Monday, December 1, 2014

Sunday, September 21, 2014

The Short Notice, Big Move!

Rocky and Helen Hulse
     On June 30th I worked my last day at Vista Ridge High School in Cedar Park, Texas, where I’d taught Navy Junior ROTC for the last five years. I had a disagreement with the Human Relations (HR) Department. They admitted I was right, but they weren’t required by law to fix it, so they weren’t going to.
     So, I looked around and found an opening in Corpus Christi, Texas. The time window was very narrow, and on very short notice, I was offered the position. We had about one month to prepare, with me being gone at summer camp two of those four weeks.
     As some of you know, Helen’s mom has Alzheimer’s disease and we take care of her. Making a move with someone who has Alzheimer’s is very difficult. New, unfamiliar surroundings can be totally confusing and difficult to deal with. We feared the worst, but the Lord was faithful to our prayers and the move went much better than we expected. Helen’s mom has settled in and is doing quite well.
    So, the 10th of July we moved to Corpus Christi and I started my new job on July 24th.

Crash Goes the Computer

     Moving is never fun, and neither was this one; however, it went as smooth as I could have expected. The one true disaster was the ministry laptop that Helen uses to write receipts and where she tracks donations; it crashed. Neither of us are computer experts, so we were at a loss as to what to do.
     As part of my work, I was offered a coaching course for Cyber Patriot, a team competition in computer defense that my JROTC cadets compete in. The course was given at Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi Campus. The professor is exceptionally talented in all things computer, and when I told him the computer had crashed, he offered to “take a look at it.” He found the problem and took care of it “no charge” since it was a ministry computer – The Lord is good!

Moving Brings Extra Ministry Opportunities

    Of course when you move there are those required necessities: new phone hook-up, Internet, TV, water and gas. Each of those“utilities” brings people to the house to do the connections. Just friendly questions about where did you move from and what do you do leads to witnessing opportunities.
     The two fellas that hooked up the TV were both interested in our ministry and our testimony. John’s dad was a pastor and Nathan’s dad was very much into politics and was interested in the Mitt Romney Mormon connection. We had two different perspectives with which to entertain and they had loads of questions. Both of them wanted copies of my book “When Salt Lake City Calls.” We were happy to accommodate them.
     Helen went around and around with AT&T about the phone and Internet hookup. In the myriad of phone calls made to AT&T about the many installation problems, Helen had the opportunity to witness to many “problem specialists” when questions were asked about where we came from and why we were here and the needs we have in order to support the ministry. Multiple technicians came to the house to find out why the Internet wasn’t working right. When told we run a ministry, they naturally asked, “What kind of ministry are you in.” That question just opens the doors to lots of discussion.
     One of the technicians was African-American. Boy was he interested in the teachings of the Mormon Church on the origins of anyone who isn’t “white and delightsome” as the Book of Mormon describes those who were chosen of God! Mormon doctrines state that God cursed those of the African race with a black skin due to their actions in the“Pre-Existence.”  In fact,according to Mormon teachings, any race with any kind of skin color were cursed with their skin color due to their performance and lack of absolute support of Jesus against Lucifer in the great war in heaven.
     Mormonism teaches that our skin color and placement within a family here on earth were a direct reflection of our faithfulness in the “Pre-Existence.” I was specifically taught that because I was born white, and born into a Mormon family here on earth, I was a great warrior in the “Pre-Existence” and fought right along Jesus in His battle against Lucifer.
     Many of our installation and technician visitors were desirous of reading my book “When Salt Lake City Calls” after hearing our testimony and learning about our ministry.
     Also, many more witnessing opportunities are now surfacing as we search for new primary care, eye, and skin doctors. Those “new patient” phone calls always lead to “where did you come from and what do you do.” Answering those questions brings up the ministry and the inevitable questions that follow.
     Move or no move, Helen is constantly updating our blog and Facebook page with new articles and she is active in the many discussions about various topics of Mormonism. One would think in the age of information that we live in today, that any Mormon could easily do their search and find out the false history and teachings of Mormonism; but it’s just not so. Websites like ours, where accurate, factual information about Mormonism can be found, are soooooo important to those Mormons who are asking questions and seeking truth.

Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, Inc.
P.O. Box 9094
Corpus Christi, TX 78469-9094

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Mountain Meadows Horror Continues 157 Years Later

Phil Bolinger, Scott Fancher, Rocky Hulse, Ron Wright, Bob Francher
on the set of TV show Truth Outreach

As we approach September 11th, Americans everywhere will reflect on the tragic event of that day in 2001; however, we had more than one terrible tragedy that happened on September 11th. As a nation, we are all aware of the horror of 9/11/2001; but few are aware of the horror of the First September 11th. Known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre, this horrific event happened September 11, 1857. On that tragic September day, 120 innocent men, women, and children were brutally murdered by 60, and possibly as many as 100, Mormon men under direct orders from their Priesthood leadership.

A very rich wagon train from Arkansas consisting of about 140 people, 1,000 head of cattle, 200 horses, 40 wagons and carriages, and thousands of dollars in gold was attacked, looted and left with but 17 survivors, all 7 years of age or less. Historian Will Bagley has made the historical connection through the diary of Dimmick Huntington, Indian Interpreter and brother-in-law of Brigham Young, that Brigham himself ordered the attack by telling the Indian Chiefs they could have the cattle if they would attack the train. The Indians did attack the wagon train on September 6th; however, the seasoned pioneers put up a staunch fight after being surprised and suffering some casualties.

The Indians withdrew under the superior firepower of the pioneers. With the Indians failing to do their part, the Mormon leaders met in Parowan and came up with a heinous plot. Under the direction of Stake President Isaac Haight, and Bishop William Dame the Commander of the Iron County Militia (a remnant of the Nauvoo Legion), Bishop John D. Lee rode into the siege encampment of the pioneers with a white truce flag. He told the pioneers that the Indians had agreed to allow the Mormons to rescue the pioneers and take them to safety if they would lay down their arms. Believing the Mormons to be their deliverers, they did. The wounded and children seven years of age and under were put into two separate wagons; the children’s wagon was driven by Samuel McMurdy, 1st Counselor in the Cedar Ward. The women and remaining children were then led out first. With a quarter mile spacing between them, the unarmed men were then led out escorted with an armed Mormon guard. Once clear of the encampment and out in the open, Nauvoo Legion Maj. John Higbee, 1st Counselor to Stake President Haight, gave the order: “Halt, do your duty.” The Mormon escort guards turned and gunned down at point blank range the men. At the sound of gunfire, Indians and Saints disguised as Indians came from ambush positions and clubbed, stabbed, and shot to death the women and children. The wounded in the wagon were shot at point blank range.

Only the seventeen children were spared because “they were too young to tell the tale,” and Mormon Doctrine states there is no forgiveness for the shedding of innocent blood (children under the age of eight). The children were doled out to Mormon homes and two years later when they were recovered by the Indian Agent, Forney, the Mormon Church billed the Federal Government for room and board. Authorization was made for payment to those who killed the children’s very parents in the sum of $2,961.77. Brevet Major Carleton, of the U.S. Army First Dragoons, who first found the killing field in Mountain Meadows, said of this payment: “Has there ever been an act which at all equaled this in devilish hardihood, in more than devilish effrontery? Never, but one: and even then the price was but ‘30 pieces of silver.’” (Mountain Meadows Massacre, Special Report, 57th Congress 1st Session, House of Representatives, Document No. 605).

Federal Stewardship

The horror of this event lives on today. The Mormon Church refuses to acknowledge any complicity in the wretched event. What is even worse, they have purchased all the land in the area of the killings. Four mass graves still hold the remains of these innocent people. The descendants have tried for years to be granted access to these mass graves to properly honor and bury their dead; HOWEVER, THE MORMON CHURCH REFUSES TO ALLOW THEM THIS SIMPLE ACT OF DECENCY.

How is this possible in 2007? Is this Bosnia, Iraq or Afghanistan we’re talking about here? No! We are talking about the control of the Mormon Church inside the “Zion Curtain,” a state known as Utah. If you’re the Mormon Church, you can kill them, and then with your money, purchase the land and keep the descendants away. How can this be?

There is no question that the Mormon Priesthood ordered this massacre, and the Mormon Church will not allow the families to properly bury their dead. The descendants of these people petitioned the Mormon Church in 1999 for Federal Stewardship of this area. They were seeking to have a neutral third party, the US Government, awarded the land. This would have allowed the descendants access to the graves so they can properly honor their dead. They were refused. In the spring of 2007 another request was made; again denial. Mormon Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley said, “It’s not in the best interests of the church to allow federal stewardship in the meadows.” Phil Bolinger, President of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation, meeting with the Mormon representative, Marlin Jensen on April 25th said, “It’s not right for the people who had complicity to the killings to be the grave owner.” He followed up with a sage question, “I asked him, ‘How do you think the Kennedy family would feel if the Lee Harvey Oswald family had control of the Kennedy tomb?” That question says it all—would, we Americans allow such a thing? NEVER!! This holdout by the Mormon Church, refusing to allow the descendants of the innocent victims, who their Priesthood leadership ordered killed, to properly bury their dead, is outrageous. These aren’t the actions of a religious organization—a religious organization would have compassion for such a tragedy. These are the actions of a large corporation trying to protect its assets—it’s all about business, plain old dollars and cents!

I thought the Mormon Church was all about families? Their actions have certainly proved they are not; I guess it depends on whether or not you killed those families! This most despicable act in American history lives on by the Mormon Church thumbing its nose at the descendants of those its Priesthood killed.

I interviewed four of the descendants of this massacre on our TV show “Truth Outreach.” Those shows were very hard to film—I could hardly keep my emotions in check. This brutal, senseless, religious fanatical killing, done by order of the Mormon Priesthood, just makes my blood boil. I hope it makes yours boil as well! The only thing that will make the Mormon Church budge one inch on this issue is NEGATIVE PUBLIC OPINION!!

If you want to right one of the WORST WRONGS in American history—we are collecting signatures on petitions demanding the Mormon Church to turn this killing field over to the Federal Government so the families can properly inter their dead. Go up on the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation (MMMF) website (just Google Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation and take the 1857massacre website) and on the main page is a link to download a PDF.file for the petition, or write to us and we’ll send you a couple. Pass them around your church, work, and your neighborhood. Hundreds of thousands of signatures and letters and phone calls is the only thing that will get their attention. Only the angry outcry of the American public will force the Mormon Church to do the right thing. Tell everyone you know about this!

If you wish to write a letter demanding release of Mountain Meadows, send it to:
Marlin Jensen, LDS CHURCH, 35 North West Temple St., Salt Lake City, UT 84150. You may call and complain to the LDS Church: Tom Owen 801-240-1000. Call the Switchboard in Washington D.C. to be connected to your US Senator or Congressman: (202) 224-3121. Get involved, you can make a difference to right this ugly wrong!! Let your voice be heard!!

MMMF needs strength in numbers—if you’re interested in joining a just cause send your $20.00 yearly membership fee to: Membership Application, Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation, Inc., 8002 Wind Rock Lane, Harrison, AR 72601—Helen and I did!!
by Rocky Hulse
Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach

© Copyright 2002-2014  Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, Inc. All Rights Reserved. —Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Was it necessary to attack the ministry Mormon Outreach and Rocky Hulse personally for having a difference of opinion?

I agree with Moroni 8:18": No. No, I don't!

by Rocky Hulse

August 2011

With the best of intentions, there are a few ministries today that set out using a verse of Mormon scripture (Moroni 8:18) to get Mormons to question one of their foundational beliefs: That God was not always God. I would not argue with the use of the verse to make that point; I believe Moroni 8:18 does make this point when compared with the Mormon doctrinal position of God today compared to the time the Book of Mormon was printed. The problem with these well meaning individuals is that they have labeled this approach as: “I agree with Moroni 8:18.” From the perspective of agreeing with Mormon scripture, I take exception. I believe it is wrong to agree with that which is known to be false. Spiritual truth is not contained in any Mormon scripture. Period!
The foundation upon which Christianity is built is God’s inerrant word, the Bible. From the Bible, we are repeatedly warned to beware of false prophets (1) and false teachers (2).  Is there any question within the community of ministries that witness to the Mormon people that Joseph Smith was a false prophet? Without question, the answer is: No! Is there any question within the community of ministries that witness to the Mormon people that Joseph Smith was a false teacher? Without question, the answer is: No! Is there any question within this same community that the Book of Mormon is an additional book of inspired scripture. Without question, the answer is: No, it is not scripture; it is a book of fiction.
The Title Page of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon lists the following statement: “BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUNIOR, AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR.” There is no question that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon and he is known to be a false prophet and false teacher. Why then, would I agree with anything that he wrote purporting to be spiritual truth? The supporters of the “I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign,” then chime in with, “What about Paul’s use of the Greek poets in Acts 17.” The creators/supporters of “I agree with Moroni 8:18” are following this premise: “There are those today who use Acts 17, Paul’s Mars Hill encounter with the Greek philosophers to prove that truth is found elsewhere, and the Bible is not the only place that contains spiritual truth.” (3)  This approach is flawed on two major counts in that they are saying: (1) Paul believed truth was found in the Greek philosophers; (2) spiritual truth is contained in Mormon scripture. They are wrong on both counts.
I encourage you to go and read the full article, Paul’s Mars Hill Appeal, written by “Let Us Reason Ministries,” provided in footnote (3). It is well written and I agree with the writer. I will provide some excerpts from that article to support my position; however, my minor quotes do not do justice to the complete article.
(1) Paul believed truth was found in the Greek philosophers:
In Acts 17:28, Paul quotes the Greek poet Epimenides, in his work, Cretica: “for in Him we live and move and have our being,”. He also quotes the Cilician poet, Aratus, in his work, Phaenonlena 5: “for we are also his offspring.”
Quoting from Paul’s Mars Hill Appeal: Paul used another pagan source to confirm the truth of the Bible, not the reverse, he was showing them how their own poets had some knowledge (though corrupted) of the God he is speaking to them of that they do not know. If he was saying their poet spoke truth then he would be endorsing Zeus a false god, the very thing he was trying to prove to them….What he quoted  was directly opposing the view of the Epicureans. Here Paul is citing poets who they respected and brilliantly turned it on their idolatry they now practiced. Paul has made a case that as men we have a necessary dependence on this God they do not know or see. He inserted their own poet’s statements as an added incentive to consider that their worship was wrong. He juxtaposed what was said in the past for what is being practiced in the present. If Paul meant they were actually God’s offspring He would be agreeing with the gods of Greek philosophy. He did not! This is poetry quoted, not doctrine, nor Scripture….He uses their poets point for a similarity of what he is conveying that is wrong, not what is right. Paul is using their own poet against their idolatry. He is not condoning their poet’s words as truth equal with the Bible’s revelation but dismantled their own view by using it as a similar point to present the Bible’s revelation.” (emphasis mine).
The attempt that proponents of the “I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign” use to validate their use of Mormon scripture and saying they agree with it as Paul agreed with the Greek poets, is an improper exegesis of the Acts 17 text.  Using Moroni 8:18 to show that Mormon doctrine is false is a worthwhile tactic; however, to agree with Moroni 8:18, giving it the validity of spiritual truth is wrong and is directly opposite of Paul’s use and intention at Mars Hill.
(2) Spiritual truth is contained in Mormon scripture:
Believing that spiritual truth can be contained in Mormon scripture is to believe that truth can come from error; it cannot. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Co. 6:14). Mormonism is a false teaching. Period! We are repeatedly warned as seen in footnotes (1) and (2) concerning those who would bring forth false teachings. There is no question that Joseph Smith, and all he produced, fits those Biblical warnings.
Part of the problem with the  “I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign” is a foundational ignorance that is sometimes displayed by those who are involved in ministry outreach to Mormons, but were never members of the Mormon Church themselves. Those who were never Mormons themselves, have studied greatly, and have done a great work in the Mormon community; however, all the reading and studying in the world cannot replace the first hand experience of having lived Mormonism. I spent 33 years on active duty in the United States Navy, 20 years of that time riding Navy ships at sea. Reading every available book or periodical about life at sea cannot bring a person to the reality of what it is like to sail aboard a modern naval vessel at sea.
These well-meaning individuals supporting the “I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign” fail to consider the basic reality that Mormonism uses a different dictionary than the rest of the English speaking world. Mormonism’s definition of many religious terms does not match that of Mainstream Christianity. This failure stem’s from not having a Mormon indoctrination foundation. They approach the words of Moroni 8:18 from their English definition, vice their Mormon definition; this is a flawed baseline position. Even though the premise of this is to show that Joseph Smith’s concept of God in 1830 was more closely aligned with Christianity, and definitely doesn’t align with his later pluralistic teaching of multiple gods, and God being a changeable being, non-exMormons do not take into account the indoctrination aspect of the cult culture, nor the misuse of words.
The word “God” used in Moroni 8:18 does not reflect the God of the Bible. The word “God” in Mormonism, really means “Heavenly Father,” and is an exalted man who once lived on another planet in another universe and lived, died, was resurrected, and was exalted to Godhood and eventually became the God of this universe. That corrupted concept contains no spiritual truth as contained in the Bible.
The words: “changeable, unchangeable, and eternity,” all have a time component tied to them that does not exist in Christendom. Since Mormon doctrine has Heavenly Father existing in a previous world where he rose through the concept of “Eternal Progression” through eons of time to achieve Godhood and then create this universe for the “exaltation” (meaning the achievement of Godhood by those who are deserving Mormons) of his children he procreated to inhabit this earth, the words: “changeable, unchangeable, and eternity” only pertain to the dispensation (timeframe) of this universe, not time immemorial.
Understanding these two concepts helps to better understand where those of us who disagree with the “I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign” are coming from. In our modern English vernacular, it appears that Moroni 8:18 reflects Biblical teaching. From the dictionary of Mormonism, it does not. So, to agree with Moroni 8:18, as if it were spiritual truth, is blasphemous.
In a local context, using the  “I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign” may cause some Mormons who are not fully indoctrinated to question their concept of God, and may appear to be a victory; however, in the bigger picture, to agree with the Book of Mormon is to pour fuel on the fire of the Mormon Public Relations machine that is trying its best to morph Mormonism in the minds of Christendom as just another Christian denomination; it is not.
Do not misinterpret my support of using Mormon scripture, the writings or sermons (talks, as they are called in Mormonism) of Mormon Prophets and Apostles, Mormon periodicals (Ensign, Era, Young Woman’s Journal, etc.), or Mormon Church produced materials (Sunday School manuals, Priesthood Manuals, Relief Society Manuals, BYU Religion course manuals, etc.), to counter the false teachings of Mormonism. I fully support the use of these materials, and I certainly quote from them on a regular basis in all facets of our ministry (Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach (MMMO)). What I will not do is agree with any quotation from Mormonism as being spiritual truth on par with the Bible. No part of Mormonism, even if plagiarized from the Bible, has a foundation of spiritual truth. Mormonism’s foundation is centered in Joseph Smith, a known false prophet and false teacher that the Bible gives us stern warnings about, as seen in footnotes (1) and (2). Anything therefore that emanates from Mormonism cannot, and is not, spiritual truth!
Another point that those who were never Mormon have no exposure to, and a true ignorance of, is the dogmatic indoctrination points that are spewed out upon family members when they dare to challenge Mormonism and attempt to share with their family the truth of God’s word as found in the Bible. Until you’ve stood toe-to-toe with your father, your mother, your brothers or sisters, and had them emphatically regurgitate the Mormon doctrinal points and proof texts, and call you a “Son of Perdition” if you don’t come back to the fold of Mormonism, you truly don’t “get it.” Believe me, “I get it!” I’ve been there, done that.
The bonds of Mormonism are so strong, so all encompassing, that reason, especially in the “family member leaving Mormonism” context, does not exist. In an emotional setting, a family member discussing why Mormonism is false with a Mormon family member, reason and good judgment are usually left by the wayside. In this type of setting, to use the phrase “I Agree With Moroni 8:18”, would be the equivalent of saying “I agree with the Book of Mormon.” It matters not that the context was to use Moroni 8:18 to disprove the current Mormon concept of the Godhead, all that is heard in the diehard Mormon is an agreement with the Book of Mormon. The indoctrinated Mormon brain shuts down and no reasoned, thoughtful argument can, or will be heard. I’ve been there more times than I care to remember, and only those who have been there can understand this awful predicament; nor have suffered the heartbreak the eventual end of the discussion/argument brings.
Using any verse in the Book of Mormon to disprove Mormonism is a worthwhile venture and a tactic I approve of and use myself. However, to use a verse of Mormon scripture, or a quote from a Mormon leader, or quote from a Mormon periodical, stating that you agree with that statement by placing it on par with the Bible as spiritual truth, is BLASPHEMOUS!
Use Moroni 8:18 all you like to disprove the false teaching of Mormonism. However, to agree with Moroni 8:18, is to give validity to Mormon scripture as equal with God’s Scripture, the Bible, and that is something that only those ignorant of the full scope of Mormonism would do. They do not understand the damage they are doing to those of us who are trying to witness to Mormon family members.

1 De. 13:5; 18:22; Is. 9:15; Je. 2:8; 5:31; 14:14; 23:16; Eze. 13:2; 22:28; Ho. 9:7; Mi. 3:5; Zep. 3:4; Zec. 13:3; Mt. 7:15; 24:11; Mk. 13:22.
2 Mt. 5:19; 15:9; 1 Ti. 1:7; 4:2; 6:3; 2 Ti. 4:3; Tit. 1:11; 2 Pe. 2:1.
 Mormon Outreach - Topical Index

Read and compare the two articles and the tone displayed in each article.  Not once did I name another ministry or person in my article above. I expressed my opinion based upon my research. 

Rob Sivulka, on the other hand in his article below found it necessary to attack us personally and use a captured photo from our TV show 'Truth Outreach' (the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping) which is found on our MMMO copyrighted website: Mormon Outreach TV shows.

Responding to Rocky Hulse's Critique of the Moroni 8::18 Campaign


My screen shot of the Hulses from one of their videos
My screen shot of the Hulses from one of their videos
Rocky Hulse of Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach has written an explanation of why he disagrees with Christians claiming they agree with the Moroni 8:18 campaign on his Facebook page called “'I agree with Moroni 8:18': No. No, I don’t!” Moroni 8:18 is a passage in the Book of Mormon (BM) that simply says, “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” Many Christians, whether they claim to agree with it or not, have jumped on this to ask LDS why they don’t agree with their own scripture. Current LDS teaching is that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man… I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345 [pre-2002 editions]).

On August 18th, 2011 (8:18), many Christians used this date to post on their Facebook walls and other places that they agree with Moroni 8:18, and wonder why Mormons do not. The intent was to open up some dialogues with Mormons concerning the nature of God, and how they need to repent of their God who is an exalted man. The call is to trust, not simply the unchanging God of the Book of Mormon, but ultimately the God of the Bible. This We Agree with 8:18 campaign was the brain-child of Aaron Shafovaloff, who works with Mormonism Research Ministry and is also a board member for our ministry—Courageous Christians United.

Since Shafovaloff asked for some defense, I am writing this response to Hulse. This article will demonstrate that Hulse’s attack on the 8:18 campaign is inconsistent with his own practices, lacking biblical basis, is an appeal to authority, a confusion on the nature of truth, and divisive to the Body of Christ. I have been grieved at the un-Christlike statements being leveled at Shafovaloff, my brother in the Lord, by many individuals, and Hulse’s article fuels that fire. This is a fire that needs extinguishing.


Hulse claims that one can use LDS sources to show how Mormons are inconsistent. So when he uses LDS sources, he simply uses them to his own advantage. For example, when he started each of his TV shows on Mormonism, he favorably quoted Brigham Young. Husle said, “As always on this program we like to give a couple quotes that we think legitimizes what we do here. And the first one is from Brigham Young, and he said, 'I say to the whole world, receive the truth, no matter who presents it to you. Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test'” (e.g., see here). Hulse continued to use that passage from the LDS Journal of Discourses (JD) 16:46 (which by the way, Young thought of his own sermons as scripture in 13:95) to get LDS to do what he wants them to do. Hulse claimed, “We believe these quotes justify what we do.”

On the surface, anyone would naturally think that Hulse agrees with what Young said. However, Hulse is quite emphatic that he will not agree with any Mormon scripture. He says, “From the perspective of agreeing with Mormon scripture, I take exception. I believe it is wrong to agree with that which is known to be false. Spiritual truth is not contained in any Mormon scripture. Period!” Later he says, “There is no question that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon and he is known to be a false prophet and false teacher. Why then, would I agree with anything that he wrote purporting to be spiritual truth?”

So at this point, one has to wonder, first of all, was Brigham Young’s statement a “spiritual truth”? If not, why not? Should it be called a natural or false truth? What in the world would that be? I will return to this point latter under the discussion of the nature of truth.

Second of all, how is what Hulse uses for his purposes in the JD deemed false if he uses it to “justify what we do”? It seems pretty clear that Hulse is caught in an inconsistency. He implicitly agrees with the JD quote--that we should agree with the truth wherever we find it--but he cannot agree with what the 8:18 crowd is doing.

Lacking Biblical Basis

Hulse critiques the support for 8:18 on the basis of Paul debating the Epicureans and quoting the pagan writers in Acts 17. Hulse argues, first of all, that Paul used their writings not to prove the truth of what they wrote, but to confirm the truth of the Bible. Then Hulse claims that if Paul were to claim they spoke the truth, then he would be endorsing the false god Zeus. Hulse implicitly agrees with a quote from a Let Us Reason Ministries article called “Paul’s Mars Hill Appeal”, which said, “What [Paul] quoted was directly opposing the view of the Epicureans. Here Paul is citing poets who they respected and brilliantly turned it on their idolatry they now practiced. …If Paul meant they were actually God’s offspring He would be agreeing with the gods of Greek philosophy. He did not!”

In response, just because Paul’s ultimate goal was getting his crowd to believe the Bible doesn’t entail that he did not also agree with what the pagans had written. Hulse simply begs the question that agreeing with some statement is equivalent to endorsing their false god. How does that follow? For Paul to endorse the pagan truths--“for in Him we live and move and have our being” and also “for we are also his offspring”--simply points out that making graven images is inconsistent with these truths. But in Hulse’s mind, they can’t be truths, since they are from pagan sources. Again, there is no good argument here why individual statements in pagan sources cannot be true. Hulse just has an immediate emotional reaction against anything pagan. There is nothing wrong with emotional reactions against paganism, but when that takes the place of good reason, then we don’t have any reason not to agree with the pagan statements.

Similarly, the 8:18 crowd also wants to confirm the truth of the Bible. They are not content to simply let LDS work out an inconsistency between the BM and current teaching all by themselves. The 8:18 crowd wants LDS to see that the BM is true when it agrees with what the Bible has always taught (e.g., Psalm 90:2). Just like Paul did not endorse his current audience’s false god, the 8:18 crowd doesn’t endorse the current LDS false god. Both Paul and the 8:18 crowd are drawing on truths from non-biblical sources that their current audiences should accept, and those truths are consistent or “on par” (to use Hulse’s language) with the Bible.

Next, Hulse argues,“Believing that spiritual truth can be contained in Mormon scripture is to believe that truth can come from error; it cannot. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Co. 6:14). Mormonism is a false teaching. Period!” The argument is extremely weak. “[T]ruth cannot come from error,” seems to be a reference to an errant source. But that is commonly known as the genetic fallacy. But just because I learned 2+2=4 from a witch doesn’t entail it is not true or that there are not any good reasons to believe it. Similarly, just because an individual like an LDS may come to hold 8:18 doesn’t entail that it is not true or there are no good reasons to believe that truth.

As for 2 Corinthians 6:14, legalistic fundamentalists often like throwing this verse out when they want other Christians to stay away from something they don’t like (e.g., music, democrats, clothing, dancing, certain scientific theories, etc.). Hulse uses this verse to scare people away from discovering any truth in the BM. Recall that the same author of this 2 Corinthians passage was the same individual who agreed with pagan sources in Acts 17 as well as 1 Cor. 15:33. Further, Matthew 5:45 is clear that we have at least the sun and rain in common with the unjust, so I don’t think that Hulse is being fair in using this passage. The context of the 2 Corinthians passage is simply talking about purity and not being corrupted by that which is unclean (cf. vs. 17). The passage has nothing to do with abstaining from seeking truth or wisdom outside the Bible, including pagan sources. I am not being unequally yoked if I believe or agree with the Satanic Bible that “dogma… is necessary (50),” for example, since Satan can go to hell as far as I am concerned.

Finally, the Apostle Paul was in agreement with the Prophet Amos who used and agreed with moral principles found within nature that the Gentiles were held responsible with. Amos preached to the Gentile nations that did not have the Old Testament. Nonetheless, they, like the pagans Paul addressed, should have known better. This should not surprise us, since Psalm 19 and Romans 1 is very clear about the knowledge of God revealed clearly to all in nature and outside the Bible. God is omnipresent, and His truth lightens everyone that comes into the world (Jn. 1:9). Proverbs tells us that wisdom cries out from the streets (1:20) and we are instructed to go and learn a lesson from the ant (6:6). It is simply beyond belief that unbelievers could not codify some of these natural principles into false scriptures or at least authoritative writings (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi).

Appeal to Authority

Having been LDS himself, Rocky seems repulsed by the idea of agreeing with anything Mormon. As a result of this baggage, he assumes that there is no truth in anything Mormon that he could agree with. To do so in his mind is to give validity to the Mormon Church. Further, he seems to generalize the 8:18 crowd as never living as Mormons, who obviously don’t know how to really deal with the LDS mindset. He says,

“Part of the problem with the ‘I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign’ is a foundational ignorance that is sometimes displayed by those who are involved in ministry outreach to Mormons, but were never members of the Mormon Church themselves. Those who were never Mormons themselves, have studied greatly, and have done a great work in the Mormon community; however, all the reading and studying in the world cannot replace the first hand experience of having lived Mormonism. I spent 33 years on active duty in the United States Navy, 20 years of that time riding Navy ships at sea. Reading every available book or periodical about life at sea cannot bring a person to the reality of what it is like to sail aboard a modern naval vessel at sea.

These well-meaning individuals supporting the ‘I Agree With Moroni 8:18 Campaign’ fail to consider the basic reality that Mormonism uses a different dictionary than the rest of the English speaking world. Mormonism’s definition of many religious terms does not match that of Mainstream Christianity. This failure stem’s from not having a Mormon indoctrination foundation. …[N]on-exMormons do not take into account the indoctrination aspect of the cult culture, nor the misuse of words.”

Hulse goes on to tell us that he knows that Mormons really won’t have a problem anyway with 8:18, since it becomes reinterpreted according to the Mormon lens. This lens simply imposes current Mormonism onto 8:18. In effect, Hulse is claiming that given his insider knowledge, no Mormon is going to struggle with fitting 8:18 into their worldview.

In logic, we call this the fallacy of appealing to authority. Hulse is the enlightened one, since he has been on the inside and he knows better than all the rest of those in the 8:18 crowd.

There are at least three problems here. First, I personally know a number of former Mormons who have participated with or at least approve with the 8:18 campaign (including no less than Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Are they now not as competent as Hulse? They have insider knowledge as well, but they think that 8:18 may be valuable for at least some LDS, including those who have been fully indoctrinated family members. Second, the 8:18 crowd is not as ignorant as Hulse paints them. One doesn’t need insider knowledge to realize the heavy indoctrination LDS go through. Third, Hulse’s authority is not on par with the Prophet Amos and the Apostle Paul, and we have already seen how they believed God could use truths from outside the Bible (regardless of the immediate source) that unbelievers should believe.

Confusion on the Nature of Truth

Hulse, as already stated, has said, “Spiritual truth is not contained in any Mormon scripture. Period!” He goes on to affirm that he uses LDS sources all the time for his purposes, but says, “What I will not do is agree with any quotation from Mormonism as being spiritual truth on par with the Bible. No part of Mormonism, even if plagiarized from the Bible, has a foundation of spiritual truth.” In fact, Hulse says that “to agree with Moroni 8:18, as if it were spiritual truth, is blasphemous.”

I agree with all the passages in the BM directly quoted from the King James Version of the Bible. I put those on par with the Bible, since they are actually from the Bible. So according to Hulse's logic, I am doing something "blasphemous."

Further, what is really meant by putting 8:18 on par with scripture? Does it mean that we think 8:18 is really scripture? No. But we still think it is a divine truth, since all truth is God's truth. 2+2=4 is not scripture, but it is still truth. John 1:1 is not more true than 2+2=4, and Ps. 90:2 is not more true than Moroni 8:18. So in that metaphysical sense, they are all on par. They are all truths that ultimately come from God, who is the giver of all good things. The Bible is the written revelation foundational for our judgments concerning other so-called later revelations. Galatians 1:6-9 is clear about that. This is an epistemic sense of priority.

So we do in fact put 8:18 on a metaphysical, not epistemic, par with the truth in the Bible, and we also put the KJV direct quotations in the BM on metaphysical par with the Bible. Hulse confuses a metaphysical sense of priority with an epistemic one, and then claims that those who put any LDS source on par with the Bible are “blasphemous.”

Further, he even claimed that simply agreeing with Moroni 8:18 is giving “validity to Mormon scripture as equal with God’s Scripture, the Bible.” Again, “equal” in what sense? As truth (metaphysically) or as the means by which to judge whether the Bible or any other revelation is true (epistemically)? Hulse doesn’t seem to be aware of this distinction, and as a result, he falsely assumes the worst of those involved in the 8:18 campaign when they put 8:18 “on par” with what is revealed in the Bible.

All truth is God’s truth. Every truth is ultimately a divine truth, regardless of the immediate source. If you doubt that, then what truth isn’t God’s truth? So if I find truth from an unbeliever, I thank him or her, but more importantly, God gets the ultimate thanks. That does not entail everything the unbeliever believes is true, and thus it is also not an endorsement of him or her. The unbeliever still needs to repent and submit to Christ.


Calling the 8:18 crowd “blasphemous” for agreeing with the spiritual truth contained in the BM and putting, not the BM, but that particular verse on par with Bible is really not conducive for unity among the brethren, let alone giving one’s brothers and sisters in Christ the benefit of the doubt. The 8:18 crowd are sincere believers who want to make a difference for the cause of Christ, and see more Mormons in the kingdom of God. The 8:18 crowd hardly even uses this method. They simply utilize it as a tool on particular occasions where they think it is warranted. They don’t even demand that everyone has to confront Mormons like they do. It is simply a different method of reaching the lost.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, micro-managers want to tell everyone how to do things. These guys want to regulate and promote their preferred method of reaching out to Mormons. As a result, these regulators end up putting God in a box. They assume God can’t work in some way they are not comfortable with. This means it is either their way or the highway… even going so far as to call one’s brethren “blasphemous” if they do things they don’t like!

This sows discord among the brethren. I cannot even begin to tell you how much controversy this has caused among those that utilize “stranger” or “confrontational” evangelism with Mormons! Confrontational evangelists have had in-fighting before, but never have I seen anything like this, and I have been a missionary to Mormons for almost 30 years now! Typically, the in-fighting is not among confrontational evangelists, but the in-fighting is within the Church—between the confrontational evangelists and those who evangelize exclusively within the confines of established friendships.

Since God’s ways and thoughts are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:9), and since the Body is made of various members, each gifted in various ways (1 Cor. 12-14), it should not surprise us that God oftentimes works in ways we are not used to. Given that there are many well-respected believers who claim to utilize 8:18 for the glory of God (including former Mormons), given that we are to walk in humility, knowing that we often don’t see as clearly as we think we do, and given that the arguments against 8:18 are “straining at the gnat,” we ought to be more gracious toward our brothers and sisters who support 8:18.


Since LDS are still people made in God's image, they still partake of common everyday truth and grace. Again, Mat. 5:45 says, "[H]e maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." So we should expect that Mormonism gets it right in some areas. Even a broken clock is right at least twice a day. Mormons are right to hold we shouldn't abuse our children, for example. That truth doesn't originate from them. It originates from God from who is the Truth. But suppose I came to learn that truth from a Mormon, being raised by them. Am I no longer entitled to believe it is true? Or am I somehow validating Mormonism if I agree with them? Of course not! So the source of my immediate knowledge of a particular truth is quite different from the ultimate source of truth itself or my ultimate source of knowledge, since all good things ultimately come from God. God can use whatever immediate source to bring about whatever He wants (e.g., think of Baalam’s jackass or using King Cyrus as an anointed one).

So I think a reaction to even that statement about LDS and child-care shows how overly sensitive some of these in the anti-8:18 crowd are. I get that and I sympathize with that, especially with those like Hulse who used to be Mormon. My ex-Mormon wife tends to think in this overly reactive way, but she would never tell others that they could not use 8:18. Unity is more important for her.

Nonetheless, we are called to be charitable to LDS and respect them. It is just difficult to do that if one thinks there is nothing of value to them, including all their beliefs.

So I will extend grace to my overly reactive brothers and sisters, letting God take His time with them, and not forcing them to witness like I do. But I ask these brothers and sisters for the same grace to trust God with the way we use truth from not just the Bible, but also outside it. We both have the same goal, viz., we want Mormons to repent. Let’s pray for each other and focus our energies on getting people to come to heaven with us, particularly since people are going to hell every minute. Let’s not give the devil a foothold to waste anymore time on fighting amongst the brethren.

R. M. Sivulka
President, Courageous Christians United
August 29, 2011

© Copyright 2002-2014  Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, Inc. All Rights Reserved. —Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Evolving Restoration?

Mormon Semi-Annual Conference April 5th-6th 2014, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2nd Counselor (right)  to Mormon Prophet/President Thomas S. Monson (center) 1st Counselor President Henry B. Eyring (left).
By Rocky Hulse                                                                 May 25, 2014

     Being born and raised in the Mormon Church, I took notice of a statement in a talk given at the recent Mormon Semi-Annual Conference held over the April 5th-6th weekend. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2nd Counselor to Mormon Prophet/President, Thomas S. Monson, gave an address at the “Priesthood Session” titled “Are you sleeping through the Restoration.”

     “In his priesthood session address of the general conference, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf referred to the character RiP Van Winkle, who slept for 20 years and awoke to find he had missed the American Revolution.
          ‘Today, I would like to take the same theme and propose a question to all of us who hold God’s priesthood: Are you sleeping through the Restoration?’ said President Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency.
     Rather than being complete at the time of Joseph Smith, the Restoration is an ongoing process, he noted.”

     That statement that “the Restoration is an ongoing process” struck me as odd considering that I was never taught that the “Restoration” was ongoing; rather, I was taught that as a Mormon I was a member of the “Restored” Church. There’s a huge difference between “Restored” and an “ongoing Restoration.”
     My last newsletter was about activist Mormon women challenging the status quo in Mormonism that only males, 12 years and older may hold the Mormon Priesthood. Also, with the status of marriage being challenged in courts across the nation, it may soon be the case that polygamy is ruled “constitutional.”
     What came to my mind was: Is this member of the “First Presidency” leaving the door open to capitulate to social changes going on in America today? By stating that the “Restoration” is an “ongoing process” allows the Mormon Leadership to change the position held since the Mormon Church was first organized that only men may hold the priesthood. “Ongoing Restoration” would allow a “new revelation” to be received that reverses the previously held position and would give the Mormon Leadership the ability to once again explain away changes to their doctrine that had been previously instituted by a “revelation” from God through one of their prophets.
     In 1978 the Mormon Prophet Spencer W. Kimball had a revelation that blacks, which had previously been denied the Mormon Priesthood, could now be ordained into its offices. This monumental change has been explained away in various fashions, but now is being promoted as the failing prejudices of the Church Leaders. Changes now though, could be explained away as just “ongoing Restoration.”

The Restored Church!

     In the Mormon Church, a daily high school class is taught, usually before the regular high school classes begin, which is called “Seminary”. Quite unlike “seminaries” in the Christian world, which are established college institutions with college degree programs of study, Mormon “seminary” is just a one hour class, normally taught at one of their local meeting houses, called a “ward.” One of the four year study courses when I was in high school and attended seminary was Church History and our text was “The Restored Church” by William E. Berrett. I still have the copy I used in my seminary class.
     I was taught as a young Mormon boy that I was a member of the “restored” church, “…the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth…” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30). I was taught that all other churches were false and the original church of Jesus Christ had been lost to the earth after the death of the apostles and had been restored through Joseph Smith.

“The Gospel Restored” by Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie

     The following are excerpts from an article titled “The Gospel Restored.” It was taken from the “” website. It was a talk delivered by Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie at an area conference held in Tahiti on March 2, 1976:

     “We have a glorious message for the world. It is the most wondrous proclamation of the last 2,000 years. It compares with the message of Peter, James, and John of 2,000 years ago. They went forth to proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead. They testified that the resurrection was a reality.
     We come in this day with a proclamation of equal proportions. We announce boldly that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ has been restored in our day….[notice this is a past tense statement “has been” instead of present tense “is being”]
     …We have received again every key and power and right that the ancient saints had. [notice this is a past tense statement “have received” not present tense “are receiving”] Once again the voice of God has been heard. Once again angels have ministered from his presence. Once again the Church and kingdom of God has been set up. [notice this is past tense “has been set up” not present tense “is being set up”]
     All of these wondrous things were predicted by the prophets of old. Their occurrence in our day began in the spring of 1820. The person chosen of God to be his prophet was named Joseph Smith. This young man desired to know which of all the churches was right. He poured out his soul to God in humble prayer. The hour had come for the opening of the new dispensation. The veil was rent. The heavens were opened. Messengers from eternity appeared. The young man was told that if he were true and faithful, he would be the instrument in the hands of the Lord for restoring again the fulness of the everlasting gospel. He was true to the trust given him.
     In process of time, line upon line, the gospel was restored. [This statement is past tense “was restored” not present tense “is being restored”] The Lord had to restore the knowledge and doctrines that the ancient saints had. [This statement is past tense “had to restore” not present tense “is restoring”] In large measure, he did this by giving a new volume of scripture…. we have another great volume of scripture. This volume is named the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a history of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. In it is recorded the plan of salvation. It tells what men have to do to be saved. It is in perfect and complete harmony with the Bible. It expands and clarifies many doctrines. It is a volume of holy scripture. It was given to men in our day by the ministering of angels .… As part of the great restoration the Lord sent many angels to minister to men. These angels gave priesthood and keys. Revelations were received. Arrangement was made to set up again the same organization had by the primitive saints. The name of that organization is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [These last statements identify the Mormon Church as the “great restoration”] We hold the holy priesthood. Apostles and prophets have been called again upon the earth….The second great truth that men must believe is this: God has in these last days restored the fulness of his everlasting gospel; [The “restored fulness” is a finite statement, not an “ongoing restoration”] …come and take the added light and truth that God has restored in our day [“restored” not “restoring”] ….We testify that there has been a glorious wondrous restoration.” [This “talk” given by Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, was a statement of finality, it is restored, not a statement of the “ongoing restoration”]

“The Gospel Restored” by Mormon Seventy Hugh W. Pinnock

     Hugh W. Pinnock, was selected to be a Mormon General Authority, a Seventy, October 1, 1977. He was selected to be in the Presidency of the Seventy, October 4, 1986. During the October 1980 General Conference of the Mormon Church, Hugh Pinnock gave a talk titled “The Gospel Restored.” Even the title of this talk states the past tense, “Restored” position of Mormonism, not this new twist of “ongoing restoration.”
     I downloaded this talk from Here are excerpts from that talk that clearly show the finality of the “restoration” rather than this new theme of an “ongoing restoration”:

      “As we study this reinstitution and the theological basis of the Church, we will find ourselves thinking about the questions that so many others have asked. What is the explanation for the growth and the amazing influence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What does make Mormons different? Perplexed scholars, social critics, religionists, and cultural observers have given many answers. Their

responses have ranged from describing the Church as a social abnormality that appeals to accomplishment-oriented people to such a simplistic idea as a  conservative church always generates interest during troubled times.
     However, the more deeply one wonders what makes us different from our nonmember friends and neighbors, the more certain is the answer: the Redeemer and other heavenly messengers personally restored the everlasting gospel to the earth. [“restored” is finite – no wiggle room] That is why we are here….Fortunately, the Restoration gives us the panacea that mends, directs, corrects, and heals; but if we don’t conform to this great God-given system, we will be like those unwise maidens who did not trim their wicks and fill their lamps with oil. We as a people areaction-oriented and work-inclined. Conformance to this eternal system of energy expenditures does provide the only complete set of answers, which the world so desperately needs.”

     Notice that this last few sentences are absolute in that this Mormon General Authority unequivocally states that “conformance to this eternal system [Mormonism]…does provide the only complete set of answers…” [this finite statement “complete”, leaves no room for flexibility, nothing pertaining to an ongoing restoration]
     As a born and raised Mormon who had it indelibly etched on their brain that Mormonism is the “restored Gospel,” I can’t help but wonder if this new “ongoing” twist is just a way to gloss over upcoming socially driven changes to their doctrine.

 © Copyright 2002-2014  Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, Inc. All Rights Reserved. —Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Like a Lamb to the Slaughter?

by Rocky Hulse

April 12, 2010

I was invited to be a speaker at the Capstone Conference at Calvary Chapel Salt Lake City, Utah, March 12th and 13th; so, Helen and I made the trip to Salt Lake City and visited old friends and met and made many new ones (especially “Facebook” friends). My presentation was titled “Like a Lamb to the Slaughter; Joseph the Martyr?” This topic was received very well and so I thought I would share it here. The topic is also quite large so it will take two newsletters to cover it. Next month, I’ll cover the belief by Mormons that Joseph Smith died as a martyr.
Blasphemous Mormon Scripture
The Mormon Church puts forward three additional books besides the Bible as scripture: The Book of Mormon; The Doctrine and Covenants; and The Pearl of Great Price. These four books are called “The Standard Works” and are the reservoir from which Mormon Doctrine flows. The Doctrine and Covenants is touted by the Mormon Church to contain 134 revelations given to Joseph Smith.  Since his death 6 other revelations have been canonized. Section 135, written by John Taylor, Third Prophet of the Mormon Church, is now their scripture lauding the “martyrdom” of Joseph Smith. Verse 4 reads as follows:
4. When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men.”… D & C 135:4
We are told by Mormons “If it is not in the STANDARD WORKS, it is not doctrine.” So, lets analyze this verse of Mormon scripture that they consider to be doctrine. There are four points here that I will cover:
1. Pretended requirements of the law
2. I am going like a lamb to the slaughter
3. I am calm as a summer’s morning
4. I have a conscience void of offense towards God and towards all men
“Pretended Requirements of the Law”
The first point of this Mormon Scripture is that Joseph was taken to Carthage Jail illegally by “Pretended” requirements of the law. Did Joseph Smith break the law? The answer is resoundingly: YES!
Joseph Smith ordered the destruction of the newspaper, the “Nauvoo Expositor.” The “Nauvoo Expositor” was founded by dissenters of Mormonism and only printed one issue before Joseph Smith, acting as Mayor of Nauvoo, declared the newspaper to be a nuisance and ordered its destruction.
I have written articles over the years where I stated that Joseph Smith violated the 1st Amendment – Freedom of the Press, refuting Mormon claims that Joseph was jailed illegally. A few months back I was challenged on our website blog by a Mormon who finally identified himself as David Young. He said that Joseph did not violate the 1st Amendment. His position was that even though the 1st Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, it did not apply to the States, but only to the Federal Government.
David hounded me on our blog concerning this point. I finally sat down and did the research on this issue, and he was right; however, as Paul Harvey used to say: “Now, the rest of the story.”
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833) the Supreme Court ruled the Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments) did not apply to the States. So, when Joseph destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor in June of 1844, the protection of Freedom of the Press under the 1st Amendment did not apply. Not until the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 did the “Bill of Rights” become applicable to all the States. So, Joseph Smith, in 1844, was not in violation of the 1st Amendment; however, he was in violation of the Illinois State Constitution.
Illinois became a State on December 3, 1818. Part of the process of Statehood requires a State to provide to Congress a copy of their State Constitution for its approval; so, Joseph was bound by the Constitution of the State of Illinois that was in force as of Statehood, December 3, 1818, when he ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, June 8, 1844.
Illinois Constitution ART VIII Para 7 reads:
7. That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offenses are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted.
Illinois Constitution ART VIII Para 22 reads:
22. The printing press shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
The above excerpts from the Illinois State Constitution provide clear evidence that Freedom of the Press was an Illinois Constitutionally guaranteed right and that Illinois residents were also guaranteed the right of protection from illegal searches and seizures without supporting evidence.
Article VIII Paragraph 22 is quite specific about the right “to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
What was the “offense” according to Joseph Smith? He declared the newspaper to be a “nuisance.” Why? Because it was reporting on what he was doing clandestinely. As can be clearly seen, the Illinois Constitution expressly protects the examination of government and the right to “freely speak, write, and print on any subject.” So, when Joseph ordered its destruction and was subsequently arrested for that act, was he arrested on the “Pretended Requirements of the Law?” No. Joseph Smith was in clear violation of the law and was rightly arrested for that violation. The Mormon Church continues to this day to falsely portray Joseph as the innocent victim of false charges. RUBBISH!!
“I am going like a lamb to the slaughter”
Point number two is a clear reference to the Messianic Prophecy concerning Jesus:
7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. Isaiah 53:7
In the Book of Acts 8:32, we see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch:
32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
In vs. 34 the Eunuch asks: ‘Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?’ Philip then explains to him that it is Jesus.
There is no question this is a Messianic Prophecy of Jesus Christ. It is also quite clear that in this Mormon Scripture, Doctrine and Covenants 135:4, the Mormon Church is comparing Joseph’s death to Jesus’ death. This comparison is so blasphemous it defies any and all possible explanations that can be promoted by this modern day cult!
Let us clearly dispel this blasphemous comparison by looking at Jesus vs. Joseph:
Jesus = God
•Jesus committed no crime
•Jesus went willingly
•Jesus never spoke in His defense
•Jesus was crucified saying: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” as he took upon Himself the sins of the world
Joseph = sinful man
•Joseph did commit crimes
•Joseph fled to Iowa, then demanded an escort from the Governor of Illinois
•Joseph petitioned Gov. Ford on his behalf
•Joseph died with the Masonic call of distress on his lips: “Oh Lord my God” – (is there no help for a widow’s son)
Masonic signal and call of distress – Elder Heber C. Kimball, 1st Counselor to Brigham Young, confirmed in “Mormonism and Masonry” pg 16.  Zina D. Huntington, Joseph’s wife #7, affirmed this as well on pg 17: “I am the daughter of a Master Mason; I am the widow of the Master Mason who, when leaping from the window of Carthage jail, pierced with bullets, made the Masonic sign of distress, but those signs were not heeded except by the God of Heaven.”
“but I am calm as a summer’s morning;”
Point number 3 is the statement “but I am calm as a summer’s morning:” The evidence doesn’t bear out this statement. The initial arrest warrant for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was illegally discharged by the Nauvoo City Council on a writ of habeas corpus (I will expound on this in the next issue of the Midwest Expositor). Joseph and his brother, Hyrum, immediately fled across the Mississippi River to Iowa to avoid the jurisdiction of the Illinois Courts. Only when berated by the comments of the Mormons that Joseph was abandoning his flock and the pleas of his wife Emma, did Joseph return to Nauvoo.
Upon his return Joseph Smith sent emissaries to Governor Ford to accept the armed escort by the Nauvoo Legion of Joseph to Carthage. Jesus went willingly to be tried before the Courts of Jerusalem. Joseph initially fled the state and then required of Governor Ford an armed escort.
Jesus willingly allowed Himself to be tried, convicted and executed for you and me. Joseph Smith was killed in a gun battle. Joseph Smith was wrongfully killed by a mob in the Carthage Jail; however, he was in possession of an illegally smuggled in revolver with which he killed some of the mob:
“Elder Cyrus Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, ‘Would any of you like to have this?’ Brother Joseph immediately replied, ‘Yes give it to me,’ whereupon he took the pistol and put it in his pantaloons pocket.” (History of the Church, Vol 7, pg 100)
When the mob rushed the jail and Joseph’s brother Hyrum had been shot, the following is recorded in History of the Church, Vol 7, pg 102-103:
“He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died.”
Jesus went to his death willingly and died for us; Joseph went to his death unwillingly and died in a gun battle where he killed at least two men.
We also know that Joseph Smith sent a message to the acting General of the Nauvoo Legion to attack Carthage and rescue the prisoners:
“The morning of 27 June, Smith sent an order (in his own handwriting) to Major-General Jonathan Dunham to lead the Nauvoo Legion in a military attack on Carthage “immediately” to free the prisoners.” (The Mormon Hierarchy Origins of Power, pg 141)
Jesus on the other hand said in Mt 26:53 “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more that twelve legions of angels?” A legion was 6,000 soldiers, which means Jesus says he could have called up 72,000 angels in His defense. Did He? No. Did Joseph attempt to call up the Nauvoo Legion in his defense? Yes! Who went to their death willingly?
“I have a conscience void of offense towards God and towards all men”
For Joseph Smith to make such a statement was for him to completely ignore his lawbreaking actions and his moral failures. While denying it publicly, there is no question that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy privately which was a violation of Illinois Law. “An 1833 Illinois state law provided two years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine for the married man who married another woman and one year’s imprisonment and a $500 fine for the unmarried woman who knowingly entered into a marriage ceremony with an already married man.” (LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages 1890-1904 by D. Michael Quinn).
In her book “No Man Knows My History, The Life of Joseph Smith” Fawn Brodie lists his 49 wives. Of these wives ten were teenagers (2-15, 1-16, 4-17, 3-19). Six of these women were once wards in his home and instead of protecting them, he seduced them. Twelve of these women were married to living men. This is called “Polyandry,” defined as: “the state or practice of having two or more husbands at the same time.” This was a despicable practice where Joseph Smith used his position as the “Prophet” to convince these men to give their wives to him. Joseph pressured many of these women to marry him by saying that if they didn’t God would slay him.
Joseph ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor because he knew the newspaper would expose his diabolical acts.
There is no doubt that the only way Joseph could make a statement of a clear conscience was because he had a seared conscience.
Nauvoo Expositor
Having done this research, I now believe that the real reason Joseph had the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed was because Joseph had secretly organized the “Council of Fifty,” designed to bring forth the “Kingdom of God” on earth with the Mormon Church as the governing body and Joseph Smith as the earthly king. The Council of Fifty had ordained Joseph as “King of the Earth” and the Nauvoo Expositor was going to print that in their 2nd Edition.

© Copyright 2002-2014  Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, Inc. All Rights Reserved. —Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

'Ordain Women' protest their exclusion from the Mormon Priesthood

By: Rocky Hulse                                                                                              March 2014

“Ordain Women” protest their exclusion from the Mormon Priesthood

     A female Mormon activist organization calling itself “Ordain Women” is creating a stir surrounding the April 2014 184th Mormon Church’s General Conference. They made the news on March 6, 2014 when they tried to get tickets to the Priesthood Session of the Mormon General Conference. They were denied as only males 12 years and older may attend this meeting.
     On the “Ordain Women” website, they have posted the following statement:

“Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormons to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.”

     Often I find when discussing Mormonism with Mormons, that they don’t know their own teachings. These women are way out in left field with their desire to hold the “Mormon Priesthood.” These women either do not know, or choose to ignore, the Mormon teachings concerning the role of women in the Mormon Church.

Mormon Doctrine on women is complicated!

     The Mormon Doctrine concerning women is woven through many controversial doctrines that are contrary to universal Biblical Christian Doctrine. I’ll have to take this in several steps in order to make sense of it for you. In short, Mormonism teaches that everyone was born in a pre-existent world to exalted God parents; we then came to earth to get a mortal body and prove ourselves worthy so that in the resurrection we will be exalted and can then continue our progression after death to eventually become Deity ourselves and eventually men who become gods will create their own earths and populate them through their goddess wives bringing forth celestial spirit offspring.


     Mormonism teaches that all human beings were first born as spirits into a pre-mortal existence: The Spirit World. They were born to God, an exalted man of flesh and bones, and one of his wives, an exalted Goddess woman.

“Pre-existence is the term commonly used to describe the pre-mortal existence of the spirit children of God the Father. Speaking of this prior existence in a spirit sphere, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) said: ‘All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity’; as spirits they were the ‘offspring of celestial parentage.’ (Man: His Origin and Destiny, pp. 351, 355.) These spirit beings, the offspring of exalted parents, were men and women, appearing in all respects as mortal persons do, excepting only that their spirit bodies were made of a more pure and refined substance than the elements from which mortal bodies are made.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 589)


     “We had an existence before we came to this world. We lived in the spirit, and were in the presence of our Father in heaven, who is the Father of the spirits of all men; and there we walked by sight, for we were in his presence.
     It was necessary, in order that we might receive a fulness of blessings and opportunities and become like unto our Father, for us to pass through this mortal probation. Hence, this earth was prepared; and we were sent down here to receive bodies of flesh and bones and to be quickened by blood; and to partake of all the vicissitudes of life as we find them here on this earth, that we might, through obedience to the principles of the gospel, know good from evil….
   We are subject to temptation; but the Lord never intended that we should yield to it and thus become subject unto sin, and fall and lose the reward that otherwise would be ours. He knew that on no other terms, only through our free agency and the opportunities which would come to us in this life by knowing good from evil when we no longer walk by sight but by faith, would we be able to come back into his presence and be worthy of exaltation.” (Doctrines of Salvation , Vol. 2, pps. 1-2).


     “As used in the scriptures, eternal life is the name given to the kind of life our Eternal Father lives. The word eternal, as used in the name eternal life, is a noun and not an adjective. It is one of the formal names of Deity (Moses 1:3; 7:35; D. & C. 19:11) and has been chosen by him as the particular name to identify the kind of life he lives. He being God, the life he lives is God’s life; and his name (in the noun sense) being Eternal, the kind of life he lives is eternal life. Thus: God’s life is eternal life; eternal life is God’s life—the expressions are synonymous.
     Accordingly, eternal life is not a name that has reference only to the unending duration of a future life; immortality is to live forever in the resurrected state, and by the grace of God all men will gain this unending continuance of life. But only those who obey the fulness of the gospel law will inherit eternal life. (D. & C. 29:43-44.) It is ‘the greatest of all the gifts of God’ (D. & C. 14:7), for it is the kind, status, type, and quality of life that God himself enjoys. Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation; they are the sons of God, joint heirs with Christ, members of the Church of the Firstborn; they overcome all things, have all power, and receive the fulness of the Father. They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 237.)


     “Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence. (D. & C. 130:18-19.) This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience—a course that began in a past eternity and will continue in ages future—is frequently referred to as a course of eternal progression.” (Mormon Doctrine, p 238.)


     “Those who gain eternal life (exaltation) also gain eternal lives, meaning that in the resurrection they have eternal ‘increase,’ ‘a continuation of the seeds,’ a ‘continuation of the lives.’ Their spirit progeny will ‘continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.’ (D. & C. 131:1-4; 132:19-25; 30, 55.)
     ‘Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the holy priesthood,’ the Prophet says, ‘they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection.’ Then with reference to those who have been properly sealed in marriage and who have thereafter endured in righteousness until their callings and elections were made sure by the revelation he adds: ‘But those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, [their callings and elections having been made sure through perfect devotion to the truth, they] will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.’ (Teachings, pp. 300-301.)” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 238.)

     “Those who attain to the exaltation in the celestial kingdom shall have the power of eternal increase of posterity, and they shall be ‘above all, because all things are subject unto them.’ Children born to parents who have obtained, through their faithfulness, the fulness of these blessings, shall be spirit children not clothed upon with tabernacles of flesh and bones. These children will be like we were before we came into this world. We are taught in the scriptures that we are the offspring of God in the spirit, Jesus Christ being the Firstborn Son of our Eternal Father in that spirit world.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 2, pp. 68-69)


     “Priesthood is divine authority which is conferred upon men that they may officiate in the ordinances of the gospel. In other words, priesthood is a part of God’s own power, which he bestows upon his chosen servants that they may act in his name in proclaiming the gospel and officiating in all the ordinances thereof. All such official acts performed by these duly authorized servants are recognized by the Author of our salvation.
     Man cannot act legally in the name of the Lord unless he is vested with the priesthood, which is divine authority.”

(Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 3, p. 80.)

     “As pertaining to eternity, priesthood is the eternal power and authority of Deity by which all things exist; by which they are created, governed, and controlled; by which the universe and worlds without number have come rolling into existence; by which the great plan of creation, redemption, and exaltation operates throughout immensity, it is the power of God.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 584.)


     “Women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them and are not ordained to offices therein, but they are entitled to all priesthood blessings. Those women who go on to their exaltation, ruling and reigning with husbands who are kings and priests, will themselves be queens and priestesses.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 594.)


      “This earth was not the first of the Lord’s creations. An infinite number of worlds have come rolling into existence at his command. Each is an earth; many are inhabited with his spirit children; each abides  the particular law given to it; and each will play its part in the redemption, salvation, and exaltation of that infinite host of the children of an Almighty God. The Lord has said that his work and glory is to bring to pass immortality and eternal life for his children on all the inhabited worlds he has created….” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 169.)


     Mormon Doctrine will never allow women to hold the priesthood. Why? It is the goal of every Mormon male to achieve Godhood and then create his universes, through his priesthood power, each with its own earth, and then populate those earths with his harem of polygamous wives.

© Copyright 2002-2014  Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, Inc. All Rights Reserved. —Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Rocky and Helen Hulse

Rocky and Helen Hulse
Defending Christianity From Mormon Doctrine