to the word of the Lord." This means to
me that Moses had been dead for hundreds of years. Christ
could not possibly have talked with him if Moses had not
yet been resurrected and was still in the grave (spirit and
body) . And we know Moses had not been resurrected,
that
for Christ was the "firstfruits of them that slept." (iCor.

15:20, 23)- This proves without a doubt that the spirit

does leave the body and can talk, think, and in this case

here, communicate with man.

24
 The Jehovah's Witnesses also teach that there has not
yet been any resurrection. Matthew 27:51-5 3 informs us
that, "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top
to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
AND THE GRAVES WERE OPENED; AND MANY
BODIES OF THE SAINTS WHICH SLEPT AROSE,
and came out of the graves after his (Christ's) resurrection,

and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." How
clear do you want a scripture to read?

I Cor. 15:6, along with many other passages, refers to

death as "sleep."
Now, if the dead have no reasoning, then Peter should
have learned the gospel from the Jehovah's witnesses —
because he taught, "...for this cause was the Gospel
preached also TO THEM THAT ARE DEAD, that they

might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live

according to God in the spirit." (I Peter 4:6) Why would

the Gospel be preached to the dead if they had no
reasoning, nor knowledge, nor wisdom? The answer is
found in the last seven words of that scripture - because
they, "live according to God in the spirit." And since they

await a literal and physical resurrection as was experienced

in Matthew, they will be resurrected with their bodies;
those "that returned to the dust."
Paul taught this same doctrine to the Philippians, when
he said that Christ would, "change our vile body, that it

may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil 3:21)

which was flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-39).
It is my understanding that you gentlemen teach the
doctrine that only 144,000 will stand before the throne of
God, and that they will be righteous souls. The rest of the
righteous will inherit the earth. Would you explain this for

me?

25
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: We teach that 144,000 will

stand before the throne of God as special witnesses. These

144,000 have already been chosen, and not all can be
numbered with them. This is taught in the book of
Revelation. In Rev. 7:3-4 we read, "Hurt not the earth, nor
the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our

God in their foreheads, and I heard the number of them

which were sealed; and there were sealed an hundred and
forty and four thousand of all the tribes of Israel."
We read in chapter 14, verse 4, where they were
"married" to the church and were therefore "not defiled
with women; for they are virgins." It was the 144,000 that
stood on Mount Zion with the mark of the Father in their
foreheads (Rev. 14:1) and sung "as it were a new song
before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the
elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred
and forty and four thousand, WHICH WERE
REDEEMED FROM THE EARTH." (Rev. 14:3)

So you can see they were special servants, redeemed

from the earth, and as such were the only ones that were
before the throne night and day. It goes on to say that,
"These are they which follow the Lamb (Christ)
withersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among
men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb.
And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are

without fault before the throne of God." I think these

scriptures clearly support our stand.

MISSIONARIES: Thank you for your explanation. I

would now like to show you that the 144,000 though they
were special, were not the only ones that would live before
the throne of God. Careful examination of the scriptures
would reveal this, and I declare that those of the Church of

26
 3

Jesus Christ were the only ones that could stand before the
throne, and they were far more numerous than 144,000.
You quoted Rev. 7:3-4 and then skipped to verse 15 and
said that this was in reference to the 144,000. This is

absolutely false. John was taken in vision, and later seeing

the 144,000 he records in verse 9, "I beheld, and, lo, a great
multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and
kindreds, STOOD BEFORE
and people, and tongues,
THE THRONE, AND BEFORE THE LAMB,
CLOTHED WITH WHITE ROBES. ." Then in verse . 1

one of the 'Tour and twenty Elders" mentioned in chapter

4, verse 4 asked, "What are these which are arrayed in white

robes? And whence came they?" John answered and said,
"Sir, thou knowest." Then he said, speaking of the white
robed multitude that no man could number, "these are they
which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their
robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
THERFORE ARE THEY BEFORE THE THRONE OF
GOD, AND SERVE HIM DAY AND NIGHT IN HIS
TEMPLE: AND HE THAT SITTETH ON THE
THRONE SHALL DWELL AMONG THEM."
So not only the 144,000 would stand before the
throne, but also the great multitude that represented the
twelve tribes of Israel. They were members of the "Church
of the Firstborn," (Heb. 12:22-24) as was the requirement
for the multitude. If they were not a member of the Church,
as Hebrews points out, cross referenced with Revelation,

then they had no hope of heaven.

17
 PART THREE

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST: I have a question to ask

these gentlemen concerning the Sabbath Day.
The Lord told Moses, ''Thou shalt remember the
Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." For thousands of years
Saturday had been observed as the Sabbath by the Jews, but
through pagan philosophies of the Christian era, this

commandment was violated and the church of these young

men holds its services on Sunday.
Section 68 of their Doctrine and Covenants reads, "and
the inhabitants of Zion shall also observe the Sabbath day
to keep it holy." (D&C 69:29). Now you make the claim
that Sunday is the day of worship, yet the Doctrine and
Covenants says to keep the Sabbath day holy, and we all

know that to be Saturday? Why do you knowingly break

this commandment of the Lord?

MISSIONARIES: This is a very good point you have

brought forth, but we can find an answer to it in the

scriptures. We read in the Bible that the "Sabbath was made

for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath was
observed under Jewish law on Saturday, so Mr. Gledhill is

requesting that I show where the scriptures point out that

the Sabbath was done away with.
We find John in Rev. 1:10 referring to Sunday as "The
Lord's Day," and it was on the Lord's day that the disciples
gathered following his resurrection and it was on the Lords
day that our Lord appeared unto them. Once again the
following Sunday they met (John 20:26) and the scriptures
affirm that the sacrament was observed on "The Lord's
day." (Acts 20:7) Collection for the saints was made on the
Lord's day (I Cor. 16:2). If we live by Jewish law on this

is
commandment, we must live by the entire commandment
and law. Christ said, "The law was our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ." (Gal. 3:24-25)- Therefore, we don't
need the schoolmaster, because we have come unto Christ.

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST: In other words, you are

denying the Ten Commandments.

MISSIONARIES: Not denying them, just saying that

Christ summed up the ten into two commandments, love
the Lord and love your brother. On these two laws, said
Christ, hang all the law and the prophets.
Hebrews 8:1-13 tells us that the old covenant was
superseded by the new. Col. 2: 1 6 tells us, "Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
holy day, or of the new moon, or OF THE SABBATH
DAYS." Now if you live by the Sabbath, you should live by
the entire law.
We read in Exodus 3 1:14-17 where a man was to be put

to death for not keeping the Sabbath day holy. Exodus 3 5:3

informs us that those abiding by the Old Testament

Sabbath should not kindle fire on this holy day. All food,

according to Mosaic law, was to be prepared the evening

before the Sabbath.
Now if the old law was to remain binding, why in Acts

15:29 were the gentiles converts not taught this fact after
the council of Jerusalem? Also, if you are going to live by
the old law, since you keep the Sabbath Day as Saturday,

you will read where the Jews observed the 7th month of
every year, and also every 7th year. In this year the self sown
product of the arable lands was to be left for the poor and

the beasts of the field. A release of all debts among the

Israelites was made. You will see that these things were done

20
away, and if you wish to continue by the Old Sabbath, then
why don't you observe it like the Jews and keep it holy?
Why don't you put violators to death? Why do you kindle
fire on the Sabbath? Why don't you live the sabbatical year
and also the year of Jubilee?
I believe that this proves that the law was given to a

certain people, at a certain time, and for a special purpose.

The New Testament scriptures show a revision of the law of
the Old Testament.

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST Then why is there in the

Doctrine and Covenants the command to keep the Sabbath

Day holy?

MISSIONARIES: This is what I have pointed out to you.

The Jewish Sabbath was observed on Saturday under
Mosaic law, but the resurrection of our Lord brought about
the change to the eighth day, which is the Christian
Sabbath.

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST: Then since you admit

you live by the Sabbath Day, why don't you observe Jubilee,
or the sabbatical year, or kill violators of the Sabbath?

MISSIONARIES: Because with the Priesthood being

changed, and a new and better covenant being given, there
was also, of necessity, a change of the law (Heb. 7:12).
That was the old law which was fulfilled.

jo
 PART FOUR

AGNOSTIC: Gentlemen, I believe we are troubling

ourselves with concepts only common to our individual
beliefs, such as the Sabbath day, the 144,000 and the
spiritual or physical resurrection. Our purpose today is to
establish the claim of Mormon apostles and Prophets by
the scriptures, and to see these gentlemen prove their stand.
At this point in our discussion, they have well
established that their revelation is harmonious. But as we
know, revelation must also be needful and progressive. Even
if they could support this stand on revelation, they still

have to establish that Mormon apostles and Prophets fill

the qualifications as laid out in the word of God. I firmly

believe that neither they, nor any modern day religion, can

establish this from the scriptures.

Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet of God is not a

new one. Other religious denominations have claimed

prophets of God and have likewise founded churches on
their beliefs. This has been going on for the past couple of
centuries. In fact, the prosecution today has four such

religions who claim to have been founded by prophets or

prophetesses of God.
We find the Christian Science movement makes such a
claim. We read on page 107 of a book by their founder,

Mary Baker Eddy, entitled, Science and Health, The Key to the

Scriptures, that she was inspired by God. The 1956 edition

of the Pentecostal Church Manual relates that in 1 9 14 this

church had the "Revelation of the name of the Lord Jesus."

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Pastor Russel was a
prophet of God in the book Study to the Scriptures, volume 7,

page 377. Then we have the Instructor, which claims that

Ellen G. White was a prophetess of God and divinely

inspired.

$J
 All four representatives of these churches here today

would testify with all their hearts that theirs was the true
way. All claim to be inspired — all claim to be founded on
prophets or prophetesses of God.
Now, using the Holy Bible, I challenge you to PROVE
to me why Joseph Smith was inspired and a prophet of God,
and why these others were not. For every passage you use to
show that Joseph Smith was inspired and a prophet, I will

use as an argument to show that the others were likewise

inspired and prophets. Will you do that?

MISSIONARIES: I am thankful to the Lord for the

opportunity to defend the principles of truth today. I bear
witness to you gentlemen that Joseph Smith was a prophet
of God, that he was inspired, and that he saw the Father and
the Son in the year 1 820, and that through this great
prophet, the Church of Jesus Christ has been established
once again in these, the latter days.

AGNOSTIC: Young man, we do not doubt your sincere

belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet. We know you hold

this belief near to your heart. But so do the Jehovah's
Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Pentecostals and
Christian Scientists hold their beliefs equally as near to
theirs. You all say that you know your respective beliefs are

true. I bear you my witness that Joseph Smith was a false

prophet, that he was not inspired, and that he did not see
the Father and the Son in 1 820.
Now, using only the Bible and no other volume of
scripture, can you prove to me that he did?

MISSIONARIES: Christ once stated in Matthew 12:36-

37 that idle words were of such importance that on

52
judgement day, "by thy words thou shalt be justified, and
by thy words thou shalt be condemned. " I testify that those

words will condemn you at that day.

The scriptures very clearly define the qualifications of

the Prophet of God. Moses, while in vision, was

commanded by the Lord to, "Hear now my word. If there
be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known
unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream."
(Numbers 12:6)
In other words, a prophet must receive visions from
God, and have inspired dreams. This eliminates the other
four right now because they haven't made this claim. But
lets read what the Prophet Joseph Smith said on page 3,

paragraphs 4 and 5, in the pamphlet "Joseph Smith tells his

own Story." It reads:

"Just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar

of light exactly over my head, above the brightness

of the sun, which descended gradually until it

rested upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found

myself delivered from the enemy which held my
bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two
personages, whose brightness and glory defy all

description, standing above me in the air. One of

them spoke to me, calling me by name, and said,
pointing to the other — "This is My Beloved Son,
Hear Him."

So sir, this eliminates the other four claimants and

places Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.
Lets read on in the Bible. In Deut. 18:21-22, we find
where Moses stated another qualification of, and way to
recognize, a prophet. It tells us that if a prophet speaks in

>>
the name of the Lord and the thing follows not, he is not a
prophet — but if he speaks in the name of the Lord and it

follows, he is a prophet of God. Gentlemen, this was a

divine qualification.
I refer you to the revelation and prophecy of war, given
through Joseph Smith the Prophet on December 25, 1 8 32.
It is found in section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants,
and demand an explanation of it. In verse I, Joseph
I

prophesied in the name of the Lord and stated that,

"Beginning at ... South Carolina," a war would start that

would, "eventually terminate in the death and misery of

many souls.

Twenty-nine years before the beginning of its

fulfillment, Joseph states that a war would begin in South

Carolina and that many people would be killed. This, of
course, was the Civil War, and the first shot was fired at
Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The military services today
still employ many of the same tactics that were introduced
during times, ancient and modern — the latter being, by far,

the most destructive of the two. Ancient warfare made

world war impossible, but these modern tactics of warfare
make it easy.

So, verse 2 looked ahead to the first world war when it

stated that war would eventually, "be poured out upon all

nations, beginning at this place." In verse 3 it states that

the North would be divided against the South, and the

Prophet foresaw and prophesied that the South would call

upon the nation of Great Britain for assistance. This

prophecy has parts that have not yet been fulfilled, but will
continue to be fulfilled at future dates right up to the end
of time.
As you will notice, this prophecy was made in the name
of the Lord and it did come to pass. According to the Lord,
this is the sign of a prophet.

54
FATHER COOK: Paul taught that in the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word would be established. What
other prophecies has he made that have been fulfilled? Also,

since the prophecy was on war, it could have been made

under the influence of the devil. War is of the devil.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, read the prophecy. Joseph Smith

spoke in the name of the Lord, and when a man speaks in
the Lord's name, the test is on — and if it is fulfilled, he is

a prophet. War is of the devil, but that doesn't make a

prophesy about war false. Christ prophesied of "wars and

rumors of wars" in Matt. 24, and John the Revelator saw
great destruction as recorded in the Book of Revelations. It

would be blasphemy to assume these prophecies were made

under the influence of the devil. Gentlemen, you will have
to admit a partial fulfillment of this prophecy, and once
again, we have eliminated the other four churches in

question.
For the sake of a "second witness/' I will point out a

fantastic prophecy made by the prophet in 1 842, (as

recorded in the Documented History of the Church, vol. 5, pg.

85). The Saints, at the time the prophecy was made, were
living in Nauvoo, Illinois — a beautiful town they had
settled and built up from swampland. It was a Mormon
community, and had a militia second only in power to the
Army of the United States. Its soldiers were well trained in

methods of war and self-defense.

At the time of their greatest prosperity, Joseph Smith,

speaking in the name of the Lord, prophesied that the
saints would continue to suffer much affliction; that they

would be driven to the Rocky Mountains; that many would

apostatize; that others would be put to death by their

persecutors, or lose their lives in consequence of exposure

^s
or disease.
And then to fulfill this great and dynamic prophesy he
states, "and some of you will live to go and assist in making
settlements and build cities, and see the Saints become a

mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains.''

At the time this prophecy was made, that territory was
out of the confines of the United States, and the West a

savage country. At the same time the prophecy was made,

the 27th Congress was in its 3rd session, and Senator
George H. McDuffie of South Carolina made a statement
concerning the Rocky Mountain Territory. He said, "Who
are to go there, along the line of military posts, and take
possession of the only part of the territory fit to occupy —
that part upon the seacoast, a strip less than one hundred
miles in width? Why, sir, of what use will this be for
agricultural purposes? I would not for that purpose give a
pinch of snuff for the whole territory. I wish to God we did
'

not own it.

History bears us witness as to what happened in the

West.
The prophecy of Joseph Smith was fulfilled to the
letter. The Saints were driven from Nauvoo, their temple

was destroyed and desecrated, and many were killed. They

made the longest exodus ever recorded on this continent
and completed their casualty-filled journey in a valley

surrounded by the Rocky Mountains. There was no sign of

life in the entire valley except a single tree.
Gentlemen, I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of
God.

JUDGE: The prophecies are very impressive. What other

evidence can you produce to support your claims of Joseph
Smith?
MISSIONARIES: Amos 3:7 tells us that the Lord God

1
36
will do nothing without revealing it first to his servants, the
prophets. This means that the churches represented here,
since they don't have prophets, have a Lord that is

"doing nothing" in them. Now, from the dream of

Nebuchadnezzar as interpreted by Daniel, we find in Dan.
2:44 that the God of Heaven would set up a kingdom that
would never be destroyed, and would not be left to another
people, but that it would break into pieces and consume all

these kingdoms, and would stand forever. This kingdom

could not be established without a prophet, since the Lord
does not work, as Amos records, except through his

servants, the Holy Prophets.

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA: You are trying to

tell us that the Kingdom that Daniel saw was the Mormon
Church? Scriptures bear record that it was the kingdom set

up by our Lord 1900 years ago.

MISSIONARIES: It couldn't have been. You will notice

that the kingdom Daniel saw, "Shall not be left to other

And we read in Matt. 21:43 where Christ

people/' said,

"The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given

to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof So, the

kingdom Christ organized was left and given to another

people.
To continue on my defense for the Prophet, Matt.
7:15-20 tells us that a true and a false prophet can be
recognized "by their fruits." The fruits of Mormonism are
many. We have the Book of Mormon, an inspired book of
scripture that serves as a second witness for Christ; we have
numerous prophecies that have given us guidance, we have
the Word of Wisdom — a perfect health code given us by the

Lord.
The Mormon people are the most educated on the

>7
earth, having more college graduates and men on honor
rolls in science per capita than any other church. Joseph
Smith, through the Lord, introduced fruit upon fruit that
is good, more than time will permit us to enumerate. Matt.
7: 1 8 states, (comparing prophets to trees), "A good tree
(prophet) cannot bring forth evil fruit. NEITHER CAN
A CORRUPT TREE (false prophet) BRING FORTH
GOOD FRUIT/' The prophet Joseph Smith brought forth
good fruit, so he had to be a true prophet.

ATHEIST: I will use your same argument concerning fruits

and prove the other four prophets and prophetesses,
because they have also brought forth good fruit.

MISSIONARIES: I will accept your challenge. Sir, what

did Pastor Russel give the world in the cause of truth, and
what fruits can you show for the Jehovah's Witnesses?

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: The correct interpretation of

the scriptures; a great understanding of Jehovah; and an

organization that can be matched by none other in the
world.

MISSIONARIES: Dr. Gledhill, what did Mrs. White give

the world that we didn't have before? What new fruits did

she bring to mankind?

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST: A correct interpretation

of the scriptures, especially concerning the Sabbath Day,
which has been dishonored by man. Also the correct plan of
life has been explained by Mrs. White, and the only way
whereby man can find his way back to God.

t38
MISSIONARIES: Sir, what has Mary Baker Eddy given us
in her teachings and doctrines, and what new fruits has she

given to mankind?

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: Mary Baker Eddy has made a

valuable contribution to the Christian world in the book

"Science and Health, The Key to the Scriptures", and by doing this

has given to man the true and correct interpretation of the

Holy Scriptures and the fruits of healing.

MISSIONARIES: Evangelist Krause, what has

Pentecostalism given to us in the way of good fruits and
truth by their revelation of the Lord?

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH: Within the Pentecostal

doctrine we have the true baptism of the Holy Spirit, the

gifts of the church of Pentecost, and the correct

interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. We also have the

same missionary fervor as was demonstrated in the book of

Acts.

MISSIONARIES: Gentlemen, I appreciate your fervor

and your convictions. Our purpose is to establish truth.

Now, there are some striking differences that I will bring

forth between the Mormon Church and the fruits of these

other four. To begin with, in accepting the fact that God
has inspired one of the five churches, four of our Churches
have to be wrong and the fifth right. This is why the divine

qualifications play such an important part in our

examination.
We have presented the qualifications of a Prophet of
God, of which these gentlemen could not do. I would like

to call your attention to the names of their churches —

39
Seventh-Day Adventist, Christian Science, Jehovah's
Witness, and Pentecostal. You will notice that each is

founded and named after an important principal already

established in the Holy Scriptures. For Mrs. Eddy, it was
healing by faith, for Mrs. White, it was the 7th day, for

Pastor Russel, it was the name Jehovah instead of LORD,

and for the Pentecostals it was a day found in the second
chapter of Acts. I want you to notice, then, that none of the
four brought forth any principle that was not in the
Scriptures 1900 years ago.
Mrs. Eddys words were summed up by Christ in eight
words, "All things are possible to him that believeth." Her
book, "Science and Health," deals with this point that Christ
had established almost 1 8 centuries before her birth. In
doing so, she denied the need for modern science and the
medical profession.
Mrs. White was supposedly inspired to speak on the
Sabbath Day, a teaching almost as old as the existence of
the Word. It was not a new fruit. It was almost as old as the

Jewish Nation, and a principle that was involved in the

creation.

Pastor Russel picked up a Bible, and after a little study

found out that the translators had taken the name Jehovah
and replaced it with LORD. So he was prompted to start a
religion.

Then came the Pentecostal Church, founded on

nothing more than the experiences of a single day as

reported in the holy scriptures, and an unusual amount of

enthusiasm. Like the other three adherents to truth, their
doctrine is nothing new, but only that which has been
borrowed from one small section, in one book, in the entire

New Testament.
Their prophets do not fulfill the divine qualifications
that we established earlier as being necessary. In fact, Pastor

40
Russel made a dramatic prophecy concerning Christ's
second coming. He prophesied that it was to take place in

1 9 14, and when it failed, he established that it marked the

ushering in of a "spiritual" second coming. Christ said you
would know a prophet by his fruits, and these have brought
forth no new fruits, but merely doctrine that has been
taught for 2000 years. Of course, their own interpretations
have been added to these doctrines.
I want to point out that followers of these religions are

sincere, God-fearing people — but people are not the fruits

of the scriptures as taught by Christ, but "New Truth." The
doctrines of these churches, I believe, are treacherous. Let

me illustrate my reasons.
The gospel of Jesus Christ was complete and full, and
as the scriptures read, "Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God." (Matt. 4:4) Christ taught the Scribes and Pharisees
a bitter lesson in the 2 3 rd chapter of Matthew. It describes

in perfection these four groups. He said, "Woe unto you,

Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint
and anise and cumin, and have OMITTED THE
WEIGHTIER MATTERS OF THE LAW,
JUDGEMENT, MERCY, AND FAITH: these ought ye to
have done, and not to leave the other undone. YE BLIND
GUIDES, WHICH STRAIN AT A GNAT, AND
SWALLOW A CAMEL." (verses 2 3-24)

What did Mrs. Eddy strain at? The doctrine of healing.

Mrs. Eddy most likely forgot that this was only one of the
many gifts of the spirit as promised by our Lord (I Cor.

12:8-10). The foundation of this group deals with healing,

and their doctrine is centered around that one principle.

Mr. Russel loved trivialities, so he chose to really strain
at gnats and put the name Jehovah down instead of LORD,
but as we have another group floating around called the

41
"Great I Am's", which was another of Jehovah's names. (Ex.
6:3 compare with Ex. 3:14) From this initial inspiration,

other doctrines sprang forth merely by Pastor Russels

interpretations — the most noted being his fantastic

interpretation of Daniels explanation of Nebuchadezzar's

dream, or of the Book of Revelations. He forgot Peter's
words, that, "no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private
interpretation, for the prophecy came not by the will of
man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved upon
by the Holy Ghost." (2Pet. 1:20-21)
You will notice that in verse 19, Peter explains that he

has the power to interpret the scriptures, and in verses 17

and 1 8 he tells us why — because he had seen a vision and
heard the voice of the Father. Pastor Russel had neither of
these experiences.
Then the Pentecostal movement claimed the
"Testimony of the Lord once again, a religion started on
one passage of scripture — or in this instance, on the
proceedings of one day 1900 years ago.
None of these four people brought forth new truth or
new scripture, and none of the four, therefore, could meet
the qualifications of revelation. It is not progressive; in fact,

it is regressive. It is not needful because we have had it for

nearly 2000 years. It is not harmonious, because there is no
revelation. None of these founders sealed their testimonies
with their blood, (Heb. 9: 1 6- 1 7), and the Spirit of
Prophecy, which is the Testimony of Jesus, could not be
found in their churches today. (Rev. 19: 10)

Did you know that Communism is merely a distortion

by evil men of the verse of scriptures and a doctrine taught

by the apostles? In Acts 4: 32-3 5, and pretty much the
entire 5th chapter too, we have the God-given principal of
"United Order" and "Common Distribution," as taught by

42
our Lord's apostles- We have over one-third of the world
held under wicked rule today only because men of evil

designs have perverted this principle. This shows the

tragedy of a doctrine motivated by false prophets.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: You stated the claim that Joseph

Smith was a prophet because his prophecies were fulfilled
and you used Deut. 18:21-22 in support of this. I quote
from the Doctrine and Covenants, a prophecy that has not
been fulfilled. It reads in Section III that:
1. the Lord had much treasure for the saints in Salem.

2. in due time the Lord would give the city into the

hands of the saints.

3. meet prominent people in Salem, and it shall be

given you.
4- they (the Saints) would have power over it, and the
gold, silver, and other wealth would give power to
pay off the debts of the church.
5. the Lord told them to inquire about the city's

ancient inhabitants because there was more than

one treasure in that city for them.

This prophecy was not fulfilled. The saints never did

get the treasure of the city, they never did receive the city in
their hands, they never got the gold and silver promised,
and learning about the ancient inhabitants didn't do them
a bit of good. They didn't get a single treasure out of the
whole city. Therefore, Joseph Smith's revelation was false
and likewise, the Mormon Church is false.

MISSIONARIES: Your interpretation is quite a fantastic

one, but so far off the track that I could hardly recognize
that you were reading from the Illth section.

43
 The Prophet, with three elders of the church, had gone
to Salem for a month of missionary work. The Lord told
them that he had treasure for them in the city, which would
be gathered out for the benefit of Zion. That treasure was
the converts who were baptized into the church during their
stay in Salem. They were told to meet prominent people,
not for the purpose of gaining wealth, but for the sake of
missionary work and to build an influence in the town.
The Lord then told them that "in due time of the

Lord" they would have power over the city and its wealth in
riches, but notice that the Lord didn't say when. The
Prophet knew that it would be fulfilled when the saints
were to settle and gather once again in Zion (Independence,
Missouri) during the Savior's reign on the earth after His
second coming. He knew it was not, and never meant to
convey, that it was to be immediately. This is evidenced by
the fact that there was severe persecution being given at that
time to the Baptists and Quakers. These same persecutors
had only recently destroyed, through mob violence, a

Catholic Convent near Charlestown. That is why the Lord

stated, through the Prophet, that it would be in "the Lords
due time."
The saints did get their debts paid off in reference to

verse 5, and paid $14,000 soon afterwards for the Kirtland

Temple. The Lord then told the prophet that there was
more than one treasure for the saints in that city, (converts
— and at a future date, power over city and its wealth).
Joseph was told by the Lord to learn of the city's

history. History is a valuable tool to a missionary, but the

revelation was more specifically pointed toward the
ancestors of Joseph Smith, who had first settled near Salem
upon arriving in America.

Therefore, parts of the prophecy have been fulfilled,

44
and the other parts await fulfillment. Just because the Lord
makes a prophecy through a prophet does not mean that
fulfillment must immediately follow.

Isaiah prophesied that Christ would be born of a virgin,

(Isaiah 7-14) and if I were living in the time of Macabees,

around 100 B.C., and I had accused Isaiah of being a false

prophet because it had not come to pass, it would only be

a demonstration of my own ignorance and not make the
prophecy any less valid and exact. Likewise, if you were
living in 1 858 and called Joseph Smith a false prophet
because the North and the South had not fought nor
divided, and that no war had come, beginning at South
Carolina, and great bloodshed had not come upon the face
of the land, it would have been an indication of your own
ignorance and lack of foresight and spiritual knowledge,
and it would not have made Joseph Smith any less a prophet
of the living God. In the same light, because parts of this
prophecy have not yet been fulfilled, Joseph Smith is still

no less a prophet of God.

ANGLICAN CHURCH: I believe a little earlier you

destroyed any case you might have had. It came through
your selection of scriptures.
Heb. 9:16-17 teaches that Christ was the testator of
the New Covenant or New Testament, but the Doctrine
and Covenants 13 5:5 teaches that Smith and his brother

are the "Testators" of the new Covenant.

Also Eph. 1:22-23 names Christ as the head of the
Church, but Mormon revelation in the Doctrine and
Covenants 28:6 names Smith as head of the Church.
Do you notice, gentlemen, what I am pointing out?
Smith, to Mormons, is what Christ is to Christians. To
good thinking Christians, Christ was the Testator and the

45
head of the Church, while to Latter-Day Saints, Smith is

both testator and the head of the Church. Would you tell

me please if Christ is the testator and head of the Church

or is, as Mormon revelation points out, Smith?

MISSIONARIES: Sir, I could answer both are the heads

of the Church and Testators, and still be right.
You will notice that Eph. 2:20 places Christ as the

Cornerstone of the Church, and the apostles at the

foundation. This was the ruling body of the Church, with
Christ at the head. When Christ was taken to heaven after
His resurrection, He led the church by revelation — but this
left the twelve as the earthly heads of the church. Christ had
told Peter in Matt. 1 6: 1 9 that he had the KEYS OF THE
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and the power to bind on
earth what would be bound in heaven. This power was also
given to the other eleven apostles (Matt. I 8: 1 8). You will

notice that the saints considered this foundation as the

"Head" of their temporal affairs, (Acts 6:1-6, I Cor. 1 6:2),
along with being their spiritual guides to Christ. This is

why the epistles of the apostles were so enthusiastically

accepted. All revelation came from Christ, was given
through the apostles and prophets, and given to the people.
In D&C 28:6, the Lord revealed "the earthly head" of
the Church, because, for evil purposes, wicked people had
deceived many of the saints by claiming false revelation. We
can find almost identical experiences in the Bible. Suppose
Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8 had claimed revelation. If the
Lord had not already designated the leaders they were to
follow, how were the people to know whether he was a true

or a false prophet?
Now concerning the Testators — Christ built the church
and organized it, as mentioned, "on a foundation of

t46
apostles and Prophets," and brought a new covenant and
testament to the people. He was Lord and Christ, the
founder of the eternal principles of truth. With His death,
and the death of His twelve chosen apostles and their

immediate successors, havoc filled the church. Destruction

and corruption destroyed the plain and simple truths He
had given to the people.
We will establish, I am sure, how this destruction took
place later in this discussion. It was in the dispensation of
the fullness of times that the Lord restored His Church and
the plain and precious parts. He announced the creeds as
abominable, and the existing churches as false.

Joseph Smith was given power and authority from the

Father and the Son, from Peter, James, and John, from John
the Baptist, from Elijah, and many other leaders of ages

past to organize the church in its perfection. Through the

guidance of Christ, he chose twelve apostles, and set up an
organization identical to the church of ancient times. With
the "New and Everlasting Covenant" once again established
on the earth, new truth given in the Book of Mormon,
Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, the Lord
required his blood as a testimony against those who denied
this revelation.

Since all truth had been restored through the Prophet,

he gave his testimony, (from which testament is derived),

and was martyred with his brother. He was never recognized

above Christ, nor even near Christ, but just as an inspired
Prophet of our Lord. This is why he could be a testator. It

was his blood that sealed a testimony of the restoration of

the Church. Christ was a testator, the testator of the early
day Church. Because all revelations from God come through
him, the earthly head of the Church today (1963) is David
O. McKay, yet the head of the entire body, the founder of

47
truth, the cornerstone, and Savior of mankind is Jesus
Christ, the founder of this Church.

BAPTIST CHURCH: You made the statement that you

had the same organization as the Primitive Church, namely
apostles and prophets. We read where Christ chose twelve
apostles and they were prophets, yet Mormonism today has
twelve apostles and three prophets. At various times they
have had twelve apostles and as many as four or more
prophets in their First Presidency. You seem to fluctuate
yearly. Also, the head of your church is called President.

Please establish for me chapter and verse where Peter,

James, and John, (whom Mormon revelation calls the first

presidency of the primitive church), were called

"presidents" or where the term is found in the Bible.

Also, explain to me why you have a different number of

apostles and prophets than the Primitive Church had. This
points to serious fallacies in Mormon Doctrine, and affects
the entire organization of the Latter-day Saint Church.

MISSIONARIES: We teach in our sixth Article of Faith

that we believe we have the same organization as the
Primitive Church; namely apostles, prophets, etc.

Gentlemen, you try to override the offices by numbers.

We learn in Eph. 2:20 that the church was founded on
apostles, and that they were to remain, "till we all come in

a unity of the faith" (Eph. 4: 1 1- 1 3). We learn in Matt.

10:1-5 that the quorum of apostles numbered at twelve.

That quorum of the Church today is likewise numbered at

twelve. However, the Church in Eph. 2:20 was founded on

apostles and prophets, and nowhere in holy scripture can
you find that you could only have a limited number of
prophets. Acts II: 27-28 informs us that prophets existed
after the time of Christ, and had great authority of the

48
Holy Ghost concerning the future of Paul of Tarsus, of
which Paul accepted and believed. This proves that the
church did have twelve apostles and an unlimited number of
prophets.
The Church today has twelve apostles and a First

Presidency of three prophets. There is nothing in holy

scripture that informs us this is out of harmony with
Christ's word. Your concern over how many individuals
serve in these God-given assignments has confused you
with the importance of their offices.
As for the term "president", it is not found in the New
Testament, but through your own misunderstanding, you
place improper emphasis on the term president. The word
president is derived from the word "preside" or one who
presides. It is merely added to the prophet's name to

indicate that he is the "presiding" officer of the church. In

our missions, we have mission presidents who are called

"President" because they "preside" over our missions and

our missionaries. President Hugh B. Brown's addition to
the First Presidency in about 1962 was not out of harmony
with the scriptures.
There is no specification as to how many prophets you
can have in the church. With his addition, it did not make
thirteen apostles, nor throw any of the major offices out of
composition. Therefore, we have the same offices as the
primitive church, and where numbers are mentioned as a

requirement in the New Testament, (such as apostles and

seventies), we fulfill the qualifications. But do any of the
prosecution fulfill the qualifications?
The Bible shows a record of having as part of the church
government: Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Seventy,

Bishops, Pastors, High Priests, Elders, Priests, Teachers,

and Deacons. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that only

a few of these are necessary. They are all needed or none is

40
needed. For by whatever qualification you use to say some
are needed, they are all needed, and conversely. For example,
if you say we do not need apostles and seventy and prophets
because they are in the bible, I say all the others are in the
bible, so we don't need them either.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: Hold on! The scriptures say

the "Christ placed some in the Church FIRST

APOSTLES, SECONDARILY PROPHETS, ETC." In
the Mormon Church it is the reverse, First Prophets,
Secondarily apostles.

MISSIONARIES: You will notice that Christ, a prophet

(Acts 3:22), placed the apostles first in the church when
He organized it almost two thousand years ago. Joseph
Smith (a prophet) also placed apostles in the Church when
it was organized in 1 8 30. It was the prophet that chose
these apostles, under God's commission.
After the Church was organized (Acts I) and Christ
was ascended, the apostles and prophets chose the new
apostles, which is done the same way today, under the
Lord's guidance. If you knew anything about Mormon
revelation, you would be surprised that in Doctrine and
Covenants 107: 23-24, the apostles are equal in power and
authority to the First Presidency. The main difference is

that the Lord's revelations go through the Lord's chosen

prophet, whomever may be at the time. This

that is in

harmony with Holy Scripture. (Amos 3:7)

That the original church could have had a First

Presidency is strongly indicated by Paul's words to

Galatians 2:9 when he said, "James, Cephas (Peter) and
John, who seemed to be pillars." This scripture seems
important, when we stop and think that it was Peter, James,

and John that went with Christ to the Mount of

so
Transfiguration in Matt. 17:1-5, and the Garden of
Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives. (Matt. 26:29-30)
Also, when the daughter of Jairus was raised from the dead,
it was only Peter, James, and John that were allowed, with
the parents, into the room.

METHODIST CHURCH: Judge, I think I have a

contradiction that even the Mormon apostles could not

answer. In Matt. 26:26-29 Jesus instituted His holy
sacrament. I Cor. 1 1:26 shows that it was a commandment
given to the Church. The Commandment teaches that
members of the Church are to partake of the "bread and
wine" in remembrance of our Lord. The Latter-day Saints,

in their sacraments, use bread and water, which is contrarv

to Holy Scripture. And I might point out, their practice is

contrary to their Book of Mormon, where in 3 Nephi 1 8: 1-

10, Christ commanded the people to partake of the bread

and wine.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, a careful reading of the scriptures

would prove to you how badly you have misinterpreted
them. In Matt. 26:26-29, the command was not to partake
of the bread and wine, but of the bread and cup. Nowhere
in the Holy Scripture can you find wine as a commandment
with the bread.
The cup represents "the bitter cup" of Matt. 26:39 that
Christ was to take. Notice Matt. 26:27, Mark 14:2 3, Luke
22:20, and I Cor. 11:2 5-26 all command CUP. It's true
that wine was, in one instance, placed in the cup, but the

command was to drink of the cup. You will notice in the

Book of Mormon that the command is also for the cup.

Anyway wine is part water, how are vou going to

distinguish?

si
 PART FIVE

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST: Judge, an interesting

belief of the Latter-day Saints concerns their dead.
However, it is given contrary to holy scripture. Titus 3:9
completely destroys the entire "work of the dead" program
of the Mormon Church. It reads, "But avoid foolish
questions, and GENEALOGIES, and contentions, and
striving about the law; for THEY ARE UNPROFITABLE
AND VAIN." The same advice was given to Timothy in I

Tim. 1:4, yet this belief in genealogy work fills an

important part of Mormon Doctrine.

MISSIONARIES: This is one of the most ridiculous

controversies I have heard while on my mission.
Undoubtedly you have never read Matt. I, or Luke 3, where,
in detail, the genealogy of Jesus Christ is given. This was to
prove HIS MESSIAHSHIP This was considered a vital

way of recognizing the promised Messiah, because He

would come through the seed of David, and from the house
of Judah.
The Cambridge Bible Society has an excellent answer to
these two scriptures. They wrote in their Bible Dictionary,

"i Tim. 1:4 and Titus 3:9 refer to fables and endless
genealogies, and are referring to legendary stories of the
heroes and patriarchs of early Hebrew history, such stories
being at the time very popular among the Jews, but foreign
to the gospel, and likely to call attention away from the
essential doctrines of the Christian faith.."

In other words, gentlemen, these genealogical lines and

legendary heroes were causing the Jewish and Gentile
nations to depart from the simple teachings of Jesus Christ
— because great fables and tall stories would come from

52
them. Also, some of the people tried to make it seem as if

they were greater than others because of their "Royal

blood. " The genealogy work that we do is not for that
reason, as you will probably find out later when we explain
the plan of salvation to you.

CATHOLIC PRIEST: Sir, I think it would be appropriate

at this time if I were to bring out an interesting difference
between my religion, as well as the great majority of those
represented here, and that of the Latter-day Saints.
In the year 1 83 3, Joseph Smith the Prophet claimed to
have had a revelation which Mormons know as the Word of
Wisdom. As an interpretation of this supposed revelation,
Mormons now abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and
tea.

I would appreciate it if these Elders would show me in

the scriptures where these things were prohibited to the

followers of Christ in the Bible. I understand that these
things were given to be taken with care and not in large
quantities. But before you answer my question, I would like

to point out three passages of scripture that will add light

to the subject.
Paul, writing to Timothy states (I Tim. 5:23), "Drink
no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake
and thine often infirmities."
In Matt. I5:H we find another interesting scripture
from the words of Christ. Speaking to those hypocrites
whom we know as Scribes and Pharisees, he stated, "Not
that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that
which cometh out of the mouth, that defileth man."
Then we read in Genesis 9:20-21 where the great
Prophet Noah, whom Gen 6:9 says, "was a just man and

s<
perfect in his generations, and Noah began to be an
husbandman, and he planted vineyards, and he drank of his

wine, AND WAS DRUNKEN; and he was uncovered

within his tent."
Gentlemen, in the light of these scriptures, would you
please point scripture upon scripture where these things,

not taken in excess, are forbidden.

MISSIONARIES: Judge, Gentlemen, I have a great and

abiding testimony of the Word of Wisdom. By living its

principles, I know that I have received great blessings from

the Lord.
As this trial began, you stated that there were three
qualifications for revelation (needful, progressive, and
harmonious). The Word of Wisdom fulfilled all three of
these requirements. It was needful because coffee, tobacco,
and tea were not in existence in biblical times — and in 1 8 3 3

were not known to be harmful to the body. It is progressive,

because it shows that God gave great commandments to

assist the people in maintaining their health and keeping

their bodies as "the temple of God." We will now establish

that it was harmonious with holy scripture.

I Tim. 5:23 speaks of using wine instead of water for
our stomach's sake. I have here a Diaglott, (original Greek
Text), of the Hebrew Scriptures, which gives us an
interesting insight of the term "wine." You will notice that

in Romans 14:21, wine is absolutely forbidden, and I Tim.

5:23 is recommended, and yet it is the same Apostle writing
both epistles. That would be contradictory, if it were not
for the fact that translators made in the translation the

term "wine" to mean everything from grape juice to

fermented wine. The wine used in the Lord's supper was

nothing more than grape juice, or, as the scriptures stated

54
it, "fruit of the vine." This is all that I Tim. 5:2 3 is

pointing out — that grape juice can be used instead of water.

I have here the original Greek scripture if you would like to

check this out. Proverbs 20:1 states, "Wine is a mocker,

strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is

not wise." Incidentally, this same translation is put out by

the Vatican Manuscript.
You referred to Matt. 15:11. This was, by the way, a

beautiful example of scriptural rail split. I don't know if

you were trying to pull the wool over our eyes or not — but
you failed. You should have read the entire 1 5 th chapter
instead of just one verse from it.

Jewish custom taught that man was supposed to cleanse

his hands before eating, or he was unclean. Christ, to show
that this doctrine was man made, partook of the food
without washing his hands. They became very excited, so
He told them that the food He took in did not defile Him,
but rather, the thoughts which come from men defile. Read
verse 20 carefully, and you will find that point clearly
defined.
Now, sir, the question of Noah's drunkenness is an
interesting one. It is true that Noah was intoxicated, and

that it was fermented wine that he used. However, in the

light of other teachings, such as Proverbs 20:1, Noah must
have repented. The Lord tells us He will forgive and forget
our past mistakes if we will repent.

Let me show you Noah's fate if he had continued to

drink. This scripture is also my favorite word of wisdom
scripture. Found in Galatians 5:19-21, it reads, "Now the

works of the flesh are made manifest, which are these;

Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry,
witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife,

sedition, heresies, envyings, murders, DRUNKNESS,

55
revellings, AND SUCH LIKE: of the which I tell you
before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which
do such things SHALL NOT INHERIT THE
KINGDOM OF GOD."
Notice, sir, that drunkenness was included in the list of
those who could not enter the Kingdom of God, and the
words, "and such like", mean things that pertain to them.
This would include light drinking, which leads to heavy
drinking. Now, if you assume that Noah continued to
drink, then we must assume he was a drunkard and that he
could not have entered the Kingdom of God, which is

blasphemous. From Genesis 6:9 we realize that he must

have repented, and was therefore forgiven. Or would you
have us believe that Jesus does one thing but teaches
another?

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Gentlemen, I maintain that the

Elders of the Mormon Church are not elders. I would risk

our entire defense on this one subject alone. Titus 1:5-6

proves that an elder has to be married, the husband of one
wife, and have faithful children.
Timothy, writing to Titus, said, "For this cause left I

thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things

that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had
appointed thee; if any be blameless, the husband of one
wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."
Since these two young men here are not married, they
cannot be elders.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, I challenge your interpretation of

that scripture. I will show and prove that you do not have
elders in the Church of Christ and that we do.
In answer to Titus 1:5-6, our friend did not even
bother to go on and read verse 7- This proves plainly that

56
this passage was talking about presiding elders, or bishops.

I refer you to the first four words in verse 6, and the first

six words in verse 7* Notice that the Elder mentioned in

verse 5 had to be blameless, and it is stated in verse 6. The

position these elders were to hold was explained in verse 7,

when Paul said that, "a BISHOP must be blameless, as the

steward of God.'' This is but a reaffirmation of what Paul

had already stated in I Tim. 3:2. Sir, was Paul the Apostle
married?

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Absolutely not. I Cor. 7 is a

direct indication that Paul was single. He was not an elder,

either.

MISSIONARIES: By your own admission, Paul was

single. In I Tim. 4:14 we read Paul's advice to Timothy, his
former companion in the ministry. He tells him not to

neglect the gift that is in him, which was given him by

prophecy, by the laying on of hands of the presbytery. Any
bible dictionary will tell you that elder and presbytery are

the same. Paul tells Timothy in 2 Tim. 1:16, "wherefore I

put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God,

which is in thee by THE PUTTING ON OF MY
HANDS." There it is in black and white. The presbytery
gave Timothy this gift of God, and Paul was one of the
presbytery or elders. Since, by your own admission, Paul
was not married, elders can be single.

If you question this scripture, look at the little Bible

aids of reference and you will find that 2 Tim. 1:6 refers

you to I Tim. 4:14. These scriptures answer your question,

and prove that Titus 1:5-6 was referring to presiding elders,

or bishops. It also establishes that elders can be single or

married.

^7
 Now, sir, I promised you that I would prove that you do
not have elders in the Church of Christ. I refer you to James
5:14-15 which reads, "is any sick among you? Let him call

for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him,
ANOINTING HIM WITH OIL IN THE NAME OF
THE LORD:
AND THE PRAYER OF FAITH SHALL SAVE THE
SICK, AND THE LORD SHALL RAISE HIM UP, AND
IF HE HAVE COMMITTED SINS, THEY SHALL BE
FORGIVEN HIM."
First of all, your elders do not anoint the sick. Second,
you do not have the spiritual gifts in your church, and
neither do these associates of yours from the other
denominations. It was Alexander Campbell, founder of the
Church of Christ, that stated, "where the Bible speaks, we
speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent/'

I ask you, whey don't you have elders in your church

that can heal the sick? Before you answer the question, I

might point out as a matter of interest that Mark 6:12-13

establishes that the apostles were also Elders. We read, "And
they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that

were sick and healed them.'' We go on to read in John

20:23, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.''

Compared with James 5:14-15, we find identical

qualifications for the elders and apostles: First; Anointing
the sick, and secondly; Remitting sins through inspiration
of the Lord. How do you answer James 5:14-15?

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Our elders do not head the sick,

because when the perfect work of God came in, the miracles
ceased.

t58
MISSIONARIES: That is ridiculous! There are no
scriptures to support your stand — and in view of Mark
1 6: 1 7- 1 8, the spiritual gifts were TO FOLLOW. Since you
don't have them, you don't, in the least, even resemble the
original Church of Christ. You also can't trace your
authority to within 1800 years of the original Church. I am
sure we will discuss the authority issue later in our
discussion.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: I can't stay off this subject any

longer. These leaders of the blind teach today that they

have inspired and divinely directed apostles and prophets.

They use as their scriptural support Eph. 2:19-20. They do
not meet the qualifications of the apostleship, nor the
qualifications as laid out in the Word.
First of all, it is ridiculous to assume that the Lord will
build on his already established foundation. I Cor. 3:10-11
tells us that Christ was the foundation, and he is in heaven.

Now, why can't the apostles be the foundation, and also be

in heaven?

I support the stand that we keep the apostles and

prophets that Christ put in His Church, and not replace
them with the false apostles and prophets of any modern

Would you answer that? If Christ can be the

day religion.
foundation and be in heaven why can't the apostles also, as
the foundation, be in heaven?
Question two: I Cor. 4:9 is a prophecy by Paul. He
states that he thinks, "that God hath set forth us the
apostles last, as it were appointed to death." Now, if the

apostles WERE SET FORTH LAST, how can you have

modern apostles?
Thirdly, we read in I Cor. 12:28 where the Lord set
some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets and

59
so on. Then in I Cor. 12:31 it states, "But covet earnestly
And YET SHOW I UNTO
the best gifts: YOU A MORE
EXCELLENT WAY." Clearly they were to be shown a

better way.
I Cor. 13:9-10 tells us, "For we know in part, and we
prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come,
then that which is in part shall be done away." When the
perfect word of God was ushered in scripture — that which
was in part, (prophecy, healing, etc.), was to be done away
— and the heavens were closed. Therefore, as James 1:25
proves, the people lived under the "perfect law of liberty"
or "that which is perfect" as I Cor. 13:9-10 teaches. Now,
would you be so kind as to answer these questions for me.

MISSIONARIES: I would love to answer them. You

quoted Eph. 2:19-20 but failed to go on and quote Eph.
4:11-14 which tells us that apostles were to continue "till

we all came in a unity of the faith." Romans 1 6: 1 7- 1 8 and

I Cor. 1:10-15 both show that the original Church of Jesus

Christ was not even close to that unity of the faith.
Now, I ask you a question. Eph. 4TI-I3 states, "And
he gave some apostles and some prophets, and some
Evangelists, and some Pastors, and some teachers." This He
gave for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. You
will find in the Church of Christ, pastors, evangelist and
possibly teachers, but you have omitted apostles and
prophets. Notice they were all to continue till we come to

a unity of the faith. Now, if the Church of Christ has come

to a unity of the faith, you don't need pastors, evangelists,

and teachers. You would, therefore, have talked yourself out

of a job. If, however, you aren't at a unity of the faith, you
need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers.

60
The same argument holds true for every Christian Church
on earth. Which are you — at a unity of the faith, or not at
a unity of the faith?

CHURCH OF CHRIST: That scripture merely referred to

inspired apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and
teachers. All five are gone, but the church today has
uninspired pastors, evangelists, and teachers. Also, by unity
of the faith, the Lord never meant the saints believing the
same thing and being united. In Luke 1 8:8 the Lord
doubted whether he would find faith on the earth when he
said, "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he
find faith on the earth?" He knew his disciples could never
attain "unity" as you have described it.

MISSIONARIES: I agree with you, your leaders are

uninspired. You know, sir, it's a shame you weren't back in

the time of Paul and able to teach him.

Why, then, did this great apostle write to the
Corinthian saints and tell them, "Now I beseech you,
brethren, by the THAT YE
name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, AND THAT THERE
BE NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU; BUT THAT YE BE
PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME
MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGEMENT." (I Cor.
1:10)? That is unity of the faith, to be perfectly united in
one mind and judgment, and that is why apostles and

prophets were placed in the Church. You never have attained

it, and you never will.

Incidentally, if you try to tell me that Christ's Church

ever did attain unity of the faith, you had better read those
scriptures that I gave you more closely (I Cor. 1:10-14,
Romans 1 6: 1 7- 1 8), because they prove that it never did.

61
CHURCH OF CHRIST: I notice you have evaded the rest
of the questions I asked you. Can you answer those points?

MISSIONARIES: I see you have recognized the weakness

of your stand on the scriptures we have shown you, and
since you have conceded, I will answer you point.
You asked me why Christ, as the foundation, could live

in heaven, and why the apostles, as the foundation, could

not also live in heaven. How ridiculous can you become?
You will notice that I Cor. 3:10 reads, ' According to the
grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise
masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another
buildeth thereon. " The "I" in verse 10 was Paul — therefore

proving, from the standpoint of this scripture, that Christ

could not have been the foundation of the church. For years
after the death of Christ, Paul was not even a member of the
church, but a Pharisee. It would be ridiculous, then, for

anyone to suggest that Paul laid the foundation of the

church.
Ephesians answers it correctly — and places the apostles
at the position of foundation of the Church. Pauls
reference to laying the "foundation" in Corinthians could
not have been the foundation of the church. Paul's words to
these people, especially in the verses preceding this one,
clearly indicate that the foundation he laid — for others to

build upon — was that of GOSPEL TRUTH and the

KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ. That was the foundation
that no man can lay. John 14:6 says of Christ, "I am the
way, the truth, and the life."
You mentioned in I Cor. 4:9 where Paul gave his
opinion concerning the future of the apostles. His opinion
was that these apostles were sent forth first — yet he still

taught that they were to "remain until the saints came to

unity of the faith/'

62
 Paul was right in a sense, because they were the last

apostles sent forth in his dispensation, proving the

destruction of the Church. That is why he prophesied that

grievous wolves would enter in among us and destroy the

flock (Acts 20:29-30). He knew that sacred corp of
apostles would die, and to that generation they were to be
sent forth last — but still, they were to remain forever.
Since we are not at the unity of the faith today, we do
have a need for apostles and prophets.
You then got carried away and went off on a tangent
when you quoted I Cor. 12:31 about the "more excellent
way." You said the "more excellent way" would do away with
prophecy and healing, and inspired men of God were to

cease. Why do you twist the scriptures? You will notice in

this verse that Paul was to show the more excellent way. If
the more excellent way was the Bible, Paul would have had
to live until the second century for its compilation in order
to bring it in. It couldn't have been the Bible, because Paul
never mentioned this "perfect law," in any of his writings.
Even if he had, 2 Cor. 3:17 tells us, "where the spirit of the
Lord is, there is Liberty." Therefore, the day of Pentecost

would have been the fulfillment of that scripture of the

Lord's spirit was there in rich abundance and the people

were very united.
Now, since Paul was to show the more excellent way,

and he was killed in 66 A.D., and using your own statement

that revelation was to cease, (I Cor. I 3:10), it only proves
that the Church of Christ does not accept the "Book of
Revelations." By your admission, that inspired document
would be a fraud. The "more excellent way" of I Cor.

12:28-31 was eternal life. Therefore, the gift of healing

would be "done away" because there would be no sickness.

That is progressive. Your concept is retrogressive.

t63
 Paul went on to tell of that wonderful day when they
would have that "excellent way" when he spoke of life

hereafter in I Cor. 15:40-42. It would be a day where we

would have perfect charity and love for one another.

CATHOLIC CHURCH: You mentioned that Mormon

apostles filled the qualifications as recorded in Christ's
word. Acts 1:22 states that an apostle, "must... be ordained
to be a witness with us of his resurrection." The apostles
were then chosen as witnesses of the Lords resurrection
and this meant that to be an apostle a man had to see the
Lord. Gentlemen, I affirm that Mormon apostles and
Prophets have never seen the Lord.

MISSIONARIES: You cannot find that last statement

recorded in any of our writings. Also, your definition was
somewhat feeble, if I might say so. I Cor. 15:8 informs us
that Paul was an apostle, "born out of due time."
Apparently it was not a requirement for Paul to have seen
the Lord during his life on the earth. He did, however, see

the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus.

By your claim, you have one great problem. You of the
prosecution have so dramatically defended the Holy Bible
as containing "all truth." If seeing the Lord is a

qualification for being an apostle, would you be so kind as

to tell us where it is recorded in the Bible that the Apostle

Barnabas (Acts 14:14) ever saw the Lord? Now, we will use
your logic — "where the Bible speaks, we speak." Unless you
can show me where ALL the apostles saw the Lord, you
can't state that as a qualification.

I maintain that a man can be a "witness" of the Lords

resurrection without seeing Him. The Holy Ghost was to

"guide men into all truth," and therefore has the power to

64
bear such a strong witness. Christ said that, "whosoever
speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost it shall not be
forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to
come/' (Matt. 12:32). The Holy Ghost has such power
that man can prophecy under his influence and it will come
to pass. The Prophet Agabus did not see the Lord in Acts

21:10-13, but he did bear witness that what he said was by

the power of the Holy Ghost.
The apostles had many qualifications. They were to
guide the church to a unity of the faith, help perfect the
saints, and lead people to a perfect knowledge of the Son of
God (Eph. 4T3). Judging from our reading of your creeds,
they are diametrically opposed to this kind of perfect
knowledge. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds prove,
without any doubt in my mind, a need for living apostles
and prophets.
As with those of the ancient Church, modern apostles
are "sent forth" to serve as missionaries (Matt. 9:38), and
to take the gospel to all nations (Matt. 28:10-20). I have
writings to support each of these qualifications.
I have met many of these men and I know and bear
witness to you that they are apostles of the living God.
Mormon apostles travel millions of miles yearly to all

nations. They serve as a great inspiration to the saints and

testify to the world that they are witnesses of Christ. They

heal the sick, and perform the mighty works of God. They
are truly witnesses of the Lords resurrection. Gentlemen,
they fill each one of the qualifications of the Holy
Scriptures, and many of them have been visited by the
resurrected Savior.

BAPTIST MINISTER: Let's check the writings of these

supposed inspired men and examine them. I have before me
an article by Mr. Lorenzo Snow, a Mormon Prophet. He

OS
states, "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may
become/' How blasphemous can you become? In other
words, the Latter-day Saints teach that God was once a

man, and that we can become Gods. Yet, the Book of

Mormon, the great Book of Mormon, states in Moroni
8: 1 8, "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a

changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity

to all eternity." Look at it Judge, what a joke! Here,
"Prophet" Lorenzo Snow says God was once a man like you
and I, and "Prophet" Moroni says He was and has been
"unchangeable'' from eternity to eternity. It's you baby,

elders. Answer it!

MISSIONARIES: You must be running out of questions,

because they are getting weaker and weaker with each
question. I believe both of these statements, and still they
don't contradict. Lorenzo Snow uttered a teaching taught
by Joseph Smith the Prophet. Joseph beheld in the great

plan of salvation, the beginning of God — and how He

became God. He was once a man, and became a God. When
He became God, He created you and me — and that was our

beginning withGod in eternity.

In other words, Moroni 8: 1 8 speaks of eternity on the

level of our own understanding while Lorenzo Snow stated
a truth that existed before we were even thought of. You see,

because of your lack of understanding, you failed to see

that they referred to two different periods of time — one
before we were created, and the other since our creation.

BAPTIST MINISTER: That answer sounds reasonable,

but can you find me one single solitary proof from the Holy
Bible that God was once a man?

66
MISSIONARIES: Yes, I can. In John 8:17-18 Christ
compared He and His father to "two men." Both "men"
bore witness to His divinity. I am sure we will agree to

Christ's human aspects while in the flesh. He was ahuman

being like you and I. Only He had Godship within Him. We
read in John 5:19, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but
what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever He
doeth, these ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE." We
read also in the scriptures, "As the Father hath life in

himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself

(John 5:26).
What was Jesus going to do? The answer is so obvious.

John 1 0:1 7- 1 8 tells us, "therefore doth my Father love me,

because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No
man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."

This is why the prophet taught these truths. Christ said He

could do nothing of Himself, but only that which He had
seen His Father do. In this passage we read where He was
to take his body, lay it down, and take it up again. There's

your answer from the Bible. It's for you to accept or reject,

but it is true, and it is from the mouth of Christ. Notice,

his was the same identical power as that of the Father.

BAPTIST MINISTER: Those are absurd and damnable

teachings. It is a doctrine of the devil.

MISSIONARIES: Do you know that you just spoke the

same thing that the Jews said to Christ after He made that
statement? It only proves you would have made an ideal
Pharisee if you were living in the time of Christ. I have
done nothing but quote the Bible — and use Christ's own
words coupled with an inspired prophet's declaration.

67
 PART SIX

PENTECOSTAL EVANGELIST: Elders, I find your

answers most fascinating. I would now like to ask you a
sincere question. How do you baptize?

MISSIONARIES: By immersion, in the name of the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as was taught in
Matthew 28:19-20.

PENTECOSTAL EVANGELIST: Gentlemen, you have

run into a real conflict. Matt. 28:19-20 gives the command,
but we learn from the Book of Acts, and throughout the
rest of the scriptures, that all people were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus. I refer you to Acts 2:38, 8: 1 6,

19:1-5 and so on. This was not in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, but that of the Lord Jesus. How can
you answer that? Why weren't people baptized in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

MISSIONARIES: That is an excellent question. We

accept literally the command of Matt. 28:19-20 given by
Christ to his apostles.
We find a problem arising in the Book of Acts. As Paul,

Peter, and other of the Lord's disciples went about bringing

converts into the church, small segments broke off. In I

Cor. 1:10-15 we learn that Paul was very displeased

because, "it hath been declared unto me of you, my
brethren, ...that there are contentions among you." He
went on to say, "... you sayeth, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." Notice that
people were forming little segments, and saying they were
disciples of Paul, or Cephas, or one of the others.

t
68
 Paul went on to say, "Were any of you baptized in the

name of Paul?" He then declared, "I thank God I baptized

none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say
that I baptized in mine own name/'
There's your answer. Notice that false cults were
baptizing "In the name of Paul" or "in the name of
Apollos." What's more, your example in Acts 19:1-5 shows
that they "Baptized unto Johns baptism," which
undoubtedly referred to their being baptized in the name of
John — causing Paul to re-baptize them into the "Church of
the Lord Jesus."
This is what the scriptures pointed out — it was to
clarify unto "whose baptism" these people were baptized. It

denoted the Church, which would be that of our Lord Jesus

Christ — but the command was the same, that they should
baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost.

ANGLICAN CHURCH: As I studied your faith, I learned

of your belief in marriage in heaven. This doctrine can be
directly applied to the teaching of Smith — and the ideas of
sex in the Mormon Church.
Matt. 22:23-30 tells us Christ's answer to the
Sadducees concerning marriage in the resurrection. He said

that, "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are
as the angles of God in Heaven."
Why, then, if we are neither married nor given in
marriage in Heaven, according to the words of Christ, do
you teach, believe, and proselyte this false dogma of
"eternal marriage?" This is noticeably in complete
disagreement with the Word of God.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, Christ always answered people

according to their knowledge and understanding. For

69
instance, He would use parables to teach the farmer, the
shepherd, and the common laborer.
Here Christ had been confronted by the Sadducees,
who DIDN'T BELIEVE in a resurrection. Clearly, Christ
had some hecklers before him asking questions on
something they didn't believe in, trying to confuse the
Lord.
The Lord saw a good teaching point here, so He
listened patiently as the Sadducees explained their case. It
consisted of a Jewish law, which commanded a woman to
live with the brother of her deceased husband. In this
particular case, the woman's first husband died, so she went
to the brother next in line. This brother died also and so
did the others, on down to the seventh brother. After the
last brother had died, she died.
Now, the questions was, "in the resurrection whose wife
shall she be of the seven?'' Christ answered them by saying,
"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of
God.'' Christ had given the Power of God (His authority)
to the apostles; "to bind on earth what would be bound in

heaven.'' He was teaching that marriage was an earthly

ordinance, and must be performed before the resurrection.

Therefore his response, "For in the resurrection they

neither marry, nor are given in marriage, ..."
This same question was asked by the Pharisees in Matt.
19:4-6. The Pharisees, WHO DID BELIEVE in a

resurrection, were answered a little differently. He said to

them, "WHAT THEREFOR GOD HATH JOINED
TOGETHER, LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER."
Christ had already given to His apostles God's power
to bind on earth that which would be bound in heaven
(Matt. 1 8: 1 8). Since God, through his authorities on
earth, joined man and woman together, the lasting nature of

70
that union becomes crystal clear when we read in Eccl. 3:14,
"I know that whatsoever God doeth, it will be forever/' The
Pharisees understood that.
This concept is further confirmed by reading other
related scriptures. "Neither is the man without the woman,
neither the woman without the man, in the lord" (I Cor.

1 1:1 1). Peter assured the people that man and woman
would, "be heirs together of the grace of life; that (their)
prayers be not hindered." (I Peter 3:7)
The apostles today bind on earth that which will also
be bound in heaven. They understand the eternal power of
God. When joined by His authority, man is not without
woman in the lord, and it will be forever, as Ecclesiastes
(cross-referenced with Matthew 19:4-6) points out.
Therefore, Christ answered both the Sadducees and the
Pharisees according to their own knowledge and
understanding. His answer is an often misunderstood one,
but still a universal truth.

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA: While we are on the

subject of marriage, Judge, I think it would be interesting

to disclose a little Mormon history. We find in the past,

three religions that have been founded on sex. We learn of

the Oneida Perfectionists, who taught and believed that

every woman was every mans wife. In other words, they

formed a free love colony.

Then we had the Mother Ann Lee and her Shakers, who
taught that Ann Lee was none other than Jesus Christ
manifest as a woman. Ann Lee, the majority of her life,
walked the street as a "call girl."

Then there are the Latter-day Saints, who taught and

practiced polygamy or the giving of many wives to one man.
In the book, "Twenty-Seventh Wife," some of the horrors

71
that actually went on under these evil conditions were
described by Mrs. Brigham Young.
Now, lets examine this practice from the standpoint of
the Holy Scriptures. In Matt. 19:1-9 we learn that, "Man
shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh," and the
Savior went on to point out that it was through the
"hardness of their hearts" that divorces were given. He then
taught, if a man were to marry another while his wife lived,

it was adultery.
We read next from the Book of Mormon. Jacob 2:23-
24 states, "For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people
begin to WAX IN INIQUITY; they understand not the
scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in

committing whoredoms, because of the things which were

written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and

concubines, which thing was ABOMINABLE BEFORE
ME, SAITH THE LORD."
Even your Book of Mormon powerfully condemns
polygamy. The Lord, in that same Book of Jacob, went on
to say that man must cling to one woman, and have no

concubines. He said that whoredoms were an abomination

before him, and the land would be cursed for their sakes by
its practice.

Judge, we have presented the case of a people who

disobeyed Gods moral law and who, because of a so-called

prophet's command, went against the writings of the Bible

and the Book of Mormon to satisfy the lusts of their flesh.
What was it you said, elders, "by their fruits ye shall know
them?"

MISSIONARIES: Gentlemen, I maintain that polygamy is

a principal of God when he commands it. I challenge the

72
representative of the United Church to dispute the points I

will bring up.

Paul said, "to the pure all things are pure, but unto
them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure." I

believe sir that you demonstrated this afternoon which

category you fit into.

You first quoted "The Twenty-Seventh Wife," written

by the wife of Brigham Young. I would like to believe that

the defense could build a stronger case than this by

providing evidence from sources other than anti-Mormon
trash. If you wanted to learn of Christ as He was stumbling
toward the cross, would you go to the Apostle John or
would you go to Judas Iscariot, his betrayer? You have used
the very same logic. It would seem to me that intelligent

people would go to the unbiased sources.

The woman that wrote this book was a liar and a false

witness. Brigham Young had eighteen other wives to bear

witness of his tender love and affection to them and their

families. Incidentally, she was the nineteenth wife, not the

twenty-seventh as she stated.
You used Matt. 19:1-9, and your hasty interpretation
completely destroyed the correct interpretation of the
scripture. The Pharisees were not talking about polygamy,
but were talking about divorces. Christ told them that a

man and his wife were one flesh and that they were not to

be put away except for the cause of fornication. Those

women that practiced polygamy had not been married
before, had not been divorced, and neither had husbands
that were still living. So they couldn't have even figured
into the explanation the Savior was giving about divorce.
There is absolutely no part nor parcel in either scripture
dealing with polygamy — merely divorce.
Then you pulled a beautiful scriptural rail split in

Jacob. You got all the way to verse 29 in Jacob 2, and then

73
stopped. Why didn't you read on to verse 30 like an honest
individual seeking truth? It would have answered the
question for you.
It reads, 'Tor if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up
seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they
shall hearken unto these things." Notice He said, that
unless I build up a seed, you shall hearken unto verses 22-
27.

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA: Now hold it right

there Elder. The Lord was saying in Jacob that those people
were excusing their deeds because of what they read of
David and Solomon, and their deeds. The Lord said that
their actions were "abominable." You cant dispute that.

MISSIONARIES: Have you read the Old Testament, sir?

Have you really? You must ask WHY this practice was
abominable to the Lord. Apparently David and Solomon
did something to make it that way.

"God was perfect." We

Christ, in Matt. 5:48 said that,
then read 2 Samuel 12:8, where Nathan the Prophet,
speaking in the name of the Lord, said, "Thus saith the
Lord God... (speaking to David), I gave thee thy masters
house, and thy master's WIVES." It was none other than
the perfect God of the God of our fathers, that gave
Israel,

David his wives. According to you own words, you have this
day, accused God of wickedness by your hasty
interpretation of the Book of Mormon.
If you had read the Old Testament, you would have
found out why, in this case, polygamy was abominable in

the Lord's eyes. 2 Sam. 12:9 reads, "Wherefore hast thou

(David) despised THE COMMANDMENT OF THE
LORD, to do evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the
Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy

74
wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of
Ammon." This judgment is confirmed in I Kings 15:5,
"David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD,
and turned not aside from anything that he commanded
him all the days of his life, SAVE ONLY IN THE
MATTER OF URIAH THE HITTITE." That is why it

was abominable. David had left these wives that God had
given him and committed adultery.

The reason King Solomons deed were considered

wicked is answered in I Kings 1 1:1-1 1, particularly verses

9:11. We are told that Solomon turned his heart from the
"God of Israel" and loved MANY STRANGE WOMEN
of which the Lord said, "thou shalt not go in to them."
That's why in Jacob the Lord said it had been wicked.
The son of God came from this same polygamous seed
of David. As you facetiously asked me, proudly I state, "by
their fruits I do know them." I look at Jesus Christ, David,
Abraham, and the greatest men of all time and say, "by their
fruits ye shall know them." God sanctioned polygamy at

times and gave these prophets their wives, and called it

righteous. He made provision for its practice in The Book

of Mormon, and know I that in these days it was a

righteous commandment, given to the prophet by the Lord.

PART SEVEN

LUTHERAN MINISTER: I have two questions to ask

you that punch some pretty big holes in the Joseph Smith
story. We understand that his own account was not printed
until May 2, 1 8 3 8, over fifteen years after the Angel
Moroni had appeared to him, and more than eighteen years

after God and Christ were supposed to have appeared to

him. Why did he wait so long to write his story, and how
do you know he didn't add a lot to it?

75
 Secondly, recorded in verse 41 of his account (in the
current Pearl of Great Price, pg. 5 3) we read of the Angel
Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith. During this visitation he
referred to Joel 2:28-31 and announcing it's fulfillment
when he declared, "But this is that which was spoken by the
prophet Joel/' Why did Moroni say that Joel's prophecy was

not fulfilled, when Peter said that it was?

How could Joseph Smith, in his own history, accurately

quote the Savior and those other messengers after nearly

twenty years from the time many of these experiences had

supposedly occurred to him?

MISSIONARIES: These are very interesting questions.

Joseph Smith wrote his own story to publish to the world

the true account of his vision in 1 820. Many false rumors
and reports were circulating. So it was first published in the
form of a pamphlet, but is now contained in the current
version of the Pearl of Great Price, to clear up any
confusion and also as an aid to the missionary work of the
church.
You seemed concerned that Joseph Smith could
correctly quote these great Heavenly Messengers with as

many as eighteen years separating his vision from his

writing. Yet you think nothing of the Book of John, which
records many word for word conversations with the Savior
as well as some of His most dramatic utterances.
Historians believe this was written around the year 100.
That's a seventy-year split!

The answer is simple. Joseph Smith had the Holy

Ghost to guide him into all truth, as did John. The
experience left, as he recorded, a powerful imprint on his

brain. Also, he kept a daily journal which could have

assisted him a great deal in compiling this account.

t76
 In answer to your other question; Peter never did
declare that Joel's prophecy was fulfilled. He merely said
that it referred to this day. Prophecy, as a rule, has partial

fulfillment the majority of the time.

For example, we have the Jewish people who declared at
the crucifixion that, "his blood be upon us, and upon our
children." It was fulfilled in 70 A.D., throughout the dark
ages, and again in the reign of Adolph Hitler.
We have another case where Christ said in Matt. 24:14
that, "this gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all

the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the
end come." From the holy scriptures, Paul states that the

gospel "was preached to every creature which is under

heaven" (Col. 1:23) where Paul was called to preach the
gospel. According to Christ, the end should have come —
but it was only a partial fulfillment. We could cite countless

cases.

That Joels prophecy was only partially fulfilled on

Pentecost is pointed out in the last half of Pauls account
of the prophecy, which you seem to have forgotten to read;

"And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the

earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The
sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,

before that great and notable day of the Lord come:" (Acts
2:19-20).
I believe you can see that this was not fulfilled, and
therefore Moroni could correctly say that, "This was not

yet fulfilled."

PART EIGHT

METHODIST CHURCH: Sir, before I came to these

courtroom proceedings, I had several of these young

77
Mormon men over to our home, so that I could learn more
about their claims. As they gave me their first in a series of
six discussions, they used Matt. 17:11-13 to prove that
John the Baptist must come, and as they said, "restore all

things." This was to include the Church, the Priesthood,

and the apostles and Prophets. I am sure these young men
here today use the same scripture when they are teaching,

and I maintain it is seriously misinterpreted.

I refer you to Matt. 11:13-14, speaking of John, which

reads, "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until
John. And if ye will receive it, THIS IS ELIAS WHICH
WAS FOR TO COME." Here the scripture points out
that this John was the Elias which was to come. That is why
Christ said, "Elias is come already." Therefore, the
scriptures do not say John would come again, and the
Mormon claim that John the Baptist returned in 1 829 is

false.

MISSIONARIES: Sir, I wish you had read just a little

more carefully before bringing up this last question. Christ,

speaking of John, did say, "And if ye will receive it, this is

Elias, which was for to come." However, did THEY

RECEIVE IT?
Christ went on to point out that they did not receive it.

In the 1 8th verse of Matt. II, he said some claimed that,

"John hath a devil," because he neither ate nor drank, and

in verse 19, "The son of Man came eating and drinking,
and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber."
As you can see, they did not receive it. They were a people
merely eager to criticize.

In the I4th chapter of Matthew we learn that John was

beheaded by Herod the Tetrarch. Again we have evidence
that they did not receive him. That is why in the 1 7th

t78
chapter of Matthew our Lord said, "Elias truly shall first

come, and restore all things. But... Elias is come already,

AND THEY KNEW HIM NOT." Then he said that they

killed him. That is why the disciples knew he spoke of John
the Baptist.
So, as the scriptures point out, if they had received it,

this was the Elias which was to come. But since they did not
receive it, Elias was still to come and restore all things.

PART NINE

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Elders, may I ask you a

question? What does the Book of Mormon contain? It does

not contain the "missing books" of the Bible, the "plain
and precious parts," nor any doctrine that the Bible does
not contain. There is nothing new found in it at all. It does
not teach a thing about baptism for the dead or the
Mormon concept of the three heavens.
If sanctification was taught in the Bible and the people

were sanctified by the word in the Bible, what need have we

of a Book of Mormon? What does the book really teach us

that the Bible doesn't?

MISSIONARIES: Sir, I will answer your questions using

the words of the recognized founder of the Church of
Christ (whom they deny founded the Church but recognize
as one of the chief promoters), Alexander Campbell.
Speaking of the Book of Mormon, Campbell said, "It

decides all the great controversies: Infant baptism, the

trinity regeneration, fasting, penance, repentance,

justification, the fall of man, the atonement,

transubstantiation, church government, the call to the

79
ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who
may baptize, and even the question of free masonry,
republican government, and the rights of man." In other
words, sir, its purpose is to clear up the confusion caused
by the Bible, which confusion is quite obvious, since the
prosecution cannot agree on many things themselves.
The Book of Mormon also testifies to the world that
Christ is the Son of God. It is the new witness for Christ,

and the only book on the earth that testifies that God is

just — that He will reveal His word to all people.

You know, as I have sat before you today representing
my church, I have marveled at your questions. You remind
me so much of Christ's statement to the Pharisees when He
said, "Ye strain at a gnat but swallow a camel." You have
testified that the Book of Mormon is false because it

contradicts the Bible. It might be because one or two words

appear to you to be out of place which you feel should be
in there. Lord Bacon once said, "read not to contradict and
confuse, not to believe and take for granted. .but to weigh .

and consider."
I wager that 90% of you have never read the Book of
Mormon from cover to cover, and that none of you have
read it praying to God to find out if it is true. You have
probably run across and believed at face value, the little

pamphlets that attempt to "expose" the book. I assure you

that and each and every time the Book of Mormon will

withstand the test provided by each of those supposed

exposures.
You say that the book is false Alma 7-10 refers
because
to Christ as being born "at" Jerusalem when the Bible has
"in Bethlehem". Yet you think nothing of the contradiction
that actually appears in the account of Paul's vision in Acts

9:7 compared with Acts 22:9- Here the first account says,

8o
"They that were with me saw indeed the light — but they
heard not the voice of him that spoke/' The other reads,
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice, but seeing no man." One verse says that
they saw the light, and the other says they didn't.
You think nothing of the contradictions that deal with
the crucifixion — where all four Gospel writers have
different inscriptions above the Christ on the cross, nor do
you seek to answer why Luke 23:44 refers to three hours of
darkness coming between the 6th and the 9th hour while
Christ was on the cross, compared with Marks account that
at the third hour they crucified him. John 19:14 informs us
that Pilate was still trying to free Christ at about the sixth
hour, yet Mark tells us that he had already been on the cross
for three hours.

We read in Matt. 27:9-10 where Jeremiah is quoted

prophesying of the thirty pieces of silver, yet the Old
Testament proves that it was not Jeremiah that made the
prophesy, but Zechariah.
You think nothing of the great martyr Stephen's
testimony in Acts 7:22 where he stated, "Moses was learned
in all wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words
and in deeds." Yet Moses himself, in Exodus 4:10 said, "O
my Lord, I am not eloquent — but am slow of speech and of
slow tongue," so the Lord had him take Aaron as his
spokesman. This means Stephen, being filled with the Holy
Ghost, (which guides us into all truth), was mistaken or

else the translators were mistaken.

People attack the Book of Mormon because it may
contain some grammatical errors, yet we have found some

of the greatest grammatical errors in the English language

still present in our King James version of the Holy
Scriptures.

81
 Jesus, speaking to Peter, said in Matt. 1 6: 1 3, "Whom
do men say that I the Son of Man am?" In this sentence the

verb "am" is a "be" making the sentence intransitive. An

intransitive sentence never takes an object. A sentence like
that would rate a "D" on any college term paper.

People attack the Book of Mormon because in 2 Nephi

29:4 it states that if you accept only the Bible you are a

fool. Imagine that, if we accept the ALL TRUTH of John

16:13, we are fools, yet those who criticize close their eyes

to Matt. 4:4 which tells us that we must live by EVERY

WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. If I were
to believe only the first five books of the New Testament,
that would make me a fool. The same holds true in the case
of the Book of Mormon — and if you only accept the Bible,
you are cutting Gods word in half and not living by "every
word" and therefore you are a fool.

Do you see what I am trying to point out gentlemen?

For every point you attack the Book of Mormon on, we can
turn around and, 95% of the time, find similar mistakes in

the Bible. We make the fantastic claim that there are no

contradictions in the Book of Mormon. Yet I have pointed
out, so far, at least ten in the Bible. Christ, no less than ten
times, quotes ancient prophets incorrectly.
Here was a young man (Joseph Smith) who, in a little

over sixty working days, reeled off a 300,000 word, 552-

page volume about ancient America without the assistance
of any outside information. This was accomplished with
only three years of formal education, and you want a
grammatically perfect copy? In contrast consider this; it

took 54 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and

Westminister, four years to write and translate the
Authorized King James Version of the Bible, and we still

have these grammar errors in it.

t
82
 People criticize the Book of Mormon because of its

poor English; yet they ignore the poor English of Lev.

11:21, Gen. 18:2, Gen. 43:25, 2 Kings 19:35, John 4:2,
and dozens more. They find places in the Book of Mormon
that were poorly punctuated, and yet they ignore the
punctuation errors that still stand in our Bible found in
Luke 23:32 and Acts 19:12.
We find errors in the Lords Prayer where Christ said,

"Lead us not into temptation. " James said that "God is

neither tempted, NEITHER TEMPTETH HE ANY

MAN." The Book of Mormon is a testimony of Jesus
Christ, translated by His humble servant, Joseph Smith.

Gentlemen, it is true, and God is my witness.

CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST: It is a surprise to me that you

try to destroy the face of the Bible. However, to go on with
our discussion, you teach that God and Christ have bodies
of flesh and blood, yet we read where "flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God." (I Cor. 15:50) How
can they live in their own Kingdom, then, with flesh and

blood?

MISSIONARIES: Flesh and blood cannot enter into the

kingdom of God, and we have not made the statement
today that it could. But flesh and bone can, does, and will
inherit the kingdom of God. So you and these other

gentlemen can understand, let's examine, once again, the

scriptures. Luke 24:36-39 teaches that Christ has a body of
flesh and bones.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Yes, but it materialized. How

could he have appeared to the apostles in the upper chamber
with a body when the doors and windows were locked?

t
83
MISSIONARIES: I couldn't care less how He did it, but
the scriptures say that He was able to do it.

I can hardly believe how materialistically you approach

this subject.

You wonder how Christ, with a tangible body, got into

the upper chamber without coming through a door or

window? How did Christ walk on water as a mortal being?
How did He ascend into heaven with a body, when the laws
of nature and gravity tell us that He shouldn't? How did
He get out of the tomb? It took the angel to roll away the
stone, and yet Christ was not to be found therein? How did
Christ vanish out of sight of the two men who were on their
way to Emmaus after His resurrection?
The answer is simple — Christ was now governed by
higher laws. He had control over the elements. He was not
a vain man like you or I, but was the Son of God. This same
Christ, who taught that by faith we could move mountains,
surely had the power to enter a room with a body of flesh

and bones as the scriptures teach us.

For your information, Lev. 17:11 informs us that, "the

life of the flesh is in the blood:'' and later in verse 14 it

reads, "for it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the

life thereof:" Christ did not have blood in His body at the

resurrection. If you recall, a spear was driven in His side and

blood poured from His wound. Therefore, flesh and blood
will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but flesh and bone
will, as we have proven.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: Gentlemen, I have before me

a discourse written Mormon prophet,
by the second
Brigham Young. Commonly know as the Adam — God

discourse, it reads, "NOW HEAR IT, O INHABITANTS

OF THE EARTH, JEWS AND GENTILES, SAINT

t84
AND SINNER: WHEN OUR FATHER ADAM CAME
INTO THE GARDEN OF EDEN, HE CAME IN IT
WITH A CELESTIAL BODY AND BROUGHT EVE,
ONE OF HIS WIVES, WITH HIM. He helped to make
and organize HE IS MICHAEL, THE
this world.
ARCHANGEL, THE ANCIENT OF DAYS, ABOUT
WHOM HOLY MEN HAVE WRITEEN AND
SPOKEN. HE IS OUR FATHER AND OUR GOD,
AND THE ONLY GOD WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO
DO."
Therefore, we learn that the Mormons worship Adam as

God — and as such, it would have been Adam, (as other

parts of the discourse indicate), who would have been the
Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I have never in my life

seen such a deplorable doctrine, and it came from the

mouth of one of their Mormon Prophets.

MISSIONARIES: Gentlemen, for a moment I am going

to put the writings of the Apostle Paul on trial — and give
Paul the same chance that this minister has given Brigham
Young.
What this man has done is use a little trick called

"sentence separation" or "scriptural rail split." By using

this method, you can take a couple of simple truths uttered
by an inspired man out of context and put them together
and make a malicious falsehood.
Paul said in I Cor. 7:1, "It is good for a man not to

touch a woman." We could go on and find what Paul was

talking about, but we won't. That would require an honest
approach. We are going to use the same approach this
minister has with Brigham Young.
Remembering that Paul had told the men, "not to
touch a woman," we read in Gen. 1:2 that God commands

t
85
men to, "multiply and replenish the earth. Now, who are

you going to believe, Paul or God? How can you have

children without touching a woman? Here, it seems, Paul is

fighting against God, and is anti-Christ.

You can see how easy it is. This Lutheran Minister has
tried the same thing on Brigham Young. I have read this
discourse a hundred times, and that is not what it says. You
don't establish truth on a lie, or on a scriptural rail split.

Now, for your benefit, we will examine what President

Young meant, and maybe, put together what this "good"
minister has torn apart. Of course, we will use the Bible to

support the points that we bring up.

We read in the discourse where Adam was subordinate
to the supreme creator. This is evident because it said, he
"helped to make and organize this earth." We learn from the
same discourse, which Reverend Holiday was kind enough
to omit, that Brigham Young taught that there were three
that created the earth, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, and
notice Michael's name was listed third.

That Adam was a God is a fact derived from the Holy

Scriptures, and that there were more than one in the
creation is also supported by scriptures. God said, "Let us
make man in our own image," indicating plurality of
personalities in the creation.
In Gen. 3:5 we learn that Adam and Eve shall become
"as Gods, knowing good from evil." Christ himself taught
that a man could be, and was a God. This is found in John
10:34-3 5, and we read, "is it not written in your law, I said,

Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of

God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"
Now, that we have established that Adam was also a

God, and we have proven from the discourse that he was a

subordinate to the supreme creator and third in the

86
creation, we can examine why he "is the only God with
whom we have to do."
God, by his almighty powers, has created other worlds
— worlds without number. Even science is now wondering
about life on other planets. Adam was the father of the
human race - or in this sense, the first physical father.
Therefore President Young pointed out this fact, "Adam is

our father and our God." Other of God's creations would

have men such as Adam, who became as Gods, knowing
good from evil, (as Christ mentioned), and in the sense
already explained, be "fathers" of their worlds.
As our physical father, Adam is, in a very real sense, "the

only God with whom we all have to do." Adam worshipped

God Almighty, and we worship God Almighty.
Our first Article of Faith states that "We believe in
God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in
the Holy Ghost." James 1:13 tells us that God cannot be
tempted, and yet, gentlemen, it seems that this minister is

trying to do just that. He did not properly read the

discourse. It was Brigham Youngs way of telling the story

of the creation, only he used an unusual approach. Adam is

the father of the human race, he is a God, and if Adam had
not lived and brought forth seed, we would not be here
today. He is the only one that ever lived to whom we can all

directly trace our genealogy. Therefore he is "the only God

with whom we have to do." We still believe that salvation

comes by Jesus Christ, (Acts 4:13), that we must worship

God Almighty and his Son, (Matt. 6:9-13), and we respect
and love Adam for what he was, the father of the human
race.

By your accusation of Brigham Young's teachings,

Reverend, we might say that you have borne false witness
against your neighbor. A man of your education and your

87
experience in studying Mormonism, should have known
that we don't believe or teach that absurdity.

CATHOLIC PRIEST: I understand that in the teachings

of the Mormon Church, to enter the highest degree of the

first heaven or Celestial Kingdom, you must be married in
a Mormon Temple. How do you account for the fact that

Christ was not married, Paul was not married, and that
undoubtedly,many of the apostles were not married? Also,
how do you account for I Cor. 7 and Matt. 19:12 in the
Holy Scriptures?

MISSIONARIES: The first, and perhaps the greatest,

commandment ever given to man was to "multiply and

replenish the earth/' (Gen. 1:2) It was the creator that said,

"it is not good that man should be alone; I will make an

help meet for him." (Gen. 2: 1 8) Therefore God taught,
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh."

Christ later uttered to the Pharisees who were trying to

tempt Him — that of the marriage vow, "Whatsoever God
hath joined together, let no man put asunder."
It was to this utterance that the Pharisees replied, "But
Moses commanded to give a writing of divorcement, and to
put her away." Christ then went on to point out that in the
beginning it was not so and that any man that should put

away His wife, save it be for the cause of fornication, was

committing adultery. His disciples were disturbed, and said,

"If the cause of the man be so with his wife, it is good not
to marry." Christ then pointed out that for some it is good
not to marry — and then came Matt. 19:12 where he
pointed out the case of eunuchs, who could not marry due
to defects at their birth. He then pointed out that there
were eunuchs made of men (a pagan philosophy that
undoubtedly affected Christian converts physically
disabled by their ceremonies) and then He pointed out that
some were made eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heavens sake
— and said, "He that is able to receive it, let Him receive it."

In the light of other scriptures, this appears confusing

to many. What the Lord meant was, that if a man were to
marry and do so with any reservation or lack of assurance of
love toward his wife, it would be better for him not to
marry, because if he were to put away his wife and marry
another, he would be committing adultery.

The Lord thereby explained that it was "for the

Kingdom of Heavens sake" that they had not done it, and
saved themselves from greater condemnation. Many
eminent scholars believe that Paul of Tarsus was married
and either divorced or was widowed. Paul, whether he was
married or not before he became a Christian, knew and
taught the principle of marriage so strongly that he said on
one occasion, "neither is the man without the woman,
neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (I Cor.

1 1:1 1)

The wickedness of the sexual sin was prevalent at the

time of our Lord and his apostles, as countless scriptures
point out. So Paul felt even as he, who at the time was
single. Notice, however, that the command was given to the
unmarried people and widows with the caution that they
could remarry but again uttered the fearful warning which
Christ himself taught; "Let not the wife depart from her
husband,"
Paul, in convincing the Corinthian saints that he was an
apostle, said, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a

WIFE, as well as other apostles...?" (I Cor. 9:5) Here, the

89
possibility of Paul having once been married and then
widowed becomes reasonable, especially considering the
statement in Acts 26:5, where before King Agrippa he said,
"after the most straightest sect of our religion I lived a

Pharisee."
The straightest sect was that of the Sanhedrin, or the
religious ruling body of the day. Its members, in order to

become members, were commanded to be married at an

early age. Paul was brought up "at the feet of Gamaliel, and
taught according to the perfect law of the fathers, and was
zealous towards God." (Acts 22:3)
We still have the commands of marriage by the God of
Israel, and Pauls statement, along with that of Christ's, on
the eternal principle of marriage. It is not taught as
doctrine, but consider the indicators that point to the
possibility that Christ may have married. John wrote that,
"There are also MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH
JESUS DID, the which, if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the
books that should be written." (John 21:25)
I might also point out, we believe that during Christ's
reign upon the earth, the thousand years of righteousness,
marriages will be performed — and many of those righteous
people who have not had the opportunity to marry in this
life will have the opportunity at that time. This is pointed
out in Isaiah 65:23 where it states, "They shall not labor in
vain, nor bring forth for trouble, for they are the seed of the
blessed of the Lord, and their OFFSPRING WITH
THEM." It will be so much like our existence now in many
respects that "they shall build houses and inhabit them."

METHODIST MINISTER: Isn't it true that you believe

that men have many wives in the hereafter? I noticed that in

90
Brigham Young's Adam-God discourse he mentioned that
Adam brought Eve, "one of his wives/' with him. Do you
believe in the plurality of wives in the hereafter?

MISSIONARIES: As we pointed out earlier, the greatest

prophets of all time have practiced the God-given principle
of plural marriage. Since "man is not without the woman,
neither the woman without the man, in the Lord,'' and since
the great prophets of old had these wives, we believe they

will have them in the eternities. For the sake of time, we can
refer you again to the scripture in 2 Sam. 12:8 where God
"gave David his wives," and the statement in Ecc. 3:14,
"Whatsoever God doeth, IT WILL BE FOREVER.'' God
made woman from man and said that it is not good that
man should be alone.

ANGLICAN MINISTER: You mean to tell me that God

has a wife?

MISSIONARIES: Paul, in speaking to the men of Athens

said, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being: as

certain also of your poets have said, FOR WE ARE ALSO

HIS OFFSPRING. FORASMUCH THEN AS WE ARE
THE OFFSPRING OF GOD, we ought not to think that

the Godhead is like unto gold." (Acts 17:28-29) Paul

apparently said we were God's offspring. I don't see how

you can have offspring without a mother. Also, if Christ is

God's son, there must be a mother there as well. (See also

Eph. 3:14-15)

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Since you teach that whatsoever

God does will be forever, why doesn't he still give "many
wives" and have polygamy exist today?

91
MISSIONARIES: I think God could answer that better
than I could. The Lord said in Isaiah 55:8-9, 'For my ways
are not your ways, neither are my thoughts your thoughts
saith the Lord/' His ways are greater and higher than our
ways — but I believe what the scriptures say — that God
joined man and woman together, and that it would be
forever. If you doubt the Lords ways, you had better take it

to Him. In answer to plural wives in the hereafter, I cant

see a just God causing a good sister to lose her highest
exaltation because she was the second wife of David, the
300th wife to Solomon, or the 7th wife to Brigham Young.

PART TEN

ATHEIST: If I am not mistaken, the Latter-day Saints

teach, in Matthew 17:1 1, that John the Baptist was the
"Elias" which was fore to come — and that Malachi 4:5-6

referred to "Elijah the Prophet." Yet, we find upon

examination of the original writings, the words Elias and
Elijah are interchangeable. Malachi 4:5-6 said Elias (Elijah)

would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord
and turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. Latter-
day Saints claim a fulfillment of that prophesy in 1836 —
yet Luke 1:17 tells us of John, (the same Elijah of
Malachi), when he says, "And he shall go before him in the

SPIRITAND POWER OF ELIAS TO TURN THE

HEARTS OF THE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN."
Therefore, Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 was none other than
John the Baptist of Matthew 17:11 and Luke 1:17. Can you
prove this statement incorrect?

MISSIONARIES: Yes, quite easily. You are correct about

the interchanging of the words, but it has one weakness. We

92
had a great prophet named "Elijah" in 2 Kings 2:11 that
was taken by a whirlwind into heaven — and John never
claimed to be Elijah. Now, concerning the prophecy of
Malachi 4:5-6, you will notice that Elijah was also to turn
the hearts of the children to the fathers of which the Holy
Scriptures say never happened by the work of John. That
John was not the Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 is affirmed in his
own testimony as recorded in John 1:21. It reads, "and they
asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am
not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, no." That
should answer it for you quite easily. John's mission was to
prepare the way for the Lord — and he did go forth in the
spirit and power of Elias, but he was not that Elias.

ATHEIST: Til tell you what — show me Joseph Smith's

name in the Bible and I'll join the Mormon Church. Can
you do it?

MISSIONARIES: I'll tell you what I'll do. We read of

only about a 400 year difference between the Old and the

New Testament, while there is an 1800 year difference

between Joseph Smith and the Bible. If you can show me
where Christ's name (Jesus Christ) is found any place in

the Old Testament, I will become an Atheist. Will you do

that?

ATHEIST: No I can't. But how do you know he is a

prophet?

MISSIONARIES: Because he fulfilled the scriptures of

Apostasy and those scriptures of Restoration. Paul said, "Be
not carried about with divers and strange doctrines."

(Hebrews 13:9). That there were to be no prophets nor

revelations is taught nowhere in the scriptures.

93
 "

Christ, through his servant Paul, taught, "and the eye

cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again
the head to the feet, I have no need of you." By this he
compared the offices of the church to a human body (I Cor.

12:1-31).
To say that we have no need for apostles and prophets

is a diverse and strange doctrine and was never taught by

the Savior or any of His apostles.

ATHEIST: Thus far you have shown that your Latter-day

scriptures could be harmonious, but you have not yet
proven a need for them. Can you, from the Bible, prove a

need for the latter-day revelation?

MISSIONARIES: Yes I can, and I did in answering the

question about all truth, unity of faith by way of apostles
and prophets, and at other places earlier today, but I have
further proof for you.
We read in 2 Peter 3:15-16 where Peter made reference
to Paul's writings. He said, "And account that the long-
suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved
brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him
hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking

in them of these things; IN WHICH ARE SOME

THINGS HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD, which they

that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the

other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

That includes 14 epistles, or about 5 3 percent of our
New Testament books. Christ said, "When anyone heareth
the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then
cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was
sown in his heart." (Matt. 13:19)- Here we have 53 percent
of the New Testament, and a mass of people that will not

94
understand the things that are spoken by Paul pertaining to
salvation. That sounds like a real need to me.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: You really exaggerate your

points. Ephesians 3:4 tells us that, "Whereby, when ye read,
ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of
Christ. " So all you have to do is read to understand.

MISSIONARIES: That would have been a good answer,

except you have two problems. First, Eph. 3:4 mentioned
that the mystery would be revealed when you read — and the
mystery was answered in Romans 16:24 and Eph. 1:9-11.
That mystery was that through the blood of the Christ we
have our inheritance. It had been a mystery since the
beginning of the world, with the Jewish nations sacrificing
animals to the "God of Israel: because it was commanded to
them, and yet they really didn't know why.
Paul, in Hebrews 10:10-12, pointed out that "every

priest standedth daily ministering at the alter, offering

often times the same sacrifice for sins, but this man,
(Christ), after he had offered one sacrifice for sin forever,
sat down on the right hand of God/'
Therefore, the mystery, which means revealed truth, was
that we would be adopted, "by obedience/' as the sons of
God by the precious blood of Christ, who died for our sins.

All Paul pointed out in Eph. 3:4 was to read Eph. I, and
they would know the mystery. But Peter's concern was not
mystery, but rather that many of the saints would be
confused about salvation.
That is your second problem. Peter was talking about
salvation, not the mystery of the adoption. History bears
record that Ephesians was written before 2 Peter, and if all

you had to do was read Paul's writings, (since you agree that

95
all their writings are harmonious), Peter would have never
mentioned that they were hard to be understood — because
Eph. 3:4 would have pointed out that all you had to do was
read them. That is why they needed the "Gift of the Holy
Ghost. " It was to guide them into salvation. Therefore, as
we have established from the scriptures, there is a need for
revelation.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: I don't think I can accept that

answer.

MISSIONARIES: That comes as no surprise to me. You

haven't been able to accept much of the truth taught in the
scriptures. You look it over and see if we are not explaining
it correctly.

I would like to provide another need for revelation

today. We have a scripture in Deut. 18:21-22 that informs
us that when a man speaks in the name of the Lord and it

follows, he is a prophet.
I refer you to Matthew 12:40 and the statement of
Christ where he prophesied of his death and resurrection;
"for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of
the whale; so shall the son of Man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth."
As we read the scripture in Matthew 27:62, together
with Matthew 28:1, in the authorized King James version
of the Bible, it appears that the crucifixion took place on
Friday (Good Friday). On that fateful Friday, Mark
informs us that Jesus was placed upon the cross at the third

hour (Mark 15:25). John records that it was the sixth hour.
We will accept Mark's version for this accounting — that it

was the third hour (9 am) and Jesus was alive upon the
cross for six hours until the ninth hour (3 pm). At this

96
point, Matt. 27:46-51 and Luke 23:44-46 record that He,
"gave up the spirit and died/' This would, of course, make
Friday the first day.

Then Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus gained

permission to remove Christ's body from the cross, and
placed it in a large tomb. We know that the body was placed
in the tomb before sunset, because Jewish law demanded
that nothing remain on a cross over the Sabbath. Therefore,
Christ's entry into the tomb can be accurately estimated at
the eleventh hour (5 pm)> making it the first day.
Friday night would have made it the first night,

Saturday would have been the second day, Saturday evening

the second night, and then we find that Christ was
resurrected sometime early on Sunday morning (the first

day of the week), making it the third day.

This would mean that he was in the "heart of the earth"
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the day, but as we
examine the Gospel accounts, the time spent in the tomb at

night was only during Friday and Saturday nights. These

accounts only show a stay in the "heart of the earth" for
three days and TWO nights. This makes Christ's statement
in Matt. 12:40 incorrect.
It appears to me that we would need a revelation to

answer this problem or, according to Deuteronomy, Christ

would be a false prophet. Can you prove me wrong?

LUTHERAN MINISTER: How about the three hours of

darkness (Luke 23:44)? That would technically be a night,

making the crucifixion of Friday from the sixth to the ninth

hours the first night, from the ninth to the twelfth hours
the first day. Friday night would then be the second night,

Saturday the second day, and Saturday night the third

97
night. Sunday, the morning of the resurrection, would make
the third day. That would make three days and three nights,
wouldn't it?

MISSIONARIES: Let's examine the prophecy. It said

Christ would be in the heart of the earth, or tomb, for three

days and three nights and that this would be the only sign
given to the Pharisees.
Matthew records that at the ninth hour or very close to
it, Christ asked for God's spirit to be with him, and in great
agony cried, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?" We read where shortly afterwards He died, at the

ninth hour, when the DARKNESS HAD CEASED.

Mark records that it was at the ninth hour Christ made
the declaration to God and asked why He had been
forsaken. Thereby, death was placed at the time darkness
was to have left the earth. The prophecy called for Christ to

be in the heart of the earth, so the three hours of darkness

could not have possibly accounted for the first night
because Christ was still upon the cross. Since it was Jewish
law that no one hang on the cross over the Sabbath, and the
nightfall which marked the beginning of the Sabbath was
beginning to approach (which would have been from the
1 2th hour or 6 pm), the Apostle John records that guards
went to Pilate and requested permission to break the legs of
the three that hung on the crosses (the two thieves and
Christ) which permission was granted.
When they arrived at the foot of the cross, as John
records, they discovered that Jesus was dead (placing him
on the cross considerably after the ninth hour). Then to

insure death, one of the guards pierced his side with a spear.
Therefore, from the time Christ was taken from the
cross and placed in the tomb, it can easily be estimated

t 98
between the ninth and twelfth hours, (very near the
twelfth). The reason He was placed in the tomb was
because it was so near the Sabbath.
You see, gentlemen, your argument doesn't hold up.
Christ was never in the heart of the earth during the three
hours of darkness, but hung on the cross.
He was in the heart of the earth, according to the Bible,
for three days and only two nights. So we have proven a real

need for continued revelation.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Does Mormon revelation

contain the answer?

MISSIONARIES: Yes, gentlemen, it does, it does. As we

began this trial, you used the scripture Luke 23:44, crossed
with 3 Nephi 8:22-25 to establish a supposed
contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Gentlemen, there is your answer right there.

The Book of Mormon is a volume of scripture that

bears record that Jesus is the Christ, and still establishes his
claim as Lord, and Christ, and Prophet. According to Matt.
12:40, the Bible cant do that. That is one reason for the
three days of darkness on this continent. It was a sign to the
people of the death of our Lord, and to bear witness that
Jesus was the Christ. It also satisfies a need for the
continued revelation, and proves it harmonious as well as

progressive. It truly is the Word of God.

There is, however, a possible explanation for the three
day, three night discrepancy. It is one that is accepted by a

few biblical scholars.

The months in the Old Testament were lunar. Every
new moon was a new month, 13 months of 28 days each,
totaling 364 days. To make up the missing day, once each

99
year during the Passover celebration the Jews had two
Sabbath days together, interjecting the missing day.

The body of Christ was removed from the cross because

it was the "Preparation of the Sabbath" (Luke 23:54), or
the Passover which occurs on the double Sabbath, which
was "an high day" (John 19:3 I). So, that Friday night, the
preparation of the Sabbath, was night one and Saturday, the
first of two Sabbaths, was day one. That Saturday night
would be night two, and the interjected day, or the second
Sabbath Saturday, would be day two. That night would give
us the third night needed to fulfill the prophecy, and the
following Sunday morning, the first day of the week, would
account for the third day.
It is also interesting to note that every 50 years was the
Jubilee year and there were three Sabbaths together. It is

truly the word of God.

PART ELEVEN

METHODIST CHURCH: Sir, I have evidence here to

prove the Book of Mormon a fraud.

The Book of Mormon was to have covered a period of

history from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. and was to have been
buried until 1 82 3 and delivered to Joseph Smith, the
Prophet, by the angel Moroni.
In 1 61 1 we had 54 great scholars translate a book we
revere and hold sacred which we know as the King James
version of the Holy Bible. Until the time of Joseph Smith,
the Bible had been in publication for 212 years. The Book
of Mormon was supposedly to have been completed 1 1 90
years before the KJV of the Bible. Now we can give definite
proof that there is a fraud between the two — and it is not
the Bible.

ioo
 1

We find a verse in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi

26:3 3) that, 400 years before the birth of Christ, was

quoted verbatim from Galatians 3:28. We go on to find

that the sermon on the mount in the Book of Mormon is

none other that Matthew's account from the King James

Version, word for word. We have Matt. 6:5 and Luke 1 8: 1

almost identical with Alma 38:13-14 in the Book of

Mormon.
Also remarkable, duplications from the King James
version are found in comparing 2 Nephi 9:9 with 2 Cor.
11:14; Mosiah 20 with Judges 21; Alma 10:2 with Daniel
5; Alma 18:13 with John 20:16; Alma 19:5 with John
11:39; and Ether 8:10 with Matt. 14:6.
To top it off, we find Joseph Smith quoting in 2 Nephi
1:14 none other than William Shakespeare. It reads,

"Whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent

grave, from whence no traveler can return."

Now I ask you, gentlemen, is this a fraud or is this a

fraud?
While I am at it, we might turn to 2 Nephi 29:3, and
consider the quotation from the great Nephi, "Many of the
Gentiles shall say, a Bible? a Bible? We have got a Bible, and
there cannot be any more Bible."

That's pretty good, Nephi! Since the name for the

Bible was not even coined until the second century when
the word "Bible" was given to the book. I maintain that this
proves, without a doubt, that the Book of Mormon is

fraudulent!

MISSIONARIES: I am surely glad that I don't belong to

your church because your last brilliant discourse completely

destroyed the face of your only book of scripture, the Holy
Bible.

101
 In my entire life I have never seen such an onslaught of
the only inspired book you can claim.

I can see that for your sake and that of the prosecution
we will have to give you a lesson in translation this
afternoon.
I have never seen such an inconsistent approach by any
group of men in my entire life. One minute you are telling

me that the Book of Mormon is false because it contradicts

the Bible, and in the very next minute you are telling me
that it's false because it corresponds with the teachings of
the Bible.
Do you realize that the 54 scholars who translated the
Holy Bible didn't just sit down and roll off the words?
They had to deal with strange markings, symbols, pictures,

and translate many different styles and types of writing. It

took years of preparation, study, and examination. The

translators even had difficulty in agreeing on the
translation of specific words. You will notice that all of the
words in italics are words that the scholars could not agree
upon. When this happened, they voted. The word that won
the majority vote was placed in the text of the Bible. Now
these words had to convey, as best they could, the meaning
that the inspired writers intended to them convey. In doing
this the translators had to convert concepts from other
languages into their own.
Oftentimes, they would come across two identical ideas
put forth by different writers, and in translation, they
would have them agree word-for-word. Compare Matt.
22:23-30 with Luke 20:27-3 5-
Undoubtedly all four Gospel writers wrote different
reactions to Christ's blessing of the little children, yet all

four accounts record the same event almost word-for-word.

The translators, recording the occurrence in this way, would

102
not have to create new sentences, but merely put over the
concept that the original writers were teaching the same
idea.

In your attack on the Book of Mormon, you said it was

false because it "resembles" the Bible — and I might add
that the resemblance was not word-for-word. By this

accusation you also robbed many of the prophets of their

identity within their writings. Compare Micah 4- 1-3 with

Isaiah 2:2-4- You will find Micah, who lived many hundreds
of years after Isaiah, prophesying almost word-for-word
with Isaiah. According to your line of logic here, Micah was
copying Isaiah's writing.
You should be able to see a tremendous problem arising
from this logic.

In Isaiah, when he made his prophesy, the verse

preceding and following it were irrelevant to the context of

the prophecy. But such was not the case with Micah. The
entire third chapter, and much of the fourth, dealt directly
with the statement he made in Micah 4:1-3. So your
accusation against the Book of Mormon actually destroys

the credibility of the third and fourth chapters of the book

of Micah. We find the same situation in both books.
This is not progressive revelation, but retrogressive.

Let's follow your accusation out a bit further. Since the

Book of Mormon is false, by your logic, because its writers

wrote things "resembling" things written by the writers of

the Bible, let's consider a seemingly more grievous
happening in the Bible and prove it, by your logic, false. We
find Isaiah copving, word for word, a prophecy recorded in

2 Kings 19:3 5, and in doing so, even copied the

grammatical errors as well. Isaiah really blundered here

(Isaiah 37:36), yet compare the two, they read word-for-
word the same!

103
 What I am attempting to point out here is that the
biblical writers could speak and prophecy separately of
certain events, and when the translators saw that the
various records were referring to the same event, they
merely copied the translation for one, word-for-word, as the
translation of the other. This is how Isaiah seems to have
swallowed the prophesy in 2 Kings, hook, line, and sinker —
errors and all!

The golden plates of the Book of Mormon did not

contain English sentences, but had inscriptions in Assyriac,
Chaldaic, Egyptian, and Arabic. The words did not reel off
in English when Joseph Smith looked through the Urim
and Thumim, but his understanding of them was made
clear. He had to record the words in English, and with three
years of formal education that was quite an undertaking.
That is why the original edition of the book had so many
punctuation and spelling errors. That is also why, when he
saw from the inscription, that Christ taught the people on
the American continent the same teachings as were taught
in the Sermon on the Mount, the prophet found Matthews
account of the sermon was exact and correct. So he took
Matthew's account from the Bible and applied the same
word to the very same incident as it occurred on this
continent. It was done for the benefit of the reader. It

would not make it false, because another could put it in

better words than he could. You might also compare the

sermons (Matthews with that of the Book of Mormon).
You will find that in parts they are quite different indeed.

It doesn't prove something fraudulent because similar

events happen on two different continents.
It would seem logical that Christ would teach the same
principles to all people for "he is the same yesterday, today,

104
and forever." History bears record that men at different
times and places can do the same things, and still not be
considered fraudulent.

Many of our modern discoveries in the fields of science

were discovered almost simultaneously by different people.
That didn't mean that one scientist copied the other. Nor
would it mean that one or both used fraud to come by his

discovery.

In 2 Nephi 1:14, Lehi could have uttered these words,

or Joseph Smith could have learned from his studies of
Shakespeare that they identified what the writer was trying
to put forth.
The reason the Book of Mormon is non-contradictory
has little to do with its grammar, but rather with its

precepts and doctrine. The Urim and Thumim gave Joseph

Smith the correct interpretation of the figures on the
plates, and so the interpretation would be infallible. Hence,
the reason for our many "contradictions" within the Bible.
You mentioned that the word "Bible" was used around
600 years before it was coined. Did you know that in Job
31:35 we have the quotation, "Oh, what one would hear
me! Behold my desire is, that the Almighty would answer
me, and that mine adversary had written a book." The word
"book", placed in the translation as the words of Job, could
not have been used as such. The word "book" was not even
coined until hundreds of years later. There was no such
thing as a book in those days. (See Apology for the Book of
Mormon — McGavin.)
What the writers of the King James Version did was to
decipher the meaning and place the word "book" into their
translation so the readers would know what Job was
referring to in his writings.

OS
 Joseph Smith, from the gold plates, knew that a record

was to come forth as seen by Nephi. Nephi, obviously, did

not know what the record would be called, but Joseph
Smith, when translating the account 2400 years later knew
that what Nephi had seen was the Bible. So he placed the
word "Bible" in the Book of Mormon account so that the
readers would understand what Nephi had made reference
to. He did nothing more than the translators of our own
King James Version of the Bible.

I suggest, sir, that you give the Book of Mormon a

constructive analysis instead of blindly swatting at

something you know nothing of.

PART TWELVE

ANGLICAN CHURCH: If I am not mistaken, it is the

belief Mormon Church that paid ministry is
of the
unscriptural.Of course, this is not supported by Gods
Holy Scripture. Paul said, "Even so hath God ordained that
they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (I

Cor. 9:14), because, "the laborer is worthy of his hire."

(Luke 10:7) Can you refute the words of the Savior?

MISSIONARIES: No. I cannot refute the words of the

Savior, but I can refute your interpretation of them. You do
not qualify under the requirements as laid forth in the
preceding verses concerning paid ministry. So, therefore,
you don't qualify to receive "hire" for you labors.

Christ said, "The laborer is worthy of his hire," but the

laborer was to, "carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes;
and salute no man by the way." (Luke 10:4) He was to
enter the homes and, "heal the sick that are therein, and say

106
unto them, the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."
(Luke 10:9)
Thirdly, the recompense was not in money and material
goods, but those that were to be worthy to receive of their
goods, were to remain "eating and drinking such things as
they give," not passing collection plates at Sunday sermons
and receiving a portion of all that was given by your
membership.

The apostles worked for their food and yet did five
times as much preaching as all of you combined. Paul was a
tentmaker. (Acts 1 8: 3) Peter, James, John, Andrew, and
others of the apostles were fishermen. Matthew was a tax

collector, and so forth. Paul said, only a few verses later in

the scripture you quoted (l Cor. 9: 1 8), "What is my

reward then? Verily that, when 1 preach the gospel, I may
make the gospel of Christ WITHOUT CHARGE, that I

abuse not my power in the gospel."

Gentlemen, your plates go around every Sunday for

your sermon and so you have taken Christ's words to his
missionaries, that were to go and preach the word without
purse or scrip, and have applied them to yourselves. May I

point out that Matt. 10:8 describes the power Christ gave
to His Apostles, and Paul said, preaching without charge
was the correct way and method not to abuse those God-
given powers. You preach for charge, and it's interesting to

note that not one of these powers is found in your

churches. (2 Cor. 12:16-18; I Tim. 3:3; I Pet. 5:1-3)

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA: You mean to tell me

that you have healing in your Church? That is absurd - and
I am sure the dead have been raised in your church also?

107
MISSIONARIES: It would do you no good if I told you
of the personal experiences that I know to be true. You
don't have the faith to believe in the works or the leaders of
Christ, anyway. He has sent apostles and prophets, and has
given such great signs that they are unmistakable. Christ
told His Apostles, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that

believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and

greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my
Father." (John 14:12) I will testify that Mormon apostles
and Prophets have the same spiritual gifts today, and that
those gifts are in the Church.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: James 5 14 tells us that elders

have the power to heal the sick. YOURE an elder, can YOU
heal the sick?

MISSIONARIES: Yes. Through the power of the Lord, I

can heal the sick if it is His will, and there have been
apostles in our Church who have raised the dead.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: I don't believe it. I'll tell you

what. I have a friend over at St. Luke's Hospital that is a

member of our congregation. Let's go over right now, and

if you heal her, then I will believe that your elders have this

power.

MISSIONARIES: I can't believe what I just heard. You're

asking for a sign. In the New Testament we read that the

first request for a sign was given by none other than Satan
to Christ. So I'll give you the same answer Christ gave to
Satan, "Get thee behind me, Satan." (Matt. 4:10) Christ
could not perform the mighty works of God in his

hometown, Nazareth, because of the great disbelief The

108
Pharisees asked for a sign in Matt. 12:38, just like you have
done, and said, "Master, we would see a sign from thee,"
and he replied, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh
after a sign." To perform God's work requires faith, and I

could put your combined faith in healing in the end of a

thimble.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: That's a pretty slick way to slide

out of it — saying you can work miracles and then not show
us any because we're sign-seekers.

MISSIONARIES: You should have been a Pharisee. I have

many books that speak of miracles performed by our
leaders and our membership. I have the testimonies of the
people who have healed by the power of the Priesthood, but
you would disregard them anyway.
Gentlemen, you are of little faith. Your churches do not
even resemble the original church. Paul said, "our gospel
came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in
the Holy Ghost, and much assurance; as ye know what
in

manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thes.

1:5) Yet he told the Galatians (1:6-8) that even if an angel
from heaven were to preach another gospel, he would be
accursed. Yet your gospel comes in word only and yet each

one of you has a different gospel interpretation. I have

never seen so many gospels in a room in my life, and yours
does not come in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in the

assurance.

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH: Our gospel comes with all

of these signs - tongues and healings, miracles, and works.

109
MISSIONARIES: In the scriptures, we read where Satan
would have great power in the last days, even to deceive the

very elect. We read where Simon the Sorcerer performed

great miracles and wonders — yet Philip, through Gods
power performed greater miracles. You could always
recognize the truth from the false by their line of authority.
You could trace it directly to the apostles and prophets,
whom Christ placed in the church, "till we all come in a

unity of the faith," and as its "foundation."

Before Pharaoh, the magicians performed miracles, yet
Moses, by God's power, performed greater miracles.
Though you place yourselves as the Church of the
Pentecost, you can't come within 1800 years in your line of

authority.

I have heard the same claims of "great signs'' from the

Church of God, the Christian Science Church, the
Holiness Church, Foursquare Church of God in Christ, and
the Church of the Living God-the Pillar of Ground and
Truth. This last one, I might add, teaches that Christ was a

Negro and made a claim that the Jewish race was Negro.

Some of the scriptures they use to support that claim are:

Romans 1:3, proves that Christ came from the Seed of

David, whom Psalms 119:83 infers, "become like a bottle

in the smoke." Also, Job is claimed to have been a negro, Job

30:30; Jeremiah was a negro, Jeremiah 8:21; and Moses*
wife was black, Jeremiah 13:23.
These churches, gentlemen, speak in tongues, heal, and
claim to be the Divine Church. All claim the others to be
false, yet all have the same signs. That is why the Lord had
a definite organization to recognize the true church. As we
have proven earlier, the Lord worked through all of the
offices of His Priesthood.

110
 PART THIRTEEN

LUTHERAN MINISTER: I learn from Mormon writings

that we shall be judged by our works, yet Ephesians 2:8-9
reads, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any
man should boast." Acts 16: 3 I tells us that Paul told the
Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house/' Romans 1:16-17 tells

us that the gospel of Christ is, "the power of God unto

salvation to everyone that believeth." In the light of these

passages, why do you teach works?

MISSIONARIES: This is why, my friends, Peter said

Pauls writings concerning salvation were hard to be
understood.
I am sure this is why Luther wrote in Philip
Melanethon, (Christian Apologies Vol. 2, page 417), and
said, "We must sin as long as we are in the flesh ... Sin
cannot separate us from God, even if we were to commit a

thousand adulteries and many homicides/' as

We read, however, in I John 2:4, "He that saith, I know

him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the
truth is not in him."
I think this doctrine of "saved by grace" is one of the
most misunderstood doctrines in the world today.

Revelations 20:12-13, speaking of the judgment day,

informs us that all were judged, "according to their works."

Matthew 1 6:27 as well, informs us of Christ's declaration
that, "the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and he shall reward every man according to
his works." Paul said in Philippians 2:12, "Work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling." We are saved by
grace, after we do all that we can do for ourselves.

ii i
 The Jews were firm believers in the "works of the law."
So these great apostles would often write and tell them that
these works would not save them. We are all going to be
saved by the grace of Christ, but be rewarded for our works
done in the flesh.

Christ did provide for ALL of us three main works to

show that it was by His grace we should be saved, and
therefore erased any chance of our boasting. We could not
have done these three things for ourselves, and we are

thereby saved by His grace:

1. He created the earth upon which we are privileged

to live. (Colossians 1:16-17)

2. He atoned for the transgression of our first

parents, which brought death into the world. Thus

was made possible the resurrection from the grave,
or the reuniting of the body and spirit. (I

Corinthians 15:22, James 2:26)

3. By giving us the Everlasting Gospel, He became the
author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey

Him. (Hebrews 5:9)

These things we could never do for ourselves, and

therefore it is His grace that makes them possible. However,
as Heb. 5:9 teaches, He was the author of Salvation for
those that obey Him. If you replace the word "grace" with
"the Plan of Salvation," all the scriptures with the word
grace in them would make more sense.

CATHOLIC PRIEST: I read in the Book of Mormon

(Moroni 8:9), where you teach it is solemn mockery to
baptize little children, yet we read in Psalms 51:5, "Behold,
I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me." This, coupled with Christ's own word, "Except a man

112
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God/' (John
3:3), goes to show that it is a wicked teaching and an
absurdity to damn innocent children by not baptizing them.

MISSIONARIES: Innocent children are not damned

because they miss the ceremony of sprinkling.
When David spoke those words that you quote, he had
recently been chastened by Nathan the Prophet, who
prophesied the death of the child that was to be born to
David and Bethsheba, the woman with whom he had
committed adultery. In this moment of great sorrow and
anguish, David spoke bitterly of himself and his sins, even
to the point where he considered himself "shapen in

iniquity: and "conceived in sin."

Paul wrote in I Corinthians; "What, know ye not that

your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you,

which we have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are
bought with a price, wherefore glorify God, in your body,
and in your spirit, WHICH ARE GOD'S." In other words,
the scriptures tell us that our very bodies are Gods. But
Father Donelly, you are affirming that these innocent
babies, which are Gods children, right from his presence,

are sinful. Paul taught, "Where no law is, there is no

transgression." (Romans 4:15)
Since little children have no law, they have not
transgressions. They have only inherited the effects of the

sin committed by Adam. Paul stated, "Wherefore as by one

man sin entered into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and
so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned:... even so by the righteousness of one of the free

gift came upon men unto justification of life. For as by

all

one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the

obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans
5:12,18-19)

113
 Therefore, Paul was teaching that physical death,
resulting from the sin of Adam, was what we inherit from
him. And Christ paid for that sin so that "all would be
made alive." (I Cor. 15:22). Yet, baptism and the Holy
Ghost are necessary. So Peter taught, "Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and TO
YOUR CHILDREN." (Acts 2:38-39).
Which children? The ones that are able to repent, as

Acts 2:2 3 points out. Whenever baptism was taught, it

followed belief or repentance. Hence, Christ said, "He that

believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that

believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 1 6: 1 6) That is why
we don't baptize little children, and why it is not
abominable.
Baptism is for the remission of our own sins, not for
the remission of Adam's sin. The precious blood of Christ
paid for that. (Romans 5:12-19, I Cor. 15:21-22)
Therefore, Christ taught, when He took little children in
His arms, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven (God)."
(Matt. 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16)

CATHOLIC PRIEST: The Latter-day Saints teach that

the Sacrament of the Lord's supper was not meant as Christ
said it. Speaking of the bread He said, "Take, eat; this is my
body." And He instructed them likewise when He told
them to drink the wine, "this is my blood." (Matt. 26:26-
28)
Therefore, they have interpreted Christ's precious
words to be those of little meaning — and only take the
bread and water in remembrance of Him.
I ask you, and challenge you, by every fiber of my being

14
to explain why Christ said something that He did not
mean. Will you accept that challenge?

MISSIONARIES: Absolutely, since you concede to the

previous answer.
We maintain that He did not mean Roman
it literally.

Catholics consider the sacrament or holy communion as the

"miracle of the Transubstantiation," or the literal

transformation of the biscuit and wine into the actual,

living, body and blood of Jesus Christ.
You will notice that all of Christ's miracles were
followed by evidences; such as the blind seeing, the lame
walking, and the dead living once again. In this miracle of
transubstantiation we find a "mysterious miracle" which
produces no evidence whatsoever.
Before we examine the scriptures that you refer to so
literally, I must assume that you take all related scriptures

equally as literal. Jesus said in John 6:3 5, "I am the bread

of life." Since you claim so strongly that Christ literally
meant that the bread of His last supperWAS His body,
then you must also claim that His body WAS REALLY
BREAD.
Your claim, that Christ literally meant what He spoke
in those last hours, is blasphemous. First, when He partook
of the bread and wine in the upper chamber at the Last

Supper, it would be your interpretation that they ate and

drank His body and blood, and this before His crucifixion.
Please excuse me, but that sounds more like cannibalism
than Christian doctrine.
As we examine the scriptures found in Matt. 26:26-29,
we read something different than what you quoted; "Take,
eat: this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks,
and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my

115
blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins. But WILL NOT I say unto you, I

DRINK HENCEFORTH OF THIS FRUIT OF THE

VINE, UNTIL THAT DAY WHEN I DRINK IT NEW
WITH YOU IN MY FATHERS KINGDOM."
Notice that after they had partaken of the Lords
Sacrament, He said He would not drink of the "fruit of the
vine," not flesh and blood, until that day when He would
drink with them in His father's kingdom.
Paul clarified the true teaching of the sacrament in I

Cor. 1 1:26 when he said, "For as often as ye eat this bread

(not his body) and drink this cup (not blood) ye do shew
THE LORD'S DEATH TILL HE COME!" That is why
we know it is not literal — and there is no mysterious
conversion of the sacramental emblems.
Paul further taught in Heb. 10:10-12, "By the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of
ONCE FOR ALL... But this man, after HE
Jesus Christ
HAD OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SIN FOR
EVER, sat down on the right hand of God." The great

sacrifice has been offered, and we now partake of the bread

and cup in remembrance of this great sacrifice.

ATHEIST: How seriously do you and your people accept

the Old Testament as it stands today? I make reference to
the creation and story of Adam and Eve, along with some of
those fantastic stories like Jonah and the whale, and Job
with all his suffering.

MISSIONARIES: Yes, sir, we accept them literally. We

read in the scriptures where the Holy Ghost leads the
apostles to the truth — and with God all things are possible.
For instance, we read in 2 Peter 2: 1 6 that Peter, an Apostle

16
of the Lord, believed the account in Numbers 22:28 where
an ass spoke to Balaam. We find where Christ believed the
story of Jonah and the whale (Matt. 12:40), and that Paul,
who learned the gospel of Jesus Christ, believed in the
account of Adam and Eve. (I Tim. 2:13-15)
If I affirm a belief in the Christian Disciples and their
faith, I must firmly believe in their teachings. They were
chosen by the Lord and taught by Him.
It is a shame that many of the religious organizations
represented here today by these ministers do not accept the
account of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit anymore.
And yet they teach that God's apostles were inspired. You
think these stories are fantastic? I find this inconsistency
fantastic! It just doesn't make sense to me.

SALVATION ARMY: I understand that it is one of the

first four principles of your gospel that baptism should be
performed, and that a man cannot live again with God
unless he is baptized. Why does a little ceremony like

baptism remain necessary in the Latter-day Saint Church?

MISSIONARIES: Christ, speaking to a group of

Pharisees and lawyers, said on one occasion, "And all the

people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God,

being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees
and lawyers rejected the council of God against themselves,

being not baptized of him." (Luke 7:29-30)

We then learn it was the council of God to be baptized,

and as Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount, "Not every

one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the

kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father

which is in heaven."

That means, in my mind at least, to be in keeping with

the will of the Father and His council, we must be baptized.

117
I find nowhere in the scriptures where that council has been
rescinded.
We read in I Peter 1:22-25, that the word of the Lord
was to endure forever, and that by obeying the truth
contained in the gospel and which was preached unto them,
the souls of the saints would be purified. In other words,

they were to be born again (baptized) and follow the word

of the Lord forever.

Galatians 3:27 tells us, "for as many of you as have

been baptized into Christ have put on Christ/' It goes on
to say in verse 29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise." It is

by baptism that we receive the "adoption of sons" and

become the sons and daughters of Abraham and of God.
Peter taught that baptism preceded salvation. (Acts
2:28) Paul taught baptism just as emphatically in Romans
6:3-5- Baptism is not just a ceremony, but a vow and a
covenant we make with the Lord that we will serve him and
keep his commandments. By it we receive forgiveness of sin,
and complete remission from its effects.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: But as long as we are in the

flesh we will sin. Sin cannot separate us from God. Christ
died for our sins, and we shall live again with Him.

MISSIONARIES: You should have taught Paul that

principle, because he said in Hebrews 10:26, "For if we sin

willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the

truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins/' In other

words, sir, Christ's death is of no value to you.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: Well, maybe we can prevent

sins, but I would like to ask you, in all sincerity, why you go

118
around trying to convert people to your church? All we need
to do is to serve Christ, and it doesn't matter to which
church you belong.

MISSIONARIES: I will have to strongly disagree with

you. Paul taught that there should be, "no division among
you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same
mind and in the same judgment/' (I Cor. 1:10)

Peter taught the same principle in I Peter 3:8, when he

said, "Finally, be of one mind." Paul shows us, "one Lord,
one Faith, and one Baptism," and we say the same.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: In other words, all the good

we are doing in the world then is wrong — and the Mormons
will be the only ones to go to heaven? Is that what you are
trying to say?

MISSIONARIES: I don't doubt for a moment the

sincerity of your ministers today, but I think Paul can
answer that question better than I can.

I hope you will memorize this passage because it is

good He said in Romans 10:1-3, "BRETHEREN,

advice.

MY HEART'S DESIRE AND PRAYER TO GOD FOR

ISRAEL IS, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. FOR
I BEAR THEM RECORD THAT THEY HAVE A
ZEAL OF GOD, BUT NOT ACCORDING TO
KNOWLEDGE. FOR THEY BEING IGNORANT OF
GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND GOING ABOUT
TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS,
HAVE NOT SUMITTED THEMSELVES UNTO THE
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD."
As we have established here today, you have left the
doctrines of Christ by your creed and interpretations. We,

119
therefore, give two years of our life to the Lord to guide all

people to the truth.

Paul wrote to Timothy and told him to, "Hold fast the

form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me." (2

Tim. 1:13) With this same principle in mind he wrote to
the Ephesians, "Wherefore I also... Cease not to give

my prayers, that
thanks for you, making mention of you in
THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE
FATHER OF GLORY, MAY GIVE UNTO YOU THE
OF WISDOM AND REVELATION IN THE
SPIRIT
KNOWLEDGE OF HIM." (Eph. 1:15-17) What Paul
prayed for, you deny. Joseph Smith received from God a

revelation of the "knowledge" of Him, but you accept

"diverse and strange" doctrines.

LUTHERAN MINISTER: You make in your church such

trivialities as baptism by immersion and bread and water in

your sacrament to be so deathly important. Why does it

matter which way you are baptized, or how you go about

serving the Lord?

MISSIONARIES: The Greek word for baptism means to

immerse or be buried. All the baptisms in the Holy
Scriptures were done by immersion, and Paul thought it was
important enough that people not change these ordinances
that he wrote, "now, I praise you, brethren, that ye
remember me in all things, and KEEP THE
ORDINANCES, as I delivered them to you." (I Cor.
11:2) In other words, Paul did not want the bishop of
Carthage, in the 3rd century, to initiate new rules for

baptizing, because the form was to be by immersion.

METHODIST CHURCH: If your church is true, why are

there so few members in it?

20
MISSIONARIES: Because Christ said, "Straight is the
gate, and narrow the way, which leadeth unto life, and few
there be that find it." (Matt. 7:14) However, we are the
fastest growing church in the world today.

PART FOURTEEN

METHODIST CHURCH: I would like to ask you some

questions about Joseph Smith. If he was a prophet, why did
his wife and son leave the Mormon Church and join the
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
whose headquarters is in Missouri?
Also, if why did the Three
your church is true,

Witnesses, who were supposedly shown the Gold Plates of

the Book of Mormon by an angel, leave the Mormon
Church and hold bitterness against Smith? And I might add
that several of the eight other men who also were shown the
plates by Smith himself also left the Church and held him
in low esteem.
If it were Gods Church, there would only be love and
harmony in it. And at least his own family would have
stayed in the church.

MISSIONARIES: Your question surprises me. Christ

said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I

tell you, Nay, but rather division: For from henceforth there
shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and
two against three. The father shall be divided against the

son, and son against the father; the mother against the
daughter, and the daughter against the mother." (Luke
12:51-53) So the Gospel would divide homes and this was
literally fulfilled even in the home of the Prophet.

121
 "

Your statement, that the three witnesses being out of

harmony with the Prophet is a qualification for identifying
a false church, would then make the original church false.

We read in Acts 1 5: 3 9-4 1 , where Paul and Barnabas

disagreed so strongly, "and the contention was so sharp
between them, that they departed asunder one from the
other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
and Paul chose Silas, and departed/'
Also, in Galatians 2:11 we read, "But when Peter was
come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he
was to be blamed.

ANGLICAN CHURCH: Speaking of the Three

Witnesses, I have before me a pamphlet entitled, "An
Address to all Believers in Christ/' by Mr. David Whitmer,
one of the Three Witnesses. In this pamphlet, he describes
the solemn mockery of the Latter-day Saint Church, and his
contempt for its leaders. His closing words are, "Oh foolish
Latter-day Saints/' and his final plea is for them to return
to Christ.

I'll bet you didn't know that David Whitmer denied

your church and wrote against it, did you?

MISSIONARIES: He never denied the church, just some

of its practices. He was a man embittered and, yes, he left
the church. But your purpose here today is not to
investigate his feelings about the Church, but as a

prosecution, to show me where he stated that it was false,

or that he had borne a false witness about the plates. I really

don't care about the pamphlet, and yes, I have heard of it.

To show what kind of faith this man did have, and

because his veracity had been questioned, on March 19,
1 88 1, David Whitmer published the following statement
in the Richmond Conservator, the paper of his hometown:

122
Unto all nations, kindred, tongues and people unto
whom these presents shall come: It having been
represented by one John Murphy of Polo (Caldwell
County), Missouri, that I had in a conversation

with him last summer, denied my testimony as one

of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon...
To the end, therefore, that he may understand
me now if he did not then, and that the world may
know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in

the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once

for all to make this public statement:

That I have never at any time denied that

testimony or any part thereof, which has so long
since been published with that book, as one of the
three witnesses. Those who know me best, will
know that I have always adhered to that testimony.
And that no man may be misled or doubt my
present views in regard to the same, I do now again
affirm the truth of all my statements as then made
and published.
He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; it was
no delusion. What is written is written and he that
readeth let him understand. And if any man doubt,
should he not carefully and honestly read and
understand the same before presuming to sit in

judgment, and condemning the light which shineth

in darkness, and showeth the way of eternal life, as

pointed out by the hand of God?

In the Spirit of Christ who hath said follow

thou me, for I am the life, the light and the way, I

submit this statement to the world, God in whom

I trust being my Judge, as to the sincerity of my
motives and the faith and hope that is in me of
eternal life. My sincere desire is that the world may

123
 be benefited by the plain and simple statement of
the truth.
And all the honor be to the Father, the Son and
the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
It is signed, David Whitmer Richmond, Missouri,
March 19, A.D. 1881.

This document bears the signatures of 21 leading

citizens of Richmond, Ray County, Missouri, along with
this endorsement.
We, the undersigned, citizens of Richmond, Ray
County, Missouri, where David Whitmer, Sr., has
resided since the year, A.D. I838, certify that we
have been long and intimately acquainted with him,
and know him to be a man of the highest integrity,
and of undoubted truth and veracity — Given at

Richmond, Missouri, this March 19, A.D. 1 88 1.

The following comment was also published in the

Richmond "Conservator":

Elsewhere we publish a letter from David Whitmer,

Sen., and old and well known citizen of Ray, as well

as an endorsement of his standing as a man, signed

by a number of the leading citizens of this
community, in reply to some unwarranted
aspersions made upon him.
There is no doubt that Mr. Whitmer, who was one
of the Three Witnesses of the authenticity of the
gold plates, from which he asserts that Joe Smith
translated the Book of Mormon (a facsimile of the
characters he now has in his possession with the
original records) is firmly convinced of its divine

24
 origin, and while he makes no effort to obtrude his

views or belief, he simply wants the world to know

that so far as he is concerned there is no
'Variableness or shadow of turning." Having
resided here for a half of a century, it is with no
little pride that he points to his past record, with
the consciousness that he has done nothing
derogatory to his character as a citizen and a

believer in the Son of Mary to warrant such an

attack on him, come from what source it may, and
now, with the lilies of seventy-five winters crowning
him like an aureole, and his pilgrimage on earth well
night ended, he reiterates his former statement and
will leave futurity to solve the problem that he was
but a passing witness of its fulfillment.

There you have it, gentlemen, in his own words. The

testimony of David Whitmer still stands as a witness to all

the world that the Book of Mormon, and the Church, is

true.

PART FIFTEEN

METHODIST CHURCH: I understand that in your

church you have tithing, fast offerings, fast days, and that
not all of your apostles appoint officers in your church.
Can you produce for me evidences from the New Testament
where these practices were found in the early church?

MISSIONARIES: I certainly will. For tithing read Matt.

23:23 and you will find that Christ taught the principle.

Fasting was a principle mentioned many times, but for

125
a reference look at I Cor. 7*5* And for the Fast offering, see

I Cor. 16:2.
As for the membership appointing leaders rather than
the apostles, read Acts 6. Here, at the direction of an
Apostle, seven men were chosen by the congregation to
administer to the daily needs of the widows. But you will
find, that even though the membership chose the men who
would administer in their behalf, the apostles, having the
authority, laid hands on them and set them apart for the
work they would do.
These are all doctrines of the early church. There are so

many more scriptures on this subject that it would waste

our time to show them to you.

BAPTIST CHURCH: I have a question. Which comes

first, the Priesthood or baptism, in the Mormon Church?
You see, I challenge you to show me a passage or verse
where the apostles were baptized into the church. Also a

passage or verse to show me who did it, since John 4:2

informs us that Christ did not baptize.
Also, can a man hold the Priesthood without being
baptized?

MISSIONARIES: The cases are few and far between, but

a man can hold the Priesthood without being baptized.
Joseph Smith received the Priesthood from John the
Baptist, and then baptized Oliver Cowdery, and the same is

true in reverse.
Our Lord, in Matt. 10:1-3, gave His Apostles His
power and authority (also Luke 9:1), and I guess, due to
your own lack of knowledge, you did not read in Matt.
20:20-23 where Christ promised James and John that they
were to be baptized.

26
 You have also forgotten that it was the "counsel" and
"will" of God for them to be baptized of John. (Luke 7:29-

30) Also, the baptism could have been performed by

anyone who had the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood, which
Priesthood the Jews held.
As for Jesus not baptizing, you only need to turn to
John 3:22,26 to find evidence that He did, in fact, baptize

many people.

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH: I understand you can also

dance in the Mormon Church. Wouldn't you say that is

breaking the law of God?

You had better not use the Old Testament to point out

the dancing there, because it was a religious ceremony. Why

do you dance in your church?

MISSIONARIES: Christ apparently approved of dancing,

because in His parable of the "Prodigal Son" He said,

"Now his elder son was in the field: and he came and drew
nigh to the house, HE HEARD MUSICK AND
DANCING." (Luke 15:25)
We believe dancing is proper under wholesome
circumstances that are properly chaperoned.

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH: The scriptures tell us that,

"The law and the Prophets were until John: since that time
thekingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth

into it." (Luke 1 6: 1

6)
What's more, we read in Matt. 21:37-39, in Christ's
parable of the husbandmen, that He compares Himself to
the son that, "Last of all he sent unto them his son... they
said among themselves, this is the heir; come, let us kill

him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught

him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him."

127
 We find, therefore, that Christ was the last prophet sent
to the world, and John was the last prophet sent to the Jews.
How do you explain that?

MISSIONARIES: That's quite an interpretation you

made of those scriptures. Luke tell us the, "law and
Prophets were until John:" and since Acts 3:22 tells us that
Christ was a prophet and he came after John, undoubtedly
it referred to the law in Luke 1 6, and Christ did away with
that law.
Your belief that Christ was the last prophet sent to the
world confirms you ignorance of the scriptures. You failed
to go on to read that He was merely the last prophet sent
to the Jews. Read Matt. 21:46.
Acts 1 1:27 tells us that after the death of Christ there
were prophets at Jerusalem. Acts 15:32 tells us that Judas
and Silas were prophets, and Acts 21:10 tells us Agabus was
a prophet. You also forgot that Christ chose those apostles,
who were also prophets.
The scriptures prove that Eph. 4:11-13 meant that
there were to be apostles and prophets in the Church after

Christ died and that there are always to be living prophets

and apostles, "until we come to a unity of the faith."

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS: If I am not mistaken, you salute

flags and join the Military services, whose purpose it is to

kill. You vote in elections and support earthly governments

instead of God's Kingdom.
Why do you do this in the light before the eyes of the
world, and then hypocritically declare, "Thou shalt not

kill," and, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image?"

128
MISSIONARIES: The answer is simple. Christ taught the
multitude in Matt. 23:2-3 that, "the scribes and Pharisees
sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their

works: (Religious) for they say, and do not."

Paul taught, "I exhort therefore, that, first of all,

supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks,

be made for all men; FOR KINGS, AND FOR ALL
THAT ARE IN AUTHORITY; that we may lead a quiet
and peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty. For this is

good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior." (I

Tim. 2:1-3)
Paul also taught in 2 Cor. 3:17 that, " Where the spirit
of the Lord is, there is liberty." We have liberty in the land
of America, and I would fight and die to preserve that
liberty that has been God-given and support our leaders.

Also, Christ paid taxes and thereby observed the Law of

the Land as I Tim. 2:1-3 explains.

PART SIXTEEN

CATHOLIC PRIEST: Gentlemen, we have been in here

now for quite a long time, and we have not heard or seen

these gentlemen point out to us where the Church of our

Lord was to have fallen away. In Matt. 28:19-20, the Lord
promised to be with His Church "always, even unto the end
of the world."
In Eph. 3:21, we read, "Unto him be glory in the

church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages." It is absurd to

suppose and imagine that the Lord would come to the earth
and bring His church, only to have it fall away.

We have the Papacy that can be traced right to Saint

Peter and the Church of Rome. We have the traditions and

129
writings of the Apostolic Fathers for the past 1800 years.

These men of the world have their Bibles today, courtesy of

those valiant monks who preserved the sacred writings of
the apostles.
Paul said in Hebrews 12:28, "Wherefore we receiving a

kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace." In

Hebrews 13:5 the Lord said, "I will never leave thee, nor
forsake thee."
Christ said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this

rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." These young men claim that the gates of
Hell did prevail against it. The apostles gave their authority
to the bishops and the Church today has the three marks:

1. in doctrine, authority, and worship. Holy, perfect

observance of its teachings leads inevitably to

sanctity.

2. Catholic — it is unchanging in its essential

teachings and preaches the same gospel and
administers the same sacraments to men of all

times in all places.

3. Apostolic — It traces its ancestry back to the

apostles and, like them, carries the message of
Christ to all, regardless of race, nationality, station,

or class.
Could anyone possibly imagine Christ putting His
Church on the earth and then letting it be destroyed?

MISSIONARIES: In the first place, we have already

proven that you do not teach many of the doctrines
recorded in the Bible. The scriptures and the conditions
that we live under in this present day prove that there was
truly an apostasy from the divine church.

130
 Amos (8:11), along with many of the great prophets of
the Old Testament foresaw this apostasy when he said that
there would be a "famine in the land, not a famine of bread,
nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the
Lord:"
Isaiah foresaw that the Church of Jesus would break the
EVERLASTING COVENANT (Isaiah 24:5), established

by Christ. The law of Moses was never referred to as the

everlasting covenant, so it had to be Christ's Church.

Micah saw the day when the sun would go over the
prophets; there would be no more visions, inspirations, or
guidance from on high, and then he gave the reassuring
hope that "in the last days," Gods church would be set up
"in the tops of the mountains." And in reference to

mountain tops, there are better than a dozen scriptures that

tell us that the church would be established in the
mountain tops, and the Mormons have the only church
today which has its headquarters in the mountain tops. By
these scriptures alone we prove who we are. (Micah 3:5-7,
II, and Micah 4:1-3)
Daniel (2:44) foresaw a kingdom which would "never
be destroyed" nor given to another people, yet Christ's
kingdom was given to another people (Matt. 21:43), and

later destroyed and taken from the earth.

There were two causes for the Apostasy, internal and
external. The external came at the death of the Lord's

chosen twelve apostles.

Foxe, in his Book of Martyrs, records the fate of this

chosen group, and I have added other leaders along with the
apostles.

Here are copies of the list which you may keep. The
asterisk by the name means that they were referred to in the

Bible as apostles:

131
PERSON METHOD OF DEATH YEAR AD LOCATION
I. * Judas Iscariot Suicide-hanging 34 Jerusalem

2. * James the Great Beheaded

, 36 Rome
brother of John,

son of Zebedee

3. * Thomas (doubting) Run through with a lance 52 Calamina,

East India

4. * Philip Scourged, imprisoned, 52 Phyrgia

stoned, crucified

5. * Bartholomew Dragged, flailed alive, 52 Albinopolis,

crucified, beheaded Armenia

6. * Simon Peter Crucified upside down 56 Rome

7. * Matthew, Run through with a lance 60 Madabah,

called Levi, Ethiopa

Son of Alphaeus
8. * James the Less, Thrown from pinnacles, 60
Son of Alphaeus beaten, stoned, brains dashed out

with a fuller's club

9. * Paul Beheaded 66 Rome

* Mathias Stoned and Beheaded
10. 70 Ethiopia

11. *Thaddaus, Shot with arrows 72-76 Edessa

brother of James

(could be Jude)

12. * Barrabas Stoned to death 73 J

13- Timothy Beaten with clubs 73

->

14- Luke Hanged on an olive tree 73 Greece

* Barnabus Stoned to death Salancan
15- 73

16. Mark Dragged to pieces, burned to death 74 Egypt

17- * Simon (Zelotes ) Crucified 74 Britain

* Andrew, Burned to death Patrae

1 8. 74
brother of Peter

19- *
John the Beloved, Banished to Patmos No record No record

brother of James until 96 A.D.

the Great

20. Matthew Slain with a battle^ax )

India

21. * )
James, Stoned, beaten with a fuller's clut » ?

brother of Jesus

22. Judas, brother of 5

? Edessa

Jesus (could be Ji ide)

# Judas, Silas, Agabus: Acts 11:27; 15:32; 21:10. ..Prophets Acts 13:1

132
 Now, this list contains 17 men who are known to be
apostles, and who were also prophets. Those who were not
numbered among that quorum were people who received
their authority directly from the apostles. This points out
that apostolic succession had an end brought about by
force, not by choice.
You will notice that Timothy, whom the Catholics
sometimes claim as the one who gave them their authority,
was not an apostle, and that he died without passing his
authority on to anyone. With the death of the apostles, who
were the foundations of the Church, and other noted
leaders, the church began its great collapse.

However, this was not accomplished until internal

Apostasy had begun. Paul, fearing this, said, "For I know
this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in
among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away

disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30) He told the saints

in Thessalonica that before Christ's second coming, there
will first come a falling away and the man of sin had to be
revealed. (The Catholic Bible states that the word
"Apostasy'' means complete falling away.)

Many scriptures point to the times of this destruction.

Among them are 2 Thes. 2:2-3, Acts 3:20-21, 2 Tim. 3:1-

7, 2 Peter 3:3* etc.

In I Tim. 4:1-3 Paul shows us that a sign of the

Apostate Church would be that of "forbidding to marry"

and "commanding to abstain from meats." It was doctrines
like these that Paul said are "of devils."
The internal collapse of the Church came through three
channels:
I. The corruption of the simple principles of the

gospel by the admission of so-called philosophic

systems of the times.

133
 2. Unauthorized additions to the ceremonies of the
Church, and the introduction of vital changes in
essential ordinances.

3. Unauthorized changes in Church organization and

government.

It was from within the councils of the later church,

where many of these "divers and strange" doctrines were

often born. Hence our "incomprehensible" God, the Lords
Supper, the Trinity, and now the pomp and ceremony of the
church.
We also find the doctrine of the salvation of the Virgin
Mary, who was to have been taken to heaven by God. This
is a precept with no scriptural validity. The adoration of the
blessed virgin was quite contrary to Christ's way of
thinking towards his mother, (see Luke 1 1:27-28) We have
here a concept purporting her continuous virginity, which
we find contradicted by Matt. 1:25-
We have a papal claim of "infallibility," a doctrine
decreed 1800 years after the supposed first Pope of Rome.
All of these things were vital in causing the complete

destruction of all that was good, simple, and pure. We have

blasphemous statements concerning "forgiveness of sin" as

well as the elevation of mortal men to exalted positions.

We read of fantastic claims, unscriptural and
blasphemous, such as were given by Pope Paul VI in the
New York Times, Thursday, Sept. 26, 1962, where he
states, "Jesus Charged the Apostle Peter with being the
"cornerstone," the solid and. stable foundation of the entire
human-divine edifice that Jesus wanted to build and that he
called the church."

In answer to your questions, Matt. 28:19-20 was not

only a promise given to the Church, but as verse 1 6 points
out, ONLY TO THE APOSTLES.

134
 Eph. 3:21 has no reference to the Church of Jesus
Christ in ancient times, because the church referred to there
was in a "world without end/' This world has an end.
(Matt. 28:19-20)
Besides, the way the grammar of the Bible puts it, that
verse refers to the ROCK as the WAY Peter received the
truth, that is, by revelation. Hence the rock spoken of is

revelation, and the gates of hell have never prevailed against

it. And again, the continued need for prophets and apostles
is made manifest.
In answer to Heb. 12:28, Paul probably had reference to
the Kingdom of Heaven, because the kingdom of the Earth
could be moved. (Matt. 21:43)
As for Heb. 13:5, it was an identical promise given to
Joshua which merely points out that the Lord will be with
"all them that obey him." That the Church was to be
restored is verified in Acts 3:19-21, Matt. 17:1113, Rev.

14:6-7, and countless other places.

If Clement were the Pope in A.D. 96, like Catholic
tradition informs us, why didn't he, instead of John, receive

the revelation on the Isle of Patmos? Why wasn't he, nor

the Church of Rome, recognized? Why are the scriptures
completely void of any "transfer of authority" when the
apostles were to guide us into "all truth" and "unity"? Why
haven't the signs followed (Mark 1 6: 1 7- 1 8), nor the power

followed (Matt. 10:8)? Did it get lost in the transfer?

Where is Clement called a prophet or an apostle? Why

cheap and meaningless imitations of ordinances (I Cor.
11:2), and "divers and strange doctrines" (Heb. 13:9), like
the Virgin Mary, the Triune God, the Immaculate
Conception, Transubstantiation, the Line of the Papacy, the
history and corruption of the Papacy, no revelation. And yet

you claim Papal infallibility, (and that doctrine was not put
forth until Pius XI).

135
 Where do the Protestants have a leg to stand on? If they
claim the Church of Rome fell, (as did the Church of
England in her "homily against Peril of Idolatry" in the

Book of Homilies), then they cannot be true, because

Christ taught that a live branch cannot grow off a dead tree.

(Matt. 7: 1 8) If they can dare claim that it still had the

truth, they should have recognized its ordinances.

It was Roger Williams, considered by many to be the

founder of the Baptist Church, who stated on page 503 in
Picturesque America, that there was "no regularly constituted
church of Christ on earth, nor any person authorized to
administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until new
apostles are sent by the great head of the Church, for whose
coming, I am seeking."
I bear you solemn testimony that here has been a
restoration of all things, that there are living apostles and
prophets, as we have established here today, and that the
Church of Jesus Christ is here upon the earth in this
fullness in this latter day.

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA: Judge and

gentlemen, I would like to point out to you a definite
contradiction between Mormon writings and the Holy
Scriptures. I hold in my hand a book that is supposedly
inspired, the Doctrine and Covenants. Within this book are

the recorded revelations of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. We

read in Section 42, verse 1 8, where the Lord was to have
told the prophet, "And now, behold I speak unto the church.
Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have
forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come."
It's a good thing Joseph Smith wasn't back in Simon
Peter's shoes on the day of Pentecost when Peter, before the

vast multitude of people from "every nation under

136
Heaven, " and only 50 days since they had placed Christ on
the cross, declared: "Therefore, let all the House of Israel

know assuredly that God hath made Jesus, WHOM YE

HAVE CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)
We read where their guilt was so strong that, "when
they heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said
unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and
brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter declared, "Repent
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall

receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In the Mormon Church, if a man kills another, all hope
is lost. But in the Bible they can kill the Christ and be
forgiven. Now, I ask you, could anything be so plainly
contradictory?

MISSIONARIES: Your lack of ability to read a scripture

amazes me. Just because Paul would greet the brethren with
a "holy kiss" doesn't make him a Judas because Judas
betrayed the son of man with a kiss. You try to make a

contradiction of two completely different incidents.

You will notice in the Doctrine and Covenants that the
Lord was speaking to the members of the church who had
tasted of the good word of God, been baptized, received the
Holy Ghost, gained a knowledge of the worlds to come,
been sanctified, and from living apostles and prophets had
learned the will of God.
Paul said in Heb. 6:4-8, "for it is impossible for those
who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly
gift,and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world
to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto
repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of
God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

137
 After the knowledge and truths are revealed and a
witness of the Holy Spirit is given, this places a Latter-day

Saint in this position, and when they break the

commandment of murder, the consequences will not only
be for this life, but for the life to come.
Concerning the people which crucified the Lord, it

was Christ, himself, who said, "Father, forgive them for

they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34). As Paul said
in Romans, "Where there is no law, there is no
transgression."
Paul wrote to Timothy and said, "I was before a

blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained

mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." (I Tim.
1:13). Therefore, there is a great difference between killing

with a vast knowledge and a spiritual conviction of the

truth, and killing in complete ignorance and lacking a

spiritual conviction from the Holy Spirit.

We believe that a person (outside the church) who kills

another, will still be punished — because God will judge

"each man according to his works," but he could be forgiven
by sincere and humble repentance, coming forth under this

new light with a broken heat and contrite spirit.

There is a similar section dealing with adultery in

Section 42. If you should ask this question in relation to
its forgiveness, once again it is dealing with members of the
church, while Bible references were dealing with outsiders.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: I have before me a Book of

Mormon in which there are two contradictions that cannot
be explained. We read that in 147 B.C. as recorded in
Mosiah 1 8: 1 7 that, "they were called the Church of God,
or the Church of Christ, from that time forward, And it

came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and

n;
 "

authority of God was added to His church." Yet we read in

Matt. 1 6: 1 8 that Christ told Peter, "Upon this rock I

WILL BUILD MY CHURCH." This is future tense.

So was the Church first organized in 147 B.C., like the

Book of Mormon says, or in 3 3 A.D. like the Bible says?

We then read in Alma 46:11-15 that in 73 B.C. the

people in the Book of Mormon were called "Christians,
yet we read in Acts 11:26 that the people were Christians
"FIRST" at Antioch in approximately 45 A.D How is it

that a people were called Christians in the Book of

Mormon 108 years before they were called Christians
"FIRST" in Antioch, like the Bible says?

MISSIONARIES: I don't think you have an

understanding of the two records yet. I guess we will have
to take time and draw you a picture. Archeologists tell us
that definitely during the time of Christ, people lived upon
this the American Continent. (The Americas Before Columbus
— Farnsworth Publishing Company; The History of Ancient
America — George Jones, produced by Harper and Brothers;
Ancient Cities of the New World — produced by J.
Gononno and
Helen S. Conant and published by Harper and Brothers;
History of America Before Columbus — Peter DeRoo, published
by J.B. Lippincott Company of Philadelphia.) Now that we
have this fact definitely established, we can continue.
We will establish that the writers on the Eastern
Continent, where the Bible was written, had no
understanding that there was another race of people upon
this, the American Continent. We read in Acts 2:5 that on

the day of Pentecost, "there were dwelling at Jerusalem

Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." We

know that there were no American representatives at the

Pentecost festival or it would have been recorded.

j 9
 Paul wrote in Col. 1:23, "If ye continue in the faith,
grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the
hopes of the Gospel, which ye have heard and which was
preached to every creature which is under heaven; where of
I, Paul, am made a minister."

Eph. 3:8 informs us that Paul was sent to "preach

among the gentiles," and yet we have no record of his visit

to the people on this continent in any of his writings. So

we know that he wrote of the world he knew, which would
have been the old world, on the old continent. Christ
referred to his other sheep in the New World when in John
10:16 he said, "...other sheep I have which are not of this
fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;

and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

When He referred to the "other sheep," it could not
have been the gentiles, because Christ said in Matt. 15:24,
"I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Also in Matt. 12:21, He said, "And in His name shall the

Gentiles trust." Also see Isaiah 43:7-

CHURCH OF CHRIST: Christ was referring to a period

occurring during his lifetime, but after His resurrection He
told the disciples, "But ye shall receive power, after that the
Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses
unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria,

and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8).

Therefore, he was sent to the gentiles and it was they

who were the lost sheep.

MISSIONARIES: You will notice in John 1 0:1 6, that the

sheep Christ was referring to, "would hear his voice." The
gentiles never did hear his voice.

140
 Incidentally, Acts 1:8 also verified that the "uttermost

part of the earth" that they were familiar with was only
their own continent, and they fulfilled that command of
Christ.
Caiphas, prophesying of Christ's future mission, said,
concerning John 1 0:1 6, ".. .consider that it is expedient for
us, that one man should die for the people, and that the
whole nation perish not. AND NOT FOR THAT
NATION ONLY, but that also he could gather together in
one the children of God that were scattered abroad/' (John

11:50,52)
Now you can see, as we have pointed out, that there

were other sheep. They lived on another continent, and the

apostles did not have accessible means to preach the word
of God on the other side of the ocean. Therefore, those
other people had their own prophets. God, being just, will
reveal His word to all righteous people, and especially to
entire nations.

Their prophets had great revelations, and prophesied of

greater events concerning the birth of Christ, because he

was to live among another people. Therefore, they knew

this name would be Jesus Christ, so they took upon
themselves the name of "Christians."
When Luke wrote that they were called Christians
"first" at Antioch, that was according to his knowledge. He
had said earlier that Christ told the disciples they would
preach "to the uttermost parts of the earth." On Pentecost,

people were "gathered out of every nation under heaven, so

it is reasonable to assume that Luke's understanding was

that they were called Christians first in Antioch.

That was the first time on the old continent that the
people of that hemisphere were called by the name, but such
was not the case upon this continent, as we have
demonstrated and pointed out.

141
 The people on the American Continent, being a more
righteous nation, learned many years before the Savior's
birth that His name would be Jesus Christ. Consequently,
147 years before His birth, they named the Church after

him. They remained under the old law until his appearance
to them in 34 A.D. When he appeared to them and taught
them His principles, they did away with the Law of Moses
and accepted His teachings. He chose 12 Disciples on this
continent and did many wonderful things before these
people.
I think we have provided ample evidence that this is not
a contradiction, but rather a lack of knowledge due to a lack

of communication which prevented the writers of the New

Testament book to know of the events that were transpiring
on this continent.

If you say that they did know of these people, then that
leaves you to explain when the apostles would have gone
over and taught them the gospel, (Acts 1:8, Col. 1:23), or
how the American people made it over for the Day of
Pentecost. (Acts 2:5)

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH: Gentlemen, the Latter-day

Saints claim scriptural support for their belief that the
Bible prophesies of the coming forth of the Book of
Mormon. Among these scriptures, they take Ezekiel 37T6-
19, and they themselves use a scriptural rail split.

Speaking of the two sticks, (that of Judah and Joseph),

the Lord went on to say in verse 17 that these two sticks
that would become one in his hand. He then explained what
He meant, and notice that the Mormons do not quote this
part of the prophecy. "I will take the children of Israel from
the heathen, wither they be gone, and will gather them on
every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will

make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of

142
Israel: and one king shall be king of them all: and they shall

be no more two nations neither shall they be divided into

two kingdoms any more at all." (Ezk. 37:21-22) These
fellows use verses 15-20 to refer to the Book of Mormon,
but as verses 21-22 point out, Ezekiel was referring to the
reuniting of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms that
had been divided in fulfillment to the prophecy of Elijah.

Then in Isaiah 29:13-14, they claim that a fulfillment

to Joseph Smith and the restoration of the Mormon

Church as "This marvelous work and a wonder," yet we find
a direct fulfillment to verse 14 in I Cor. 1:19, Matt. 21:42,
and John 9:30.
The Latter-day Saints go on to say that verse 1 8 of
Isaiah 29, refers to the Book of Mormon, which was sealed,

when in actuality it refers to the Book of Revelations, which

also in parts had "sealed books."
They say Isaiah 29:4 refers to a literal fulfillment of the
prophecy that the Book of Mormon would "come forth
from the dust." Yet you will find that it actually refers to

Ariel, or the City of David, as verse I points out.

There you have it Elders. To my understanding, at least,

I have taken both of your Book of Mormon prophecies and

proven them false, using the Bible.

MISSIONARIES: I feel it is a great privilege to testify of

the divinity of the Book of Mormon.
I challenge the Pentecostal Minister on his

interpretation of Ezekiel 37 most emphatically. He took

two completely separate prophecies that had similarities
and tied them together trying to make them refer to the

same thing.
You will notice in Ezekiel 3 7: 1 6- 1 7, that they were

referring to the word "stick", and they were to WRITE

UPON IT. In ancient times they would record their

143
records on scrolls and roll them up on a stick as Jeremiah
36:2-8 very plainly points out. Ezekiel said that they were
to write upon these sticks — not for the two sticks to unite

as yet. One stick would be written for Judah and his

descendants, and the other stick for Joseph, with particular
reference to his son, Ephraim.
As we examine Joseph's blessing at the hand of his
father Jacob, (Gen. 49:22-26), we read where, "Joseph ls a
fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose

branches run over the wall." That the wall referred to a large
body of water is pointed out in Exodus 14^22, and notice,
his branches were to run "over" the wall, or over the water.

Then in verse 26, to confirm it was the land of the

Americas, we read, "The blessings of their father have
prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the
utmost bound of the everlasting hills."

The American Continent has the longest range of

mountains in the world, the Rockies. They stretch from one
tip of the North American continent down to the end of
South America.
Notice Joseph's branch (descendants) was to go "over
the ocean." The blessing to Joseph was perhaps the most
outstanding of the blessings given to the twelve Patriarchs.
The descendants of Joseph in the Book of Mormon, placed
in their record, genealogical evidence that they were that

"branch," and the evidence is indisputable.

The second part of the prophecy concerns the gathering
of the twelve tribes. As we have pointed out, however, the

sticks (books) were to be joined together first as Ezekiel

points out, and then the tribes were to be gathered and

become "one fold." The Book of Mormon is the "Stick of
Joseph", it has been joined with the "Stick of Judah," (The
Bible) , and they are one in the Lord's hand.

144
 In answer to Isaiah 29:13-14, I remind you that
prophecies can receive partial fulfillment. Christ never did
say the prophecy in Matt. 15:7-8 was fulfilled, but that it

merely referred to Isaiah's description of the troubled

conditions. Christ said, "it prophesied of them, "but it

could also have prophesied of "others/' Paul, likewise, made

reference to Isaiah's prophecy in I Cor. 1:19, and yet his
only comment was, "for it is written." As you can see, he
did not claim that it was fulfilled.

Whenever a prophecy is fulfilled the prophets almost

always indicated fulfillment. For example, "For these things
were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of
him shall not be broken." (John 1 9; 3 6) Also refer to Acts
3:22-23, Matt. 3:3, Isaiah 22:34 crossed with Luke 22:54-
62. The scripture in Matt. 21:42 did not fulfill Isaiah's

prophecy, but referred to Psalms 1 1 8:22.

Therefore, since the Bible did not teach that these

scriptures were fulfilled, and we have already established

that a scripture is fulfilled upon declaration of a prophet;

this only proves that all the reference you gave merely refer

to the prophecy, and that it awaited fulfillment.

That Isaiah 29: 1 8 refers to the Book of Revelations is

ridiculous, since the Book of Revelations does not "OPEN

THE EYES OF THE BLIND" and help them to see out
of obscurity. It is the most difficult of all the books of the

New Testament to understand and interpret. Also your

statement that Isaiah 29:11-12 refers to John and the
removal of the "Seven Seals," as in the Book of
Revelations," is ridiculous — because there is not a

fulfillment to the verse.

If you try to make Rev. 5:1-8 the fulfillment of Isaiah

29:11-12, you will fail, because the book that was "sealed"

145
was to be delivered to one that was learned and he would
declared he could not read a sealed book. It was then to be
delivered to one that was unlearned who would likewise say
he could not, not because it was sealed, but because he was
not an educated man.
John never stated in Rev. 5, that he could not read the
book, so it did not refer to John. You will notice that the
Book in Rev. 5 was delivered to one person, the Lamb of
God, and He opened the seals and read from it. It is

blasphemy to assume that Christ, who was learned "could

not read the book for it was sealed," — and then sat down
and read the book. It only goes to show the weakness of
your stand.

Another interesting thing you will notice in Isaiah

29:17 is that when this book was to come forth, Lebanon

was to be turned into a fruitful field. This was never
fulfilled at the time the Book of Revelations was written.
Only within the past 130 years has it blossomed and
become a fruitful field.

You will notice in Isaiah 29:4, that the book would

speak from the dust, "with a familiar spirit." The Book of
Mormon came from out of the ground (the dust) and its

language is similar to the Bible, and familiar to the ear.

Your interpretation of Ariel as the place it would come

from was mistaken. You will notice in verse 2, that Ariel,

(which is the city of David), was to be distressed, "and it

shall be unto me AS Ariel." In other words, the prophecy

would be fulfilled in a place like Ariel.

Psalms 85:1 1 also refers to the Book of Mormon, when

it said, "Truth shall spring out of the earth; and
righteousness shall look down from heaven."

146
CATHOLIC CHURCH: The scriptures tell us that there
were to be no other records added to the Bible. This is

pointed out in Rev. 22: 1 8, proving the Book of Mormon to

be a fraud.

MISSIONARIES: You will find identical statements in

Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, and using your logic, we
cannot accept any writings after Deuteronomy.
What John referred when he spoke of not adding to
"this book", was that anyone who added or subtracted from
the Book of Revelations would lose that portion in the life

to come.

The Bible was not even compiled at that time.

Chronologically speaking, Johns Book of Revelations was
not the last of the New Testament books to be written. So
we could pretty well exclude the majority of the New
Testament books written after 96 A.D., because they would
be adding to the Revelations received by John in his book.

PART SEVENTEEN

AGNOSTIC: Gentlemen, I think one of the most

interesting doctrines of the Mormon Church is God's
contradiction at the time of the Creation.
In 2 Nephi 2:25 of the Book of Mormon, it teaches

that, "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they

might have joy." In another of their writings, the Pearl of

Great Price, we read in Moses 5:11, that Eve said, "Were it

not for our transgressions we never should have had seed,

and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of
our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto

all the obedient."

147
 If this is the truth, can you prove to me from the Bible
that Adam could not have had children? Keep in mind that
the first command after his creation from the dust was to,

"multiply and replenish the earth."

This scripture seems, to me, to use a most absurd line

of logic. According to your doctrine, Adam had to break a

commandment — either partake of the forbidden fruit so he

could multiply and replenish the earth, or not partake of

the forbidden fruit and live forever without seed. That
sounds to me like a God of great contradiction — that He
would leave man without so much as a choice.

MISSIONARIES: The scriptures give a very accurate

description of the state of Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden prior to their partaking of the forbidden fruit. They
lived under ideal conditions — and all the fruits of the
garden were theirs, with the exception of two trees.

They had several great disadvantages, however. They

had been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth,

and yet they were in a state of innocence, "they were both

naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." (Gen.
2:25) As such, they had no fleshy urge to multiply, and they
didn't know the difference between good and evil.

I Peter 1: 18-20 informs us that Christ was

foreordained to come to this earth and atone for the sin of
Adam. By not partaking of the forbidden fruit, Adam and
Eve would have eliminated Christ's coming and saving of
the world. God had told them that, "in the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2:17)
Adam had to partake of the forbidden fruit and bring
death to the world, or Christ's foreordination would have
been useless — and He would not have been the Savior. God
knew that Adam would partake of the fruit when he gave

148
the commandment, because his son had already been
commissioned to save the world. It was when they partook
of the fruit that, "they knew that they were naked; and they
sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons/'
(Gen. 3:7)

God went on to tell them that they had become as

Gods, "knowing good and evil/' (Gen 3:22) Because of this

knowledge they had acquired, they were driven from the
garden and we find them fulfilling the first great
commandment, when, "Adam knew Eve his wife; and she
conceived." (Gen. 4:1)
Since there is no doubt that Christ was foreordained to

come into the world to "atone" for the sin of Adam, God
gave the first command to rule the second, and make way
for His beloved son. If Adam had not partaken of the fruit,
he would have remained in a state of innocence with Eve;
Christ would not have come into the world as he was

foreordained to do; and we would not have received the

opportunity of becoming, "as Gods, knowing good from
evil."

Truly this was the wisdom of God, to give the

commands as He did so that mankind could have been

born, and so Christ could come into the world and pay for

Adam's sin. It was, therefore, not a contradictory

commandment in that sense, because the infinite wisdom of
God knew how Adam and his wife would react, even in the
set of circumstances to which they would be subjected.
However, Adam still had his free agency.

ANGLICAN CHURCH: I understand, Elder, that the

Mormon Church had the largest welfare program in the

world. I think it is wonderful that your people take care of

149
their own. Out of curiosity, what scriptures do you use
from the Bible to support of this program?

MISSIONARIES: There are many, but I believe that Matt.

25:34-40 contains the most beautiful account. In this

account, Christ made a statement about those who had

given meat to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, a home to the
stranger, clothes to the naked, association to the sick, and
fellowship to the prisoner. Of these He said, referring to

the day of Judgment, ".. .Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as

ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,

ye have done it unto me."

ANGLICAN CHURCH: It is the doctrine of the

Mormon Church that Christ's blood is of no affect to some
— and therefore they came up with blood atonement. The
LDS Church has taken this from the Law of Moses. Hence
they teach capital punishment and request that a murderer
"offer his blood" to atone for his sin if he has killed
another.
I challenge you to produce from the teachings of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, any place that teaches this man-
made and abominable doctrine.
What I am pointing out is that if a Mormon were to kill

another person, he must atone for that sin WITH HIS

OWN BLOOD. Would you please explain the harmony of
that doctrine with the Bible?

MISSIONARIES: The doctrine of blood atonement was

practiced in the days of Moses, because the civil and
ecclesiastical laws were administered by the same hands.

Noah, who had the "everlasting covenant" with God,

and now had the fullness of the gospel, was commanded,
"Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be

150
shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Gen. 9:6)
Paul taught in Romans 1:25-32, that murder and many
forms of sexual sin "are worthy of death." Hebrews 5:9 tells

us that Christ was "the author of eternal salvation unto all

them that obey him." And yet "if we sin willfully after that

we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains

no more sacrifice for sins." (Hebrews 10:26)
The sin of murder is a direct violation of the will of
God, and makes necessary the personal "atonement" for

that crime. If it were not necessary, the Lord would not have
commanded it of Noah, who did not live under the law of
Moses.

METHODIST CHURCH: Christ did not ever teach that

doctrine! When they brought sinners before Him, He
would either forgive them, like the thief on the cross, or

send them on their way with the command to repent, such

as the lady caught in adultery. I still disagree that it's a

doctrine that was ever taught by the Savior.

MISSIONARIES: The challenge was to support it by

scripture — and this I have done.
The real problem is not blood atonement, but whether
Joseph Smith was a prophet. If he was, as we have proven
here today, then it was doctrine of the Lord. I have proven
form the scriptures that God commanded it, that it was
practiced and taught, and where Paul made reference to it.

Christ may have forgiven, by still we have the words

ringing through the "THEY WHICH DO SUCH

air that,

THINGS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM

OF GOD." (Gal. 5:19-21)
When committing sin, each individual does so amid a
varying set of circumstances. If anything, even in your

151
distorted view of this doctrine, a request for personal
atonement for a grievous sin would be an act of humble
repentance and, as such, a request for mercy from our
redeemer. Let's face it, an adulterous person is not only a

morally wicked person in body, but in spirit, and is a liar,

and a sign seeker. The doctrine was taught by the prophets

of God, and we have supported them from the scriptures.

CHURCH OF CHRIST: There is a definite contradiction

between the Bible and the Book of Mormon as to the time

of the crucifixion. The Bible, in Luke 23:44, places it

between the 6th and the 9th hours, (12-3 pm), while the
Book of Mormon in 3rd Nephi 10:9, has it "in the
morning. " This is a definite contradiction.

How could the reporting of the times for the

crucifixion be so different if God himself gave the sign to
the inhabitants of the American Continent?

MISSIONARIES: The answer to your question is more

than obvious, but also a testimony that the Book of
Mormon is authentic and true.
In the Book of Mormon, the writer was writing in the
northwestern part of present day South America. This is

about 120 degrees west of Jerusalem. Luke was writing his

account in Jerusalem. On a time scale, 3 p.m. in Jerusalem
would be about 7:00 a.m. on this continent.

So you can see, although Joseph Smith, or the writers

on the North American Continent, could not have
recognized this little discrepancy, the Lord inspired these
men to write the truth, and once again, what you thought
was a contradiction was a revealed truth, and a strong stamp
on the authenticity of the book.

152
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST: In the book, 'Jesus the
Christ, " on page 8 1, Dr. James E. Talmage, a Mormon
apostle, stated that Christ was begotten of Elohim, or God
the Father. Yet we read in Matthew 1:18, that "Mary was
espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Since Matthew teaches that Christ was begotten of the
Holy Ghost, why do you teach that Christ was begotten of
the Father?

MISSIONARIES: If you read that much of his book, you

must have also read Apostle Talmages answer to your
question. But let me reiterate it for the sake of the others.

Luke records, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son
of the Highest:" (1: 32), so He was to be called the "Son
of God."
Then in Luke 1:3 5 we read, "The Holy Ghost shall

THE POWER OF THE

come upon thee, AND
HIGHEST SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be

called THE SON OF GOD." We can see that He was not

to be the son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of God. God
was the Father. The Holy Ghost came upon her and simply
prepared her to be in the presence of God.
Mary, the virgin girl, was the Mother, and as scripture

tells us, her son Jesus was "the only begotten of the Father."
Therefore, Matthew is answered by Luke's account,
which is much clearer and deals with the details of the birth
and life of Christ to a greater degree.

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH: The Lord established His

Church on the day of Pentecost through His disciples. This

is pointed out by Acts 1:6-8 and Acts 2, where the

153
Comforter was sent. Why do you teach that the Church was
set up before Pentecost?

MISSIONARIES: Christ declared to Peter, "Thou art

Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church." The

Lord confirmed that He would build it. Then in Matthew
1 8: 1 7, when confronted with a problem concerning the law
of the Church, He took it out of the future tense and in the
present tense said, "And if He shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the Church: but if He neglect to hear the
Church, let Him be unto thee as a heathen man and a

publican."
Here the Lord claims that His Church had been
established, at least, in part. In Luke 17:20-21, He told the
them the Kingdom of God was among them.
That the Church was definitely established before the

Day of Pentecost we read in Luke 22: 1 8, "For I say unto

you I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the
kingdom of God shall come." We read in Acts 10:41-42
that Christ did eat and drink with them after He arose from
the dead. That is why Paul said, "(We) are built upon the
foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner stone."
Since the foundation of the Church was established
with his power, along with the pastors, evangelist, and
teachers, (Eph. 4:1 1), and that they had POWER AND
AUTHORITY, (Luke 9:1), and had won converts, the
Kingdom of God was here upon the earth and had been
established before the Lord left.

What the apostles meant in Acts 1:6-8, was to restore

the Kingdom to its fullness. In verse 8 the only thing they
received was power, not kingdoms.

54
LUTHERAN MINISTER: Why do you go around and
tell our people that we do not teach with authority and that
their baptisms do not count? We have gone to school for
many years and have trained for our professions and we
teach salvation through the Cross of Christ.

MISSIONARIES: Christ taught, "I am the way, the truth

and the life."

Paul clarified the exactness of truth when he said

apostles and prophets were necessary to bring people to a

"unity of the faith" and a "knowledge of the Son of God

unto a perfect man."
With well over 800 different Christian churches in this

country alone, it is evident that there is no unity of faith.

And many creeds in

with the existence there is still no
knowledge of the Son of God.
Christ gave His power and authority to the apostles,
(Luke 9:1), and it was they who controlled and passed it on
to others (Titus 1:5-6, 1 Timothy 3:1-4). Their duty was

to receive revelation from the Lord and guide the people.

They warned against "false teachers" who had a "form of
Godliness, but deny the power thereof."
Gentlemen, you are not part nor parcel of the original
church, and not one of you can trace your authority to the
apostles or prophets.
In the scriptures we can read where unauthorized
servants' baptisms were not recognized (Acts 19:1-6), nor

were their attempted miracles (Acts 19:13-17).

You have taken this power unto, or upon, yourself. Paul

said, "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that
is called of God, as was Aaron." (Heb. 5:4) Aaron was
called by Moses, a prophet of God, and Aaron was then
ordained and set apart to the ministry he had been call to,

155
under the hands of his brother the Prophet. (Exodus 28:1)
You are zealous in your labors, but travel in the wrong
direction. Ours is the narrow path that leadeth unto life.

More important than your departure from the truth is our

restoration of the truth. As we have established here today,

God has restored the truth to the earth and we have

established that fact through the scriptures.
God always works through prophets (Amos 3:7), and
the heavens have been closed over your churches, as far as
revelation is concerned, for over 1900 years, and you admit
it.

Our message to the world is that we have the truth.

Either we are right or you are right, and this has been the
purpose of our visit today in this courtroom situation — to
establish the truth. We have been on the defense only to
establish that our doctrines can stand the assault of any

outsider of the truth.

We read in the Book of Mormon where Nephi "thought
he saw God" and ministers have asked me, "Didn't Nephi
know if he saw God or not?" Yet in Revelations 22:8-9, we
find John mistaking the angel for the Son of God and fell

at his feet to worship him.

People have asked why we named our church the
"Church of Jesus Christ." Christ said "I will build MY
CHURCH." We read, "Neither is their salvation in any

other: for there is none other name under heaven given,

among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12). Sure

it was called the Church of God in six or seven instances,

but Hebrews 12:22-24 carried the name of, "Church of the

First-Born," and Ephesians 3:21 calls it the, "Church of
Jesus Christ," yet Christ said "I will build MY
CHRUCH." He is the cornerstone of the Church, and it

bears His name today.

156
 We have been criticized for the women speaking in
Church, in contradiction to I Cor. 14:34- People seem to
forget that the churches in those days were experiencing
internal problems and, specifically at Church of Corinth,
they had women problems.
Because Paul warned the Corinthians against their

sinfulness, that doesn't mean we are living in sinfulness.

The women were out of line, and Paul pointed it out. Acts

2: 1 7- 1 8 tells us that in the last days, "Your sons and your

daughters shall prophesy." How can our daughters prophesy

if they don't or are not allowed to speak in the church?
Speaking of the last days, Acts 2: 1 8 says, "on my
handmaidens I will pour out... of my spirit, and then shall

they prophesy," and when they get that spirit, are they

supposed to sit and not open their mouths?

Gentlemen, I know the Church we represent is true and

I love it. Not one of you has been able to dispute the

scriptures we have made reference to.

PART EIGHTEEN

PRESBYTERIAN: Why do you believe in foreordination?

Although Esau, being the eldest son of his father and by

right, was heir to the birthright, Romans 9:13 teaches that
the Lord loved Jacob and hated Esau.
Also in Romans 9:21, we read, "Hath not the potter
power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel
unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" If it were not

predestined, whey didn't God make us all good?

MISSIONARIES: Sir, Genesis 25:23 will show you that

Jacob was more favored of the Lord than Esau. Even before

157
their birth, the Lord indicated that the younger Jacob
would rule over his older brother. Acts 17*26 shows that
the reason Jacob would rise as ruler over his brother was
probably due to the fact that he was more righteous in the
pre-existence. Esau was hated of the Lord hundreds of years
after his death because of his wickedness, both in his pre-
earth life and while in this life. He seemed to always be a
rebelliously spirited man.
2 Tim 2:20-21 answers your question on Romans
9:20-21 where it teaches that man's use of his free agency
will determine what type of vessel we will be.

Free agency is taught throughout the scriptures. Joshua

said, "choose you this day whom ye will serve;... as for me
and my house, we will serve the Lord/' (Joshua 24:15)
Hebrews 5:8-9 says Christ, "became the author of eternal
salvation unto all them that obey him."

It's in hundreds of places that God is just. Paul said in

I Cor. 10:13, "There hath no temptation taken you but

such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will

not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will
with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may
be able to bear it."

CHURCH OF CHRIST: If you still believe in revelation

today, why have you not had one in the Mormon Church
since the I 36th section of the Doctrine and Covenants on
January 14, 1 847?
MISSIONARIES: We have had continuous revelation
since then, Sir. The Doctrine and Covenants was compiled
and published at that time and distributed to the world as

a living evidence of Gods word today.

All revelations are recorded in Church history and these

come daily. They are accessible to all people who desire to

158
learn of them. The teachings of our leaders constantly bear
Gods word to the ears of our people. The revelations are
presented to the Church every 6 months in our General
Conferences and published to all who will receive them.
Our monthly magazines also have messages from the
prophet and apostles.

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA: Why do you use

Old Testament Priesthood when Heb. 7:12 tells us that,
"the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law."
Also, we know that Christ is the eternal High Priest

and the Old Testament Priesthood was done away. Why do

you teach it today?

MISSIONARIES: Paul taught in Heb. 7:11-12, 14, 17,

and 24, that the law of schoolmaster (Gal 3:24), was to

lead the people to Christ, but Paul clarified in those verses
that the Aaronic (or Levitical), Priesthood could not do it

alone.

It was, therefore, necessary for the Lord to send another

Priest after the order of Melchizedek. The Priesthood, now
being changed by Christ coming as the Priest, necessitated

a change of the law, which, of course, was the law of Moses.

We read of Melchizedek in Heb. 7:1-2 and of his
righteousness. Then verse 3 reads, "Without father,

without mother, without descent, having neither beginning

of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;
abideth a priest continually." Some believe that this verse

also speaks of Melchizedek, but it obvious, even to the

uninformed, that he had a mother and a father in order to

have been born. Giving this verse a careful examination, it

becomes equally obvious that it was his priesthood that

would be without beginning of days, or end of life, etc.

159
 Then we read in Heb. 5:1 what the requirements of a
high priest are. "For every high priest taken from among
men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that
he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins/' As verse 4
of the same chapter points out, "And no man taketh this
honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron." The scripture goes on to point out in verse 5 that

even "Christ glorified not himself to be made a high

priest;" but was chosen and appointed by his Father as a

high priest forever. This followed the same pattern

established by the Lord through Moses, a prophet, when he
called Aaron, his brother, to the Priesthood.

Now that Christ was a High Priest, He proceeded to

call others, hence, "Then Jesus said unto them (the twelve)

again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even

so send I you." (John 20:21) "And he ordained twelve, that
they should be with him, and that he might send them forth
to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast
out devils." (Mark 3:14-15) That is why Peter said that the
Church had "a royal priesthood" and was "a holy nation.
(I Peter 2:9)

So you see, the Priesthood was passed on and the only

change was that a new Priest arose after the order of
Melchizedek, which was Christ. Peter, James, and John,
having first received their Priesthood from the Lord,
brought that same Priesthood back to the earth to Joseph
Smith the Prophet, in 1 829. That Priesthood is in the

Church today, with the same powers as were held in ancient

times. Most of you take that honor, as you suppose, upon
yourselves and think the Bible gives you what only apostles
have the power to give.

160
CATHOLIC PRIEST: Why is Joseph Smith so honored
by all people when Christ said that a prophet has no honor
in his own country?

MISSIONARIES: Your presence here today, attempting to

find fault with the Lord's Church is a perfect
demonstration or fulfillment of Christ's statement.
Thousands of books have been written against the
Prophet Joseph Smith. His name, as the Angel Moroni told

Joseph, has become an emblem of both good and evil among

all nations.
I want you to know today, gentlemen, that Joseph
Smith was truly a great man. From the moment of his first

vision in 1 820, until his last breath in 1 844, he lived in the

face of constant persecution and awful tyranny. He was
tarred and feathered, beaten, poisoned, and his family and
loved ones cruelly treated. He was accused, put on trial or
falsely sentenced at least 48 times. Joseph Smith never lost

the dignity of his prophetic office, and was a man of God

after the highest order.

In spite of the fact that they were charged with his

protection, a group called the Carthage Greys vowed that

they would not so much as eat until they had spilled his

blood. Many of his friends turned out to be his "judges."

He was honest, and dealt with all men in an honest and
God-fearing way. He was one of the greatest prophets of all
times.
Several days before his death, with tears in his eyes, the
great Lt. General of the Nauvoo legion, a prophet of the
Most High God, stood before his people for the last time
and expressed his love for them. Then he said, "Greater love

hath no man than this, than to lay down his live for his
friends." The Prophet voluntarily gave himself up to a

tyrant governor who had pledged his protection.

[6
 Two days later, at the hands of the Carthage Greys
(those who were charged to protect him) and a vicious mob,
the blood of Joseph and his brother Hyrum was spilled at

the Carthage Jail. This was on June 27, 1 844- He lived a

prophet, he died a prophet.

Gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to be with
you today. I bear you my personal testimony that I know
Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that this is the restored
Church of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is divinely
guided today by a Prophet who has been called and ordained
to that office in accordance with the pattern established by
God Himself. The things to which we have borne witness
today, are true. That God may bless you to find the truth is

my humble prayer.

JUDGE: This has been a day I will never forget. I only wish
that my two sons had been here today to hear your defense

of your religion. I have felt the spirit of righteousness in

your sincere presentation.
As a Rabbi, and considered unbiased in these matters, I

was asked by the gentlemen of the prosecution to weigh,

fairly, what would be said here today. I hope I have done
that.

In keeping with that trust, I find that the prosecution

has been unable to explain or account for the scriptures
these missionaries have pointed out. It is my ruling that the
prosecution has not, even on one matter, proved any
contradiction in the revelations of the Mormon Prophets,
and that those revelations have been progressive, needful,
and harmonious. It is also my finding that the Mormon
leaders also fulfill all of the divine qualifications as laid out
in the scriptures. Their claims are just and their God is with
them.

62
 These elders of the Mormon Church have a more
perfect way, and I would advise you men of the prosecution,
to come unto the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I declare this day that these two young men are

preaching the word of God. Court and case closed!

MISSIONARIES: Amen.

163
164
 APPENDIX
CHALLENGES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON
Occasionally you hear someone say, I could believe your
Mormon Doctrine if I just didn't have to swallow the story
about Joseph Smith being a man of God and that he
translated the Book of Mormon from some golden plates

which he claimed he had found on a hillside. It is even

possible that you, yourself, have doubted his story. Well, let

us consider some facts or conditions that must be complied

with in order for you or someone else to produce a similar

record under comparable condition.

1. You must be between 2 3 and 24 years of age.

2. You cannot be a college graduate; in fact, you can have

only three years of schooling.
3. Whatever you write must be on the basis of what you
now know, no research to be done.

4. You must write a book with 239 chapters, 54 of them

about wars, 21 about history, 55 about prophecy, 71
about doctrine, 17 about missionaries and 21 about
the mission of Jesus Christ.
5. You must write a history of an ancient country, such

as Tibet, covering a period from 600 BC

421 AD.
to

6. You must include in your writings the history of two

distinct and separate nations, along with histories of

165
 different contemporary nations or groups of people,
of which no one ever knew existed.
7- Your writings must describe the religious, economic,
social, and political cultures and institutions of these
two nations.
8. You must weave into your history the religion of Jesus

Christ and the pattern of Christian living.

9. When you start to produce this record, covering a

period over 1,000 years, you must finish it in

approximately 80 days.
10. When you have finished you must not make any
changes in the text. The first edition must stand
forever.

1 1. After pauses for sleep and food, if you are dictating to

a stenographer you must never ask to have the last

paragraph or last sentence read back to you.

12. Your record must be about 522 pages with over 510
words per page. You must add 180 proper nouns to
the English language. William Shakespeare added only
30.

13. You must announce that your "smooth narrative" is

not fiction but true, yes, even that it is a sacred record

of history.

14. In fact, it must fulfill the Bible prophecies; even in the

exact manner in which it shall come forth, to whom
given, its purpose and accomplishments (respectively
- Psalms 85:10-11, Isaiah 29:2-4, Isaiah 29:11-14,

Ezekiel 3 7: 1 8-2 1, etc.).

15. You must publish it to every nation, kindred, tongue,

and people, declaring it to be the Word of God.
16. You must include with the record itself, this

marvelous promise; "And when you shall received

these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask

166
 God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if
these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a
sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ,

He will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the

power of the Holy Ghost."
17- Tens and hundreds of thousands must bear record to
the world for the next 145 years that they know the
record to be true. Because they put the "promise" to
the test and found it to be true, the truth manifested

to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.

1 8. Thousands of great men, intellectual giants, and
scholars must subscribe discipleship to the record and

its movement even to the point of laying down their

lives for it.

19. Your descriptions of the culture and people in these

civilizations of which you will write include the

manner of their written and spoken language, type of

buildings, geographic location, governmental types,
monetary system, types of tools and materials used,
and many other facts completely unknown to the rest

of the world.
20. There can be no flaw whatsoever in the entire record.

21. Yet, you must not make an absurd, impossible, or

contradictory statement.
22. Even so, many of the facts, ideas, and statements

given us as true in your record must be entirely

inconsistent, even the direct opposite of the prevailing
beliefs of the world where very little is claimed to be

known about these civilizations and their 1,000 years

of history.
23. You must invite the ablest scholars and experts to
examine the text with care. You must strive diligently

to see that your book gets into the hands of all those

167
 most eager to prove it a forgery and who are most
competent to expose any flaw in it.

24- Through investigation, scientific evidence, and

archaeological discoveries for the next I46 years must
verify your claims and prove even the minutest details
of your history to be perfectly true, even to the types

of roads they built.

25. After I46 years of extensive analysis, no claim or fact

in the book is disproved, but all is vindicated. Other
theories and ideas as to its origin rise and fall, leaving
your claims as the only possible ones.

26. Internal and external prophecies must be confirmed

and fulfilled in the next 1 46 years.

27. Three honest, accreditable witnesses must testify to

the whole world that an angel from heaven appeared

to them showed them the ancient records from which
you claim your record is translated.

28. You must call out of heaven the voice of the Redeemer
to declare to the three witnesses that your record is

true and that it is their responsibility to hear the

testimony.
29. Eight other witnesses must testify to the world that
they saw the ancient records in broad daylight and
they handled them and felt the engravings on the
record.

30. The first three and the second eight witnesses must
bear their testimony not for profit or gain, but under
great personal sacrifice and severe persecution, even to
their death.

3 I. You must find someone to finance your book with the

understanding that neither he nor you will ever

receive any monetary remuneration from it. You must

sell the book at cost or at less than its production
value.

168
32. You must tell the world that the written record you
have translated from was engraven on gold plates,
even through up until the time you make this claim,
no one has ever found anywhere in past history any
civilization using gold as a method of keeping records,

and not unto about 100 years later were any similar
engraven gold plates found.
3 3. Many of the chapters and verses must be written in a

chiastic style, characteristic of the Hebrew style of

writing. This style of writing was discovered very
recently, long after the publication of the Book of
Mormon.
34- Finally, after suffering persecution and revilement for
20 years after you finish the book, you must willingly
give your own life for your testimony that the record

is from God.

Surely, no one without God's help could produce a similar

record and comply with all of the above conditions.

Wouldn't you say that Joseph Smith was indeed a man of

God and that he was an instrument in God's hands to bring
forth such a record?

169
170
 .

INDEX
Adam and Eve, 1 48- 1 50 preformed by whom, 80, 126.
Adam-God Theory, 85-88, 91 rebaptize, 69.
Agnostic, qualification of modern repent and be, 137.
apostles and prophets, 31-34. true baptism, 39-
contradiction at the time of unauthorized, 1 56.
creation, which comes first priesthood or,

148-149. 126.
All truth, in the Bible, 2-4, 65. Baptist Church, God once a man,
given to apostles, 5-6. 66-68.
Holy Ghost guide to, 65, 77, 82. number of apostles and prophets,
restored, 47- 48.
American Church B.C., 139. were apostles baptized, 126.
Apostle list, 132-13 3. Bible, contradictions, 1 8, 80.
Apostles, are Elders, 59. translating, 81, 100-102.
death of, 1 3 I Bishop, authority, 130.
duties of, 62, 64. blameless, 56.
first, 50. Elder, 56,
how many, 48-49, 131. married, 56, 58.
needed on earth, 48, 59, 128. Blood atonement, 150-152.
succession of, 60. Body, Christ's, 5-9.
witness of resurrection, 64. creator of, 23.
Atheist, good fruit, 38. dies only once, 8.
Elias, 92. in the grave, 1 8.

Joseph Smith in bible, 93-94- lives in resurrection, 8.

need for latter-day revelation, 94- of father and son, 7, 67.

accept Old Testament, 1 1 6. Book delivered to, learned and

Athenasian Creed, 1 2- 1 6. unlearned, 1 46.
Baptism, by immersion, 67, 120. last book, 2, 145-
children, 97, 1 1 3, 114- Book of Mormon, contents, 79.
for the dead, 24, 79- contradictions, 139-140.
for remission of sin, 114. foretold, 144-

how do you, 68, 120. translated, 83.

hold priesthood without, 126. Book of Revelation, last book, 3,

infant, 80. 147.

into the church, 126. Bread and wine, 51, 1 15-

in what name, 68-69. Catholic infallibility, 134, 136.

Jesus baptized, 12. Catholic Priest, apostasy, 129-136.
necessary, 1 1 4, 117- baptism of children, 1 1 3-1 14.

one baptism, 1 18. eternal marriage, 88-91.

precedes salvation, Il8. Godhead, 9- 1 6.

171
 no other record needed, I47« hours on the cross, 97-
prophet has no honor, I6I-I62. length of darkness, 18-19-
qualifications of apostles, 64-66. length of time in tomb, 96-100.
sacrament, 1 1 5-1 1 6. time of, 152-153.
word of wisdom, 53-56. Dancing, 127-
Christian Scientist, bodies of flesh David, adultery, 1 1 3.

and city of, 18, 143, 147.

blood, 83. seed of, 52, 1 10.

Christ, body, 7- wives, 72-75, 91.

creator of body, 22-24- David Whitmer, 122-125-
image of the father, 9, 67. Dead, preached to, 25-
live forever, 23. Division, among brethren, 61, 119,
location of birth, 17-18. 122.
only begotten son, 140. in home, 122.
Church of Christ, Book of Divorce, 72, 89-
Mormon, Daniel, interpretation of dream, 37,
contents, 79- 142.
contradictions, 139-140. kingdom he saw, 37, 131.

don't have Elders, 58. Drinking, drunk, 54-56.

Elders aren't Elders, 56. Elders, heal sick, 59, 159.

healing the sick, 59, 159 Married, 56-58.

inspired apostles and prophets, Elias, appeared to Christ, 24.
59-64. come first, 78-79-
miracles, 84- John the Baptist was, 92.
modern revelation, I 59- power of, 93.
name of church, 139- Fasting, 125.

polygamy, 92. Father and Son, are one, 9-12.

prophecy fulfilled, 43. body of, 7-9-

revelation, 95-100. Foreordination, 1 58.

sign seekers, 109- Free agency, 1 58.
time of crucifixion, 152. Fruits, know them by, 37-41.
was Paul single, 57- Genealogy, 52.
Church of England (Anglican), God, body of, 5-7.

blood atonement, 150-152. creator of spirit, 22, 113.

God married, 91-92. Godhead, 10-13.
marriage in heaven, 69-71- incomprehensible, 15-
paid ministry, IO6-IO8. know God, 1 6- 1 7.
testators, 45- man to become, 66.
three witnesses, 122-125. married, 91.
welfare program, 1 50. unknown, 5-

Civil war, prophesied, 34- triune God, 10, II, 13.

Crucifixion, bible contradictions, was a man, 66.
81. Gospel, preached to the dead, 24.

172
Grace, saved by, III. Lutheran Church, authority, 115-
Grammar, errors in scriptures, 82- 157.
83. Adam-God discourse, 85-88.
Greek Orthodox Church, all truth, apostles and prophets, 50.
2-4. baptism, 120-12 1,
two or three witnesses, 35- born at Jerusalem, 1 7- 1 8.

Healing, sick 58-59, 108, 159. Joseph Smith story, 76-78.

Holy Ghost, authority of, 49- judged by our works, 1 1 1-1 12.
baptism of, 68. which church, 1 19-120.
bear record, 10. Marriage, bind on earth and heaven,
gift of, 114, 137- 69-
Godhead, 14- 70.
guide men to truth, 65, 117- eternal, 88-91.

moved by, 42. in heaven, 69, 91.

power of, 65, 1 09- 1 10. Plural, 72-75, 91.

received, I 37- Melchizedek Priesthood, 1 60.

temple of, 113. Methodist, all scripture given, 4-5-

Jehovah, 20-22. blood atonement, 1 51-152.

Jehovah's Witness, 144,000, 25-26. Book of Mormon a fraud, 100-
body of Christ, 7. 106.
fruits of, 38. dissention in church, 12 1 -122.
government support, 128-129. fast and fast offerings, 125-126.
Jehovah, 20-23- God has a body, 7.
military service, 128-129. plural wives in hereafter, 90.

saluting the flag, 128-129. restore all things, 78-79.

spirit and breath, 8-9. sacrament, 51-52.

spiritual resurrection, 23-25- tithing, 125-126.
Jesus, see Christ. why so few members, 121.
Killing, kill another, I50-I5I. Miracles, 84, 108.

thou shalt not, 129, 137- More excellent way, 60, 63-64.

violators of the sabbath, 30. Murder, see killing.

with knowledge, 138. Noah, 55.

Law, and the prophets, 127-128. Other sheep, I40-I4I.
higher laws, 84- Paid clergy, 106.

Jewish, II, 28, 70, 97, 98. Paul, baptism, 1 1 8, 120.

live by, 29- baptized in name of, 69-

Mosaic, 29, 30, 1 31, 142, 150, bishops to be blameless, 57-

151, 160. called of God, 1 56.

no law, 1 1 3-1 14, 138. creation, 22.

of the church, 154- excellent way, 63-64.

of God, 127. foundation of the church, 62-64-

of the land, 129. grace and works, III-II2, 119.

Lebanon, fruitful field, 1 46. married, 57-58, 88-90.

173
 offspring of God, 91. seen the lord, 64-
once enlightened, 138. wives, 75.
sacrament, 1 1 6. Revelation, led by, 46.
taken away in vision, 4- last, 2.

tentmaker, 107- need for, 94, 96, 97, 99.

unity of the faith, 63, 1 55- requirements for, 3, 31, 42, 54.
Pentecostal Church, Book of rock of, 135.
Mormon, through the prophet, 50.
143. Roger Williams, 136.
dancing, 127- Sabbath day, keeping holy, 29.
day of Pentecost, 154- two together, 100.
doctrines of, 39-40. which day of week, 28, 30.
law and the prophets, 127. Sacrament, emblems of, 116, 120.
signs, 110. instituted, 50.

Presbyterian, foreordination, 1 58. meaning of, II5-H6

Presidency, 49-51- observed on the Lords day, 28.
Priesthood, Aaronic, 127, 1 60. Salvation Army, why baptize, 1 1 7.

changed, 30, 159. Sealed records, 143.

Joseph Smith received , 126. Seventh Day Adventist, beliefs, 38.

offices of, III. Christ begotten of father, 153.

power of, 109- Sabbath day, 28, 30.
royal, 161. work for the dead, 52.

Prophecy, copied, 104- Sign seekers, 109-

daughters prophesy, I 57- Spiritual gifts, 58.

do away with, 63- Taxes, 129.

of Joel, 76-77- Temptation, 1 58.

of Malachi, 93- Testator, 45, 47-

of war, 34-35- Third heaven, 4-

partial fulfillment, 35- Tithing, 125-

private interpretation, 42. United Church of Canada, healing,
second coming, 41. 108.
spirit of, 42. kingdom Daniel saw, 36.

twelve tribes, 145- murder, 136-137-

two sticks, 143-145- Priesthood, 159-
under influence of Holy Ghost, Unity of the faith, 61-62.
65- War, 34, 128.
Prophets, Christ a, 50, 128. Welfare, 150.
foundation of, 47, 154- Witnesses, apostles, 64-
last, 128. left church, 121
law and the, 29, 127-128. three, 122-125-
need for, 61, 63, 65, 135- Woman, speaking in church, 157-
number of, 48-49- Word of Wisdom, 53-
qualifications of, 31, 40. Work for the dead, 52.
revealed to, 36.

174
 8

SCRIPTURES THAT SUSTAIN

"THE BOOK OF MORMON"
APPROACH
IN TEACHING THE GOSPEL
TO OUR NON-MEMBER FRIENDS

From The Book of Mormon

Title page
(Note especially the first paragraph — why written,

how preserved, how brought forth; and lines 6-8 of the

second paragraph — the purpose.)

I Nephi 6 (Note especially v. 3-6.)

I Nephi 9 (Note especially v. 3-6.)

I Nephi 13:39-40

I Nephi 19:1-6
II Nephi 3:7-16 (Note v. 12.)

II Nephi 5:28-34 (Note v. 30-31.)

II Nephi 33:10-15
Enos I 3- 1

The Word of Mormon: I-I I (Note v. 2,4,7,9,11.)

Alma 37:8-12 (Note v. 8,10,12.)
Mormon 3:17-21
Mormon 5:8-15
Mormon 7:8-10
Mormon 8:25-32
Mormon 9:31-37
Ether 12:22-29
Moroni 10:2-7 (Note v. 3.)

175
 From The Doctrine and Covenants

D&C 3:16-20 (Notev. 16,19.)

D&C 5 (Notev. 2,4,7,9,17-/6,25,26.)
D&C 6:21-23
D&C 10:40-64 (Note 45-51.) v.

D&C 17:6
D&C 19:26-37
D&C 20:1-11
D&C 84:54-62 (Note especially to whom given, and when.)

From The Pearl of Great Price

Joseph Smith 2:10-13 (Notev. 12.)

176
 THE DAY

Using a court of law as the setting, The Day of Defc

powerful and informative case for the truthfulness
gospel of Jesus Christ, the divine mission of th<
Smith as the man called upon to bring about the re

need for Living Prophets in our day.

Written as the proceedings of a civil trial, two Latter-c

missionaries find themselves acting as the defense" for the

the face ol an aggressive prosecution mounted h\ clerg

representing over 14 different denominations, plus an Atheist and an

Agnostic, with a Orthodox Jewish Rabbi acting as the judge.

I sunj the scriptures, their testimonies, and the guidance of

spirit, the missionaries present an insightful ( \nd ^

"defense." With its substantial scriptural and scholarly

The Dav of Defense makes an ideal resource for mi-

teachers, and others seeking to increase their know

understanding of the restored gospel.

Jmmf
OF
50995

ZION