The Mormon Plan of Salvation

Please don't infer that we believe black people are less righteous in the premortal life or that they cannot make it into spirit paradise.

Noseph Smith

jesus was born of a virgin

native american people have DNA from Jews

False. standard works always superced a prophet

Mormonism is a cult. It's so sad.......they're headed to hell, but are so brainwashed they actually believe they're going to heaven and someday become a god themselves.

I have not read through all the comments, but as someone who is coming to this as a former Mormon (born in the Church, temple, mission, etc as a typical LDS male.) The single greatest flaw with the information you present is not the information - although some if it is in error such as no living LDS receves their own baptism in a temple. Baptisms in the temple are always baptisms for the dead - but how you present the information.

Before I get to my main point - I do find it interesting that you spend a great deal of time on items, which you yourself state are not core to the Mormon world view; yet you go on about them at length. If they are unimportant to your cause, why focus on them? They are "hot button" issues and they are presented to arouse an emotional response. Emotion clouds the intellect. The Mormon's greatest flaw is continual appeal to emotion-based decision making. Yet, by spending quite a bit of time on emotional content, you are making the same appeal to emotion as the LDS do.

Be that as it may, my main argument goes back to something I saw in your JW doctrinal info video, where you discuss the difference between word usage between Evangelicals and JWs. You use a particular term but mean two different things by it. This is perhaps more true between Evangelicals and the LDS. I often see you applying - perhaps unconsciously as you yourself come at this from an Evangelical POV - Evangelical usage of terms to Mormon theology. This specifically steers your audience - Evangelical I would presume - to apply those same terms and the definitions you have for them. Because this is not what Mormons mean by those terms, it leads to misunderstandings in your audience of what Mormons believe.

The subject of "Authority." You begin your discussion of Authority by an appeal to written literature. That is not unexpected as Evangelicals define authority in terms of written literature (i.e. biblical authority.) Mormons mean nothing of the kind. Authority does not mean written literature to them. Referring to the Standard Works as authority is in error. Authority to a Mormon has one meaning - Priesthood authority. Authority to a Mormon has a specific definition - The ability to act in the name of God. Authority is a means to take an action. To a Mormon, scripture flows from one having authority. To an evangelical, authority flows from scripture. You can't even understand where a Mormon is coming from in the area of authority without a full grasp of the different meaning and application of the term. And you will find this over and over again.

In fairness, it may not be possible for an Evangelical to put themselves in a Mormon worldview, no matter how much you read on the subject. So, I am not necessarily saying you are doing this on purpose. You may not even be aware of all the terms that mean entirely different things between Mormons and Evangelicals. However, I think any real understanding of the Mormon worldview requires that level of understanding and presentation of those facts. I fully believe - and know in the case of myself - that one can determine the errors in Mormonism. I did and left. But, to use a euphemism, is believing the right thing for the wrong reason what you want to accomplish?

very good discursion! very explained!!

I know you are not a Mormon but I want to commend you for the job you did on this video. You were very respectful of the church and are a great open minded and critical thinker.

Really good summation of the topic.

Joseph Smith did not record the
‘official version’ of his ‘First Vision’, as now used by the Mormon
Church, until the year 1838, and it wasn’t even published until 1842,
some twenty-two years after his supposed experience.

Brigham Young said that you are damned if you deny polygamy.
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266)

Brigham Young said that you can't get to the highest heaven without Joseph Smith's consent.
" . . . no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).

"For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles." Prophet Joseph Smith, The Joseph Smith Revelations Text and Commentary, p. 374-376

Now that I have finished watching the entire video, I wonder -- and I have before wondered this as well -- what a sincere and honest discussion would be between the people who were presented this information. Were they impressed spiritually by the "added" revelation that the Saints claim to have of these things? Did they FEEL a familiarity to this Plan? Do they feel, torn between, or any degree of conflict between these things and the source of doctrines that they currently subscribe to? What questions arose in their minds and hearts, and how did they feel about the "answers" that were offered in response, from a "Biblical Christianity" doctrinal approach? Can they honestly feel, after being presented the doctrines of the Saints, that the doctrines taught by "Biblical Christianity" are complete as the system in place claims?

This follow up could be very revealing, I think.

you wrote: "However, it is not Heaven in the presence of God." (referring to the Telestial Glory of Heaven)
==
The presence of Jesus Christ is the presence of God. Those who are capable of enduring the glory of the Terrestrial kingdom will be privileged to enjoy the visitation of Jesus Christ, who is God. They will also be privileged to enjoy the visitation of the Holy Ghost, who is God. Those who are capable of enduring the glory of the Telestial Kingom will be privileged to enjoy the visitation of the Holy Ghost, who is God.

So to suggest that the Celestial glory is the only place in heaven where the visitation of God is experienced is misleading. Only those who are capable of enduring Celestial glory will be capable of enduring the glory of the Father. Notice how this is worded, that "those who are capable of enduring" will be able to experience "God" in any part of the kingdom of heaven? The glories of heaven are experienced according to the capacities of men to be able to endure it, not a process of condemnation but a process of perfect evaluation of the capacity of the patron.

Outer darkness signifies a complete banishment from the Kingdom of Heaven, such as is experienced by Satan and those who were defeated in the War in Heaven and are no longer capable to endure, if they ever did, any glory of heaven because of their infinite rejection of God. Because of the eternal nature of outer darkness, I don't believe we can fully comprehend the limitations and reaches of what this means and what it would take for a soul that kept his first estate, came to Earth and received a physical body, experienced a resurrection with that body, likely would not have ever accepted Jesus' atonement in the flesh or the spirit.

I would think that this type of soul would have initially joined with Lucifer in the War in Heaven, and would have been cast out in the Eternities with them all, prior to any mortal probation. I can't see how anything done in mortality would cause a soul to be cast out from the heavens in any glory. Because of this, I think that speculation on outer darkness is totally pointless and even a bit superstitious in line with Biblical Christianity's theories of "heaven" and "hell."

1. The Saints do not "claim to be Christians, the same as us." The Plan of Salvation is represented differently between Christians and Saints. One source is based on truths. The other source is based on the learning of men mingled with truths, and often misses the mark entirely.

2. James 1:5 does not apply to anybody. James wrote the letter, as read in his opening verse, to the "twelve tribes of Israel who are scattered abroad." He did not write this letter to the Gentile nations, nor to the heathen, but to the covenant people of God. Too often Biblical Christians fraudulently assume to be recipients of the teachings of the Saints, without entering into the esoteric membership of the Saints through covenants. While it is entirely possible for a person to be drawn to the writings of the Saints, and apply the teachings in their own lives, since they have not entered into a covenant relationship with the Father through the Order of the Son (his priesthood authority), there is no promise that the Father will bless them according to the promises attached to those things as they exist among the Saints. In the case of Joseph Smith, were it not that he had been fore-ordained before the foundation of the world to be the first prophet in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, he more than likely would have not have had the experience he did. The Restoration is the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, meaning in God's own work and process did these things come to pass, regardless of the scripture Smith had read.

3. Authority. "Its not JUST the standard works that they are looking to." No volume of scripture possess "authority" to administer the Church. This is a "Biblical Christian" concept, since the Bible is the only thing that the Biblical Christians possess to determine the doctrines. The Saints do not use ANY scripture to establish authority. Scriptures are used to document the dealings of God to his Saints. A record of the gospel is not the gospel itself.

4. A comparison between what the modern prophet "says" and what scripture "says" is offered by the speaker suggesting that "if" there were ever a discrepancy between the two, that the words of modern prophet would take precedence. This is true in the context that the scriptures are NOT for private interpretation but are correct when interpreted by the prophets of God and then that understanding is passed on to the Saints. The discrepancy, then, is not between the modern prophet and the scriptures, but rather between the private interpretation of scripture and the prophet's interpretation.

The presenter then suggests that "a lot of what we're going to be going over here is based on what the modern prophets say and not what is written in the scriptures." This is false. Again, it is not the living prophets against the scriptures (including previous prophets), but rather the living prophets interpretation of the scriptures against private interpretation of the scriptures (or previous prophets). A reasonable example could be thus: Surely in Abraham's day, it was widely known that murder was against the will of God. Yet God commanded Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice. Under such a circumstance, the Lord's will manifested through his servant and prophet Abraham, took precedence over the widely accepted concept to not murder. Abraham, conflicted as he was at the command of God, was duty bound to obey God, not from previous revelations from previous prophets but because of the command of the living God.

Thus, the prophet will never lead the church astray, because the prophet is the ordained source of authority and the interpretation of previous revelations will always be superior by that prophet than by any unauthorized source of private interpretation of scripture or private interpretation of the will of God.

So, here we see a little deception and spin starting to be built by this presenter.

5. "We were born in this place as spirit children to God." The Father CREATED the spirits of all things that exist before they were formed physically. There is not revelation that says the spirits of all things, before they were formed physically by the Son, were 'born.'

6. "Pre-Existence or First Estate" There is no such thing as a pre-existence. Nothing exists before it begins existing... The First Estate refers to the status of the spirits of Heavenly Father's spirit children prior to coming to mortality. Part of this status involved the War in Heaven, when Lucifer, who once was a son of God comparable to Jehovah, presented a plan to execute the Plan of the Father. Lucifer's plan was rejected, which caused a war in heaven between the followers of Lucifer and the followers of Jehovah, and a "third part" of the heavens were cast out of heaven, losing their "First Estate."

7. Jesus and Lucifer Prior to falling from Heaven, all the spirit creation of the Father were bound Eternally to Him. In this sense, all of the creation of the Father can be characterized as brothers and sisters of the same Eternal family. However, after Lucifer and the third part of the heavens that followed him were removed from the heavens, those spirits lost all binding and Eternal status as belonging to the family of the Father. Without the preservation of this binding status, neither Lucifer nor those who are with him are part of the family of God, and because of the conceptual nature of Eternity, it is important to understand that Lucifer who became Satan, NEVER belonged to the Eternal status of the Father. These souls lost their first estate, and for the sake of mortal man, limited to a linear understanding of things, the simplest way to describe what happened in the Eternities is to paint the picture that Lucifer once part of the family of the Father.

8. "One-third" Not one-third, but "a third part," meaning there were three parts in the war in Heaven, and of the three parts, which were not necessarily of equal sizes, one of those parts was removed from heaven.

9. "The American Indians are Jewish" The Nephite, Lamanite, and Mulekite nations in the Book of Mormon records were of the House of Israel, specifically of the House of Joseph, who is represented in the House of Israel by his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. While the Jews of the House of Judah were a large group of the House of Israel, it is wrong to say the seed of Joseph through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who the Book of Mormon nations were, are Jewish. Often because of the size of the House of Judah, the entire House of Israel were called "the Jews," but they all were not Jewish!

10. "We are not here for our purpose. We are here for his purpose." The work and glory of God is to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man. The "work" of God is to bring to pass the immortality of man. The "Glory" of God is to bring to pass the Eternal Life of man. How do we bring glory to God? By becoming like him, as the Son's Plan so directs us to become, in fulfillment to the Plan of the Father.

11. "If Adam didn't do what he did, you would be born here..." Incorrect. If Adam didn't do what he did, mankind would not exist on Earth, and Adam and Eve would have remained in the Garden of Eden until they partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It is speculation unfounded to assume that had Adam and Eve not partook of the fruit that mankind would exist. Adam and Eve knew not that they were naked, and all things were in a state of paradise and Eternal existence, lacking the power to procreate until mortality commenced. Mortality could not commence until the fruit was partaken.

12. "Since Adam sinned..." Adam did not sin. He transgressed against the Father's command. "Sin" cannot happen without accountability. Accountability cannot be without opposition. Opposition cannot be without the existence of good and evil. Adam and Eve did not "know" opposition, good and evil, until AFTER they partook of the fruit. They did not have power to sin until after they received the knowledge of good and evil. They could transgress but they could not sin. Little children, not knowing the law, might transgress the law but are not accountable to the law by virtue of their innocence and lack of accountability. Adam and Eve lacked accountability to their transgressions until AFTER they partook of the Tree of Knowledge.

13. "Intimate relationship with Mary?" What kind of "intimate relationship" is committed by planting the seed of the God Almighty into a mortal, virgin woman? This is ridiculous. How do the Biblical Christians explain the conception of Mary? Magic? Witchcraft? Just how was it accomplished?

More to come if I get any replies with any reasonable substance...

Nice to see someone attempting to honestly outline the beliefs of the LDS church. A few minor erroneous statements are to be expected. This is certainly a far cry from the "Mormons are going to hell" accusations I respond to on a frequent basis on YouTube. Mr. Martin is to be commended.

Can you tell where exactly you found the answers for those two questions, one about becoming gods, and the second about owning your own planet? I'm at the website but can't find it. Thank you.

In regard to the authority of the prophet, it depends on who publishes it. If it is published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then it becomes "binding" as you said. If it is published any other way, it is their opinion. At least that is how I understand it to be.

The Mormon Plan of Salvation

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

Comments