The House of Yahweh and Buffalo Bill (Yisrayl) Hawkins

The House of Yahweh

By Philip Arnn

 

Founder: Buffalo Bill Hawkins.

 

Founding Date: December 2, 1980.

 

Official Publications: The Prophetic Word magazine, plus numerous books and booklets.

 

History

1950s Buffalo Bill Hawkins was named by his older brother after a famous cowboy star. He was one of nine children born to an Oklahoma family. Hawkins and his brother J.G., later to be called Jacob, entered the religious arena with a radio broadcast in the early 1950′s out of Eastland, Texas. The broadcast was called The Question and Answer Program. The subject matter was Bible Prophecy and Mosaic Law of the Old Testament.

 

Hawkins purports to have had a recurring dream which has directed the course of his life: “From memory, I think it was about 1951 that I had my FIRST DREAM that my brother Yaaqob and I were the Two Witnesses spoken of in Revelation Chapter 11. My dream went something like this: I knocked on the door of a WHITE HOUSE next to a sanctuary. My brother answered the door, and I asked him, ‘Are you ready to to to Israyl and do what we have been called to do?” (The Prophetic Word, 7 June 1991, p. 766).

 

1969 J.G. Hawkins accepted the dream as divine direction. He actually did imigrate to Israel with his family and two other couples. It was at this time that he began calling himself Jacob or Yaaqob. While in Israel Yaaqob heard of an archaeological discovery of a door mantel with the Hebrew title, “BAYIT YHWH” (House of Yahweh). Both brothers believed this to be the true name of God’s true work.

 

1975 Yaaqob Hawkins returned home to the United States. He settled in Odessa, Texas and began what became the House of Yahweh Odessa. The two borthers, however, divided over the issue of the true name of the Creator. Yaaqob chose to use the title Elohim. Bill disagreed, stating that Elohim was the title for pagan deities. On December 2, 1980, he dedicated the House of Yahweh Abilene.

 

1982 Buffalo Bill Hawkins had his name legally changed to Yisrayl Hawkins (The Prophetic Word, 7 June 1991, p. 76). The name change enable Yisrayl Hawkins to claim the mantle of prophetic authority as the spokesman for the Two Witnesses of Revelation Chapter 11. Upon Yaaqob’s return from Israel in 1975, Yisrayl claimed to have had a third occurrence of his dream. In his third dream, he claimed there was a “TERRIBLE TRAGEDY” involving someone’s death. Yisrayl now states this dream was prophetic of his brother’s deat on March 22, 1991 (Ibid.).

 

Doctrine

Yisrayl Hawkins, the founder of the House of Yahweh Abilene, Texas, has built his movement on doctrinal themes which are not new to American religion. His theology is an eclectic blend of Sabbatarian, Sacred Name and Anglo-Israel teachings. His internal control over group members is classic authoritarian technique. Critical thinking or dissent is discouraged and controlled by queating rebellion against Hawkins as being rebellion against Yahweh. He represents himself as an end-time prophet who is spoken of in the Bible. He claims his work is the only true work on earth; that all other churches are part of Satan’s last days’ deception, and those seeking God or Yahweh and salvation can only find that salvation through The House of Yahweh. If a member leaves the group, they are leaving Yahweh and his salvation.

 

THE TWO WITNESSES Yisrayl Hawkins boldly claims that he and his late brother are prophesied in the Bible to be the two Witnesses whose ministry is set forth in Revelation Chapter 11:

 

“Yahweh Himself has given this inspired Testimony to Isayah 44:5, showing exactly ‘HOW’ His Prophesied TWO WITNESSES would obtain NAMES which were not given to them at birth!…The prophecy has come to pass! One of Yahweh’s Two Witnesses ‘LEGALLY GAVE HIMSELF’ the name of ‘Yisrayl’…this Prophesied ‘WAY’ in which Yahweh’s Two Witnesses would attain their Prophesied Name, is the most outstanding ‘SIGN’ Yahweh gives that these TWO MEN are HIS TWO WITNESSES!” (The Prophetic Word, 7 June 1991, p. 6).

 

AUTHORITY OF CHRIST Hawkins boasts that his organization was ordained of God. He claims that his credentials and authority are equal with those of Christ:

 

“Yahshua Messiah KNEW that He was sent, because He FULFILLED all the Scriptures concerning Himself. And The True Work of Yahweh: Established House of Yahweh – The Place of Yahweh has chosen to Establish His Name in These Last Days – has this SAME AUTHORITY, with the SAME CREDENTIAL.”

 

“Yes The House of Yahweh, Established in Abilene, Texas, is SPOKEN OF and WRITTEN ABOUT by the Prophets of Old! This Established House of Yahweh in These Last Days is doing the work that Yahshua Messiah and His Disciples – who were ‘SENT’ – did; the very same work! It is a Scriptural fact that unless Yahweh gives AUTHORITY to someone, by having SPOKEN ABOUT THEM THROUGH HIS HOLY SCRIPTURES, then that person is NOT SENT!” (What Yahweh’s Feasts Mean to You, pp.82-83).

 

“Yes, Yahweh now has ONLY ONE WORK under His ONE REMAINING WITNESS Yisrayl – His Prophesied Spokesman who will continue to perform all The Will of Yahweh…Just as Yahshua Messiah came as a ‘covenant to the people’ in These Last Days (Isayah 49:8)” (The Prophetic Word, 7 June 1991, p. 36).

 

THE ONLY MESSAGE OF SALVATION Hawkins joins other self-proclaimed Apostles and Prophets -i.e., Herbert Armstrong, Jim Jones and David Koresh – who were the sole proprietors of God’s only true salvation. Hawkins initiation ritual which bestows both salvation and admittance into the group, is water baptism. He teaches:

 

“BAPTISM – The third step one must then take is to be Baptized by the CHOSEN MINISTERS of YAHWEH, so you may receive The Holy Spirit:…Please notice that you can NOT obtain The Holy Spirit of YAHWEH from the preachers of this world!” (Why Aren’t Your Prayers Answered Today?, p. 20).

 

“The One Body of Messiah IS The House of Yahweh!…The Holy Scriptires say this…We are partakers with Yahshua – IF we are part of the Body of Messiah of the House of Yahweh. In Genesis 28:11-17, the Patriarch Yaaqob saw a vision of The House of Yahweh as the way to Yahweh’s Kingdom. The House of Yahweh IS THE GAT OF HEAVEN!”

 

“…IF we ‘separate’ form the One Body of Messiah: The House of Yahweh, then we succumb to Satan, then at that very moment we become worshipers of Satan…of if one LEAVES The Body – The only Prophesied, Established Work that Yahweh Himself has chosen, then that one does NOT partake, or is NO LONGER a partaker, with the rest of The body of Messiah – The House of Yahweh” (What Yahweh’s Feasts Mean to You, pp. 78, 87).

 

EARLY PROPHECY Hawkins has claimed that his authority and credentials are founded on his fulfillment of Bible prophecy: “Yahweh then says, Through Prophecy – ‘Let these TWO WITNESSES FORETELL the things that are coming, and let them PROCLAIM that I am ONE!” (The Prophetic Word, 7 June 1991, p. 4).

 

“The RAIN WILL SOON BE CUT OFF AGAIN, as it was in the days of Yliyah. This time, it will not rainfor one thousand two hundred sixty days – but this soon-coming Time Period will BEGIN the LAST Seven Years of Satan’s rule upon the earth. This Seven Year Period is known as The Great Tribulation – and for the FIRST 1260 Days of this Period, there will be NO RAIN” (Ibid., p. 15).

 

“In the middle of this Seven Years – in the Midst of This Week, or 3 1/2 Years after this week begins, Satan Is Cast TO THE EARTH, The Last Witness is KILLED by Satan, The seed of The Two Witnesses – The Sealed remnant are delivered to Mount Zion in Yerusalem. When Satan is Cast Out of heaven, his first act is to PERSECUTE The Woman which Brings Forth The Man! Through this PERSECUTION – Satan stops the Prophesying of THE ONE WITNESS who is still alive at this time – BY KILLING HIM! It will be at this time that ‘his testimony’ will be perfectly accomplished (Revelation 11:7). However, in spite of this same persecution, ‘THIS WOMAN’ is taken to The Place of Safety!” (Ibid., p. 48).

 

LATER PROPHECY By late 1994 Hawkins had altered his theology and was teaching that The House of Yahweh was already in “the midst” of Tribulation: He explained: “In order to understand what time period Yahweh is referring to when He says, ‘the midst,’ we will refer to Yahshua’s Message of the End Time – the Time Period known as: The Seven Years of Tribulation…Yahshua Messiah spoke of the FIRST PART of the Seven Year Period…(Matthew 24:7). Since the time of my brother Yaaqob’s death, March 22, 1991, wars have been raging not only in Israyl, but throughout the eastern world.”…”These things: WARS, FAMINES, PESTILENCES, and EARTHQUAKES are Prophesied to take place through the FIRST HALF of the Great Tribulation. But, the end is not yet! When the first three and one half years are complete, the LAST HALF of the Great Tribulation begins. Since the Feast of Tabernacles, September 22, 1994, my brother Yaaqob, the first witness to be killed by the Beastly System, will have been dead THREE AND ONE HALF YEARS” (The Prophetic Word, November 1994, pp. 14, 16).

 

“The hatred taking place at this time, just as we are APPROACHING THE MIDDLE of the Seven Year Time Period known as The Great Tribulation, is strong and is being openly displayed to the point that I am being betrayed to Unrighteous Lawyers and Judges…Those who rise up against me…have turned to judges of the Gods in order to try to destroy Yahweh’s work, just as they did to Yahshua”(Ibid., p. 18).

 

Hawkins now claims the world is in the middle of the Great Tribulation. He has not caused the rain to stop, neither has he been slain by a beast power, nor have his followers been taken to Israel. By his own criteria he is a false prophet.

 

Other Doctrines

Nature of God. Hawkins denies the Triune nature of the Godhead and the pre-existence of Christ: “Those who are False Prophets and Lying teachers ‘teach’ the false doctrine tha there is a ‘trinity’ or a ‘duality’ in the (and I quote) ‘GODHEAD’. Therefore, it is also The Truth of Yahweh that Yahshua Messiah did not ‘pre-exist’!” (The Prophetic Word, 7 June 1991, p. 7).

 

Yahweh and Jesus. He teaches that Yahweh and Yahshua are two different “beings.” “Some of those trying to support the deception of a ‘pre-existent savior, aruge that Yahshua and Yahweh are THE ‘SAME’ BEING…The Holy Scriptures plainly show that Yahshua and Yahweh are TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS!” (Did Yahshua Messiah Pre-exist?, p. 40).

 

Biblical Response

Yahshua is Yahweh. In Zechariah 12:10 the Hebrew text is explicit in showing that the one speaking is Yahweh, “they shall look upon me,” and that the one speaking is the one who is the object of the action; “whom they have pierced” (See also John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7).

 

Compare the attributes of Yahweh with the same attributes ascribed to Yahshua in these verses: Acts 4:12; Isaiah 43:11; Hebrews 1:8; Isaiah 43:10; Revelation 1:17; 22:13; Isaiah 44:6; John 8:58; Exodus 3:14; John 1:3; Isaiah 40:28; John 1:9 and 8:12; Psalms 27:1; Joel 3:12. Yahshua is Yahweh.

 

The Church is Christ’s Body. The Church is a spiritual body, not a man-made organization (1 Peter 2:5). No city or organization is the mandated place of worship (John 4:20-24).

 

The Gospel. The gospel is not a “warning message” (Acts 2:22-24, 32-38; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 2:1-2).

 

Only One Mediator. Functionally, Hawkins makes himself a mediator between his followers and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

 

Resources

Sabbath in Crisis. Dale Ratzlaff. This book deals with the Sabbath question in exhaustive detail. Vital reading for anyone interested in this issue as it pertains to New Testament believers. 345 pages. $15.

 

Churches That Abuse Ronald Enroth. Although not dealing with the House of Yahweh specifically, Enroth’s study of the misuse of spiritual authority, fear, guilt and intimidation by religious leaders is a helpful resource for members of the House of Yahweh and their families. Personal accounts by numerous victims of religious abuse are included. 253 pages. $6.

http://www.watchman.org/profile/yahpro.htm

————————————————

Here is two post WITH ARTICLES AND VIDEOS on the SACRED NAME MOVEMENT that will help you understand the House of Yahweh.

Origin And History Of The Sacred Name Movement

Deception of the Sacred Name Cults

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

***RECOMMEND THIS BLOG*** CLICK HERE TO SEND an E-mail referral to a friend

What is ‘New Age’ Religion, and Why Can’t Christians Get on Board?

NEW AGE ARTICLES with relevant videos.

The New Age Movement: What Christians Should Know by Dr. Dale A. Robbins.

New Age Movement W/ Constance Cumbey (hidden dangers of the rainbow) video with article

The New Age/Old Occult Conspiracy

The Church of Oprah Exposed by Watchman

=============================================================

Barbara Curtis

Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer

 

If you haven’t run into it before, it would be hard to avoid it now. Oprah’s rolling out the red carpet for the New Age: a weekly online class with New York Times bestselling guru Eckhart Tolle and a daily broadcast with Marianne Williamson, whose Course in Miracles was beckoning seekers thirty years ago when I was tripping through the wonderland of discovering my own divinity and wielding the powers of the universe to create my own reality.

Ah, but I didn’t know Jesus back then – that is, I didn’t know him as the Son of God. I knew him only through my guru, who taught that Jesus was a great spiritual master and who blended quotes from the New Testament with quotes from the Bhagavad-Gita to produce a spiritual foundation for people like me – too hip, too cool, too sophisticated to tie themselves to the narrow-minded thinking of Christianity.

As someone plucked out miraculously from the New Age, I can only hope that Christians who love and trust Oprah will not blur the lines of their faith. Oprah has stated that though she was raised as a Baptist, she no longer believes that Jesus is the only way to reach God. It sounds so much more rational and compassionate, doesn’t it?

Why can’t we all just get along?

There are questions we don’t have the answers to. And there are questions that are not seeking an answer, but rather opening a door leading to “a wider path” – questions like the one posed long ago: “Hasn’t God said that you could eat of every tree of the garden?”

The New Age is based on concepts that sound almost irresistible. Like Eve, some hear the spiels of modern gurus like Tolle and Willamson and begin to think the faith of their fathers is too rigid, too narrow – that God would never impose an “irrational” boundary between us and “full knowledge of the spiritual realm.”

Sometimes the lie creeps in subtly as Christians begin to research natural or holistic medicine – alternatives which can be very God-honoring but for years were shunned by Christians, thus becoming New Age territory by default. Or a doctor may recommend yoga or meditation to reduce stress. No matter how uplifting and innocent some New Age practices appear, Christians need discernment in these areas, just as at the seashore they need to know where the undertow begins.

The more we understand the distinctions between New Age religion and Christianity, the less vulnerable we are ourselves and the better able to address the confusion of people who may be – as I once was – earnestly seeking the truth.

What exactly is the New Age? Impossible to narrow down, the New Age is actually a vast smorgasbord of beliefs and practices. Each New Ager fills his tray with whatever assortment fits his appetite. All is liberally seasoned with self-centeredness. It’s really a Have-It-Your-Way religion – thus its modern appeal.

Although there are many branches of New Age thought – ranging from meditation to firewalking – they stem from an ancient stock. The roots of the New Age tree spread around the globe to India. One might think that the desperate, degraded human condition of a land dominated by Hinduism would speak louder than words about the truth of the religion. But New Agers seem blind to the contradiction.

Instead the typical New Ager believes: 

• God is in everything (pantheism)
• All things are one (monism)
• Man is God
• Mind creates reality
• One’s own experience validates the truth

New Agers do not believe in evil. Therefore, they do not accept man’s problem as separation by sin from God. Instead, they believe that each of us has forgotten his or her own divinity. Therefore, the New Age solution is to seek “higher consciousness” through meditation, breathing exercises, yoga, diet, crystals, channeling. spirit guides, and more. Each of these diverse practices has the same purpose: to awaken the god in man.

While these practices may seem too far out to pose much of a threat to those abiding in the truth, Christians need to be on guard. In the past twenty years, New Age influence has been steadily creeping into our culture in schools, corporations, and doctors’ offices. Since Star Wars, movies have become dominated by New Age spirituality. Reincarnation, karma, the cosmic consciousness – all these once obscure ideas have become commonplace.

A true understanding of New Age practices makes one thing clear: Eastern practices cannot be blended into Christianity to produce something better. New Agers are Universalists, believing that all paths lead to God. They fault Christians for being intolerant and narrow-minded. But God’s word anticipates this: “Enter the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the path that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13, NIV)

The good news is that, in a way, the New Ager’s broad acceptance holds the key to getting him back on the straight and narrow. Most New Agers hold Jesus in high regard, believing Him to be a great spiritual teacher, or guru. Many study the words He spoke, although they put a different spin on them.

How can we reach those under such subtle deception? The answer is Jesus Himself. Since Jesus is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” He Himself can be the common ground on which the New Ager and the Christian can meet, though one stands in darkness and one in light.

Here is a five-step approach to discussing Jesus with new Agers:

1. Whom do you believe Jesus is?

2. Whom did Jesus say He is?

• The Son of God (John 11:4)
• “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

3. What did Jesus say about other spiritual paths?

• “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

 Jesus was either who he said He was or He was a fraud. Given His claims, we can’t logically believe he was only a great teacher, for He would have been teaching falsehood rather than truth (this is an argument by C. S. Lewis).

5. Jesus alone is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

New Agers are in a lot of confusion. That’s because they haven’t found the Truth, but only what fits into the spiritual perspective they have constructed. As in the Garden of Eden, the lie has never changed.

But neither has the Truth. Don’t be discouraged if you don’t see immediate results from sharing with New Agers. In many cases – like my own – when they finally come to Christ, it’s because God had been planting seeds and watering for a long time. Just keep praying and loving and sharing the words of  Jesus (from experience, I’d say they really won’t hear much else).

And remember, God loves New Age seekers too!

Barbara Curtis, now a prolific Christian writer, was a New Age seeker for seven years before learning the truth about Jesus Christ in 1987. She lives with her husband Tripp in a rapidly-dwindling nest with 6 of their 12 children in Waterford, Virginia

http://born4battle.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/what-is-new-age-religion-and-why-cant-christians-get-on-board/

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

***RECOMMEND THIS BLOG*** CLICK HERE TO SEND an E-mail referral to a friend

MEDIA ALERT: Prophet Yahweh Predicts Spaceships Will Appear Oct. 31st in Support of Senator Obama

 

MEDIA ALERT: Prophet Yahweh Predicts Spaceships Will Appear Oct. 31st in Support of Senator Obama

 

Prophet Yahweh, Seer of Yahweh, Master UFO Caller says that on October 31, 2008, superhuman black men, from other planets, will appear in their spaceships and hover over his UFO Summoning School for three days as a sign that all Americans should vote for Obama as President.

 

Las Vegas, NV (PRWEB) October 17, 2008 — According to Prophet Yahweh: Some time before Nov. 11, 2008, more than likely before the presidential elections, and possibly on October 31, 2008, at approximately 12 noon, spaceships will start appearing, on my summons request, and hover over my school for all Las Vegans and media to see and film.

He goes on to say that: My UFO Summoning School is located by one of Las Vegas’ housing projects in the middle of the ghetto. There I teach people the ancient art of summoning or calling down UFO’s and spaceships on-command.

In anticipation of the spaceships’ descent, Prophet is planning to install live, Internet broadcast streaming capability at his school. He is doing this so people, worldwide, can see him call down the spaceships on Oct. 31, 2008, exactly at 12 noon, and the spaceships that appear for the entire time they sit up in the sky.

Prophet says that he may be off a little with the dates and some details he gives, but let there be no doubt that something within the general overview of what he says is going to happen.

He claims that these space beings are the Angels of Yahweh, the Creator of all things. And, they are talking to him, on a daily basis, via a sophisticated form of telepathic, non-verbal, none-talk, brain-to-brain communication. Most of the time, when they contact him, he is sleep. At that time, he hears a voice speaking to him inside his head.

He also says that: Unless I am misinterpreting my visions, it’s very likely that Yahweh’s angels are going to descend down from space, in one of their spaceships, on two different occasions, in a different, single ship, each time, and hover over my school, in Las Vegas, NV for three days so the media can film them.

When asked why the spaceships will appear, Prophet boldly says that:

One of the many reasons why they will do this is to show support for Presidential candidate Barack Obama. This will be done so people will know that Obama is the best choice to lead America through the troublesome times to come.

“YAHWEH wants people to know that if Barak Obama does not become President, America will quickly be led into a war with Russia via Iran that will result in: a cut off of oil from the Persian Gulf, a great depression, stock market crash, runaway inflation, devaluation of the dollar, food shortages, riots, famine, race wars, out breaks of disease, etc.”

Barack Obama, as President, would do more than any other president to keep these terrible things from happening and hold back the tremendous suffering that would come upon the American people.

YAHWEH, the Creator of all things, wants all Americans to vote for Obama, and put him in the office of the President of the United States, so he can immediately go to work against the terrible times to come.

Prophet Yahweh is quick to reveal that his ability to call down sightings is devine and that the Angels of YAHWEH taught him how to summon their UFO flying machines or their spaceships on his prayer signal.

On May 25, 2005, KTNV ABC TV-13, in Las Vegas, NV contacted Prophet Yahweh to put his summoning abilities to the test. At that time, he made broadcast history as the first person to call down real UFOs for mainstream television cameras to film. The news segment, and the UFOs that appeared, can be seen on the “UFO TV News” channel that’s broadcast via YouTube.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2008/10/prweb1395924.htm

Scientology and XENU: Do you know who XENU is?

 

 Who is Xenu?

I’m going to tell you a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Right, then I’ll begin.

 

Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xenu. Xenu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack.

Now Xenu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were overpopulated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.

Xenu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).

These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xenu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed.

The story doesn’t end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a “thetan” in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper).

After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called “implanting”.

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.

As for Xenu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xenu is still alive today.

 

 

 

That is the end of the story. And so today everyone is full of these clusters of souls called “body thetans”. And if we are to be a free soul then we have to remove all these “body thetans” and pay lots of money to do so. And the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago.

Well what did you think of that story?

What?

You thought it was a stupid story?

 

Well so do we. However, this story is the core belief in the religion known as Scientology.* If people knew about this story then most people would never get involved in it. This story is told to you when you reach one of their secret levels called OT III. After that you are supposed to telepathically communicate with these body thetans to make them go away. You have to pay a lot of money to get to this level and do this (or you have to work very hard for the organisation on extremely low pay for many years).

We are telling you this story as a warning. If you become involved with Scientology then we would like you to do so with your eyes open and fully aware of the sort of material it contains.

Most of the Scientologists who work in their Dianetics* centres and so called “Churches” of Scientology do not know this story since they are not allowed to hear it until they reach the secret “upper” levels of Scientology. It may take them many years before they reach this level if they ever do. The ones who do know it are forced to keep it a secret and not tell it to those people who are joining Scientology.

Now you have read this you know their big secret. Don’t let us put you off joining though.

 

 

 

* Dianetics and Scientology are trademarks of the Religious Technology Centre. This document is not connected with that organisation in any way.

 

http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

***RECOMMEND THIS BLOG*** CLICK HERE TO SEND an E-mail referral to a friend

 

Mormonism, Original Sin, and the ancient heresy of Pelagianism

 

Introduction

The Mormon denial of the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin is one of the more distinctive aspects of this group, who claim to be Christian, but whose denial of so many central Christian doctrines indicate that they as a group cannot be considered Christian. The traditional doctrine of Original Sin is held in common by all Christian denominations. The denial of this doctrine by the Mormons puts this group in a position which is contrary to Scripture, Tradition and unsupported by reality.

The Mormon denial of original sin is based on a few flimsy assumptions which will be discussed here and in a second paper.

First, however, this paper will look at the true teaching on Original Sin, continue with a discussion of some of the errors of the LDS position, and lastly examine a heresy of the early centuries, (Pelagianism) to show that the erroneous Mormon view on original sin has much in common with an old heresy.

A subsequent paper will refute the specific points of the LDS position.

What is Original Sin?
First, here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article Original Sin :

 

“Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine’s statement: “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.”

It is important to note that the common meaning of “original sin” is the second one given above, i.e. the stain or consequence of Adam’s sin for the rest of humanity. This is how the term will also be used in this paper. Admittedly, the term can be confusing since it does not refer to a personal sin we have committed, but rather to a state of deprivation due to the effect of Adam’s sin. However, once this is clear, then confusion can be avoided. Original sin is contracted by babies when they are conceived in the womb; it is not something committed by them. Hence it is not valid for Mormons to deny original sin by saying �how can a baby commit sin?� This is because original sin refers to a contracted loss of inheritance of grace, not a committed personal sin on the baby�s part.

Original sin refers to a lost inheritance. God gave Adam supernatural grace before the Fall when he lived in the Garden of Eden. Adam could eat from the tree of life, and so remain immortal. He was not allowed, however, to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Charge of Unfairness

The Mormons make a number of false assumptions about the story of the Fall of Adam.One such assumption is the idea that original sin means that God is unfair, punishing us all for something Adam did.

The reply to this is as follows. God bestowed on Adam all his natural faculties. Adam did not have any entitlement to supernatural grace, to immortality, to fellowship with God. It was only because God in His graciousness gave these to Adam that Adam had them at all. Adam did not have any natural right to them. This is a critical point. If my boss, who pays me every week, comes to me on Monday and says “here are some tickets to a show or the theatre for Friday night; take your family along.” But on Tuesday I get caught wasting time on the job. The boss then says “I’ll take those tickets back.” Now, is the boss being unfair to my family? Of course not. The relationship between me and my boss is broken and so I must pay the punishment. If my family suffer as a result, it is my fault, not the boss’s.

Similarly with original sin. Adam sinned, and by doing so broke the relationship between himself and God. It is Adam who is the cause of original sin in the rest of the human race. We have lost the inheritance of supernatural grace, but Adam is to blame for this loss, not God. So when we are born, we are without this supernatural grace which was our inheritance until Adam blew it. This is what original sin means: we are born without our inheritance.

The whole idea of the test was to see if man would freely submit himself to the will of God. And he failed.

‘The Fall was necessary’ argument.

Another flimsy assumption of Mormonism is to suggest that without the Fall Adam and the rest of the human race would be stuck forever in the garden of Eden, and never make it to heaven. Thus they say the Fall was necessary, and even worse, they claim that God willed the Fall. Mormons make the mistake of thinking man was not made in a state of holiness, but had to “progress” to holiness. On the contrary, man was created in a state of holiness, destined to be “divinized” in glory in heaven but his disobedience lost this inheritance.

As proof of this destiny to glory (with or without the Fall), Romans 8:29-30 reads:

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” (NIV)

God predestined us to glory, to be “conformed to the likeness of His Son”. He did not predestine the Fall. He predestined us to be conformed to His Son in glory, with or without the Fall. The Fall made it necessary for the Son of God to become man.

God never predestined the Fall. God permitted the Fall; he did not require it; such an idea makes God to be the author of sin and suffering, which He is not. Mormonism here fails to distinguish between God’s permissive will, and God’s ordaining will. God permitted the Fall, He did not ordain that it must happen.

The Fall was entirely up to Adam’s free will, and he failed. Adam was deceived into thinking God was not being totally honest with him, in other words, that God did not really want what was best for Adam. Adam called God’s integrity into question, an act which led to his disobedience. If this is not sin, what is?

In the Catholic Encyclopedia article : Divine Providence we read how the Fathers of the Church treated of sin and its nature:

 

‘The question of Providence in the Fathers is almost invariably connected with the problem of evil. How can evil and suffering be compatible with the beneficent providence of an all-powerful God? And why especially should the just be allowed to suffer while the wicked are apparently prosperous and happy? Patristic solutions to these problems may be summed up under the following heads: ·

• Sin is not ordained by the will of God, though it happens with His permission. It can be ascribed to Providence only as a secondary result (Origen, “Contra Celsum”, IV, lxviii in “P.G.”, XI, 1516-7; St. John Damascene, “De fid. orth.”, ii, 21 in “P.G.”, XCIV, 95 sq.).
• Sin is due to the abuse of free will; an abuse which was certainly foreseen by God, but could have been prevented only by depriving man of his most noble attribute (Tertullian, “Adv. Marcion.”, II, v-vii in “P.L.”, II, 317-20; St. Cyril of Alexandria “In Julian.”, IX, xiii, 10, 11, 18 in “P.G.”, LXXIV, 120-1, 127-32; Theodoret, “De prov. orat.”, IX, vi in “P.G.”, LXXXIII, 662). ·
• Had there been no sin, physical evil would have been inconsistent with the Divine goodness (St. Augustine, “De div. quæst.”, lxxxii in “P.L.”, LX, 98, 99); nor would God permit evil at all, unless He could draw good out of evil (St. Augustine, “Enchir.”, xi in “P.L.”, LX, 236; “Serm.”, ccxiv, 3 in “P.L.”, XXXVIII, 1067; St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii, XVIII, xlvi in “P.L.”, LXXV, 747; LXXVI, 61-2). · · <[SFW Comment : This point proves that God could not have willed the Fall, and that Adam's sin wa sindeed a sin, not merely a 'transgression', a distinction Mormonism tries to make; see later).]

All physical evil, therefore, is the consequence of sin, the inevitable result of the Fall (St. John Chrysostom, “Ad Stagir.”, I, ii in “P.G.”, LXVII, 428, 429; St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VIII, li, lii in “P.L.”, LXXV, 833, 834), and regarded in this light is seen to be at once a medicine (St. Augustine, “De div. quæst.”, lxxxii in “P.L.”, XL, 98, 99; “Serm.”, xvii, 4, 5 in “P.L.”, XXXVIII, 126-8), a discipline (“Serm.”, xv, 4-9 in “P.L.”, XXXVIII, 118-21; St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., V, xxxv; VII, xxix; XIV, xl in “P.L.”, LXXV, 698, 818, 1060), and an occasion of charity (St. Gregory the Great, VII, xxix)�.

(Note: Mormons may try to claim a distincion between ‘transgression’ and ‘sin’, saying that Adam transgressed , but did not sin. We shall see in the next paper that this is a false distinction.)

Summary of points so far

 

• i) The traditional Christian doctrine of Original Sin is in no way ‘unfair’ as the supernatural graces of which man is deprived as its result, are graces to which he has no natural claim. God freely bestows graces,man does not earn a claim.
• ii) The Fall was certainly not “necessary”. To maintain the Fall was necessary makes God out to be the author of sin, which He cannot be. It also means Adam did not really have free will, if God had intended him to eat the fruit. But we know Adam did have free will: God had told him to be obedient and Adam disobeyed. If Adam did not really have free will before the Fall, then it casts a question on God’s integrity. The truth is: Adam has free will before the Fall, and he freely chose to sin by disobeying God. But Mormonism denies free will in order to deny the reality of Adam’s sin, instead pretending it was merely a ‘transgression’.
• iii) God predestined certain persons to eternal beatitude, with or without the Fall. Mormonism fails to explain Romans 8:29-30 which proves the predestination of the elect. Instead they try to claim the human race would be stuck in Eden for ever if it had not been for the Fall.

Next we shall have a look at the Effects of Original Sin. These are:

• death and suffering (physical evils, not sin)
• Concupiscence (baptism removes original sin, but not concupiscence, so concupiscence cannot be sin)
• Absence of sanctifying grace. Since this is in the moral order, it can be called sin.

 

The following extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin: expands on the above points:

 

“St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

• 1. Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.
• 2. Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
• 3. The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.”

Note that the Fathers say ‘grace is a deification.. a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality’. It is grace which was to be the instrument of the ‘divinization’ of Adam and his descendants. Mormons do not understand grace or divinization and hence think the Fall was necessary to enable man to ‘progress’ to their idea of ‘divinization’. But the Fathers meant by ‘divinization’ a transformation in glory and not in any sense ‘becoming God’ or becoming ‘a god’. This is, again, a failure of Mormonism to understand the nature of supernatural grace as the agent which glorifies and leads to union with God.

Be sure to check out what the Catechism says about the Fall of Adam and original sin.
Final Section: The heresy of Pelagianism and its similarity to Mormon teaching on original sin

This final section is included as the ancient heresy of Pelagianism also denied Original Sin, and had some similarities with Mormonism’s teaching on this subject

In summary:

Pelagianism (extracted from Catholic Encyclopedia: Pelagius and Pelagianism )

 

• 1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
• 2. Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
• 3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
• 4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.

Pelagianism also taught that the Mosaic Law was as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.

The teachings of Pelagius changed somewhat.These can be summarized as follows: (again, this is an extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia: Pelagius and Pelagianism )

 

• The first position which Pelagius held was that Adam would have died anyway, regardless if the Fall had happened or not, and his sin injured himself, not the whole human race. It was condemned at the Council of Carthage (see Romans 5:12 Adam transmits death with sin) 
• Pelagian second position: parents transmit diesase to children, so parents transmit death. But they do not transmit sin. This was condemned at the Council of Orange, and again at Trent.This position is similar to the Mormon position. 
• Pelagians then gave up equating sin with death so said Adam CAUSED sin in us, not, however, by hereditary transmission, but (they said), the sin of Adam in imitation of Adam. Again, condemned by Trent.

How Mormon doctrine resembles Pelagianism (with differences):

 

• Similarities: Mormons, like Pelagians, say Adam’s sin hurt himself, but not others. Mormons go so far as to say Adam’s transgression was necessary in order to avoid being stuck forever in Eden. Mormons, like Pelagians, say that death, not sin, is transmitted from parent to child. Mormons, like Pelagians, cannot say how a loving God who is all good could introduce death and suffering into the world if Adam was not really guilty of sin. The traditional Christian view, of course, is that Adam did really sin and lost his inheritance for himself and his children. See also Wisdom 2:24 
  

  “But by the envy of the devil death came into the world”.

  Death came into the world, not by the will of God, to get people to “progress” but by the ‘envy of the devil’.

   

• Differences: Mormons say Adam’s sin was a not a sin, but a transgression, which was necessary for ‘progression’. Pelagius said Adam would have died anyway; Mormons do not say this.

How Romans 5:12,18-19 opposes the three Pelagian positions:

• Against position 1. The sin of Adam has introduced physical death. See also 1 Cor. 15:21, which refers to physical resurrection, so must refer to physical death. 
• Against Position 2. Romans 5:19 says ‘all men were made sinners’ not ‘all men were made mortal’. So Pelagians cannot get away with speaking only of death.
  This serves also as a refutation of the Mormon position on original sin. 
• Against Position 3. Adam transmits death to his children by generation of them mortal, so too he transmits sin to them, by generation (this is not to say Adam generates the soul). Paul says both death and sin come at the same time, from the same cause. Pelagians say (position 3) that the child sins later in imitation of Adam. But then Adam’s causality of sin would differ from his causality of death; also Romans 5:18,19 includes all men, not just those who knew of his bad example.

 

Summary of this page:

 

• 1. The traditional Christian doctrine of original sin teaches that, as a result of Adam’s sin, man has lost his inheritance of supernatural grace, and has instead inherited death and suffering, concupiscence, and a state of sin. Without the aid of grace, provided by baptism, man cannot come into a right relationship with God. 
• 2. Mormonism makes numerous false assumptions regarding the Fall: that original sin is an ‘unfair’ doctrine; that Adam did not sin, but merely ‘transgressed’; that Adam did not know right from wrong; that man would be stuck in Eden and never get to heaven without the Fall; that God willed the Fall. 
• 3. Mormonism’s doctrine of the denial of Original Sin is a partial revival of Pelagianism.

The next paper will refute specific objections and alleged evidence for the Mormon doctrine in the early Church.
© Copyright Sean Hyland 2002

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/originalsin.html

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

***RECOMMEND THIS BLOG*** CLICK HERE TO SEND an E-mail referral to a friend

Sean’s Faith Website

Mormonism Index page  

---

A Refutation of the Mormon Doctrine of the “Eternal Mother

A Refutation of the Mormon Doctrine of the “Eternal Mother”

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

The Mormon concept of a “heavenly mother” is refereed to in a hymn by church leader Eliza R. Snow, and remains an officially approved doctrine. One verse of the hymn entitled “Oh, My Father!” reads as follows:

“In the heavens are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare.
Truth is reason: truth eternal
tells me I’ve a mother there.”
Further on we find the words “Father, Mother, may I meet you / In your royal courts on high?”

The Mormon church, as we shall see, has taught the existence of an “eternal mother” from the earliest days. This doctrine is tied in with their beliefs that we all existed as “spirit children” in the spirit world with a heavenly “father” and “mother” beofre being sent to earth to take on a body. Apparently the “eternal mother” is not to be “worshipped”, being rather an “eternal mother” that a “goddess”but if she conceives spirit children (as we shall see later on, this is what Mormon doctrine teaches) then she is surely as much a “goddess” as the Mormon “father” is a “god”?

The “eternal mother” is not talked much about in the Mormon church these days. In fact, recently there was a scandal at Brigham Young University, when the governing body fired English Professor Gail Houston, for reportedly encouraging praying to the Mother in Heaven. The American Association of University Professors criticized the BYU for violations of academic freedoms. It would appear the Mormon church does not want to attract attention this teaching of their religion.

What did the early Mormon leaders teach?

 

 

Here is a sample of the teachings of early Mormon leaders:

Apostle Orson Pratt (1811-1881):

“As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones” (The Seer, p. 37).

Again, Pratt writes:

“The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited,” (The Seer, p. 37).

Second LDS President, Brigham Young (1801-1877) :

“God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be.” (Journal of Discourses 11:122-123).

Brigham Young again:

“Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father; and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother; the one would be as absurd as the other” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.286).

Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972):

“Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:287).

Joseph Fielding Smith again:

“The fact that there is no reference to a mother in heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a mother did exist there…. does not common sense tell us that we must have had a mother there also?” (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 3, p.142).

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1966):

Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother. The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state.

This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven was affirmed in plainness by the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund … they said that “man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents …” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p.516).

So it is clear the early Mormon leaders taught in the preexistence of the soul in a “spirit world” where we were generated by a father and a mother and had to “wait” for a body to be available on earth. This doctrine of pre-existence is a basic element of Mormon belief, and hence the need for a mother ‘goddess’ to take part in the spirit ‘procreation’.

(Note: In forthcoming papers I will refute the idea of the pre-existence of the soul, upon which other falsehoods of Mormonism are based (such as the current topic, the idea of an “eternal mother” who conceives spirit-children in heaven, their denial of creation ex nihilo, and subsequent confusion over the nature of God, as well as their misunderstanding of the doctrine of Original Sin) but this current paper will confine itself to addressing the false doctrine of the ‘heavenly goddess’.)

So, is there actually any evidence whatsoever that there is a ‘mother goddess’ or even a ‘heavenly mother’ who bears spirit children?

 

 

Of course there isn’t. Not in the Bible, not even in the Mormons’ own Book of Mormon. And there are many Biblical references to prove there is only one God.

What does Barry Bickmore, the author of ‘Restoring the Ancient Church’ (FAIR, Inc, Ben Lomond, CA, 1999) say? Not very much, actually. He tries to build a case for ancient goddess worship by the Hebrews on page 339 of his book, by referring to Jeremiah 44, a passage which is actually about the TRUE God condemning the worship of the pagan goddess Ishtar!

What the Bible says (and doesn’t say) about the “eternal mother”

 

 

 

The references to the ‘queen of heaven’ in Jeremiah are not at all about a ‘mother goddess’ in heaven bearing ‘spirit children’ for earth. Even a cursory reading of chapters 7 and 44 of the Book of Jeremiah shows this idea to be totally wrong.

Here is a quote from Jeremiah 7:

“The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” (Jeremiah 7:18)

It is quite clear that these sacrifices to the pagan idol Ishtar (whose cult was introduced by the child-sacrificing king Manasseh) angered the TRUE GOD of ISRAEL. They certainly do not refer to some consort �mother goddess� who produces spirit children for earth. This passage refers to the worship of a PAGAN GODDESS! Similar references are found in Jeremiah 44: 25-27:

“Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, saying: Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.”

Again, this is a reference to the pagan goddess Ishtar, NOT to the consort wife of God in heaven. It is therefore quite clear that the idea of a ‘mother goddess’ who produces ‘spirit children’ is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures.

Bickmore even suggests on page 339 of his book that ‘this could be another doctrine not likely to have been revealed in former dispensations.’ But isn’t this just another way of saying that there is absolutley no evidence of this teaching in early Christianity?

Where does this doctrine fit into Mormon theology?

 

 

 

But what is the point of having a doctrine of a ‘Mother goddess’ at all? The answer is: it is related to the idea of pre-existence. This belief of the Mormons state that we all existed in a spirit world, as spirit children of our heavenly ‘Father’ and ‘mother’ before we were conceived on earth. We waited (supposedly) in this spirit world until a body was ready for us on earth. The Mormon doctrines of eternal marriage and polygamy are also connected with this idea. (See my file on the Mormon errors of celestial marriage and polygamy). As noted earlier, Joseph Fielding Smith said

“Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:287).

And so the generation of ‘spirit children’ will supposedly continue for eternity. (Yes, ths is what the Mormons teach. The missionaries may not tell you so quickly, though.)

Earlier in the same book, ‘Restoring the Ancient Church’, on page 331, Bickmore says ‘that the doctrine of eternal marriage is not explicitly taught in the New Testament’ (See my file on the Mormon error of celestial marriage) and on page 334 he concedes ‘no proof has been presented here that eternal marriage was the original Christian practice’.

Regarding the doctrine of polygamy, Bickmore on page 338 of his book admits ‘the evidence is far from conclusive’.

Yet these doctrines are taught by the Mormon church, and there is no evidence from Scripture or the early Church to support them.

Yet another difficulty in Mormonism

 

 

 

Consider the following quotes from Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt:

“We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as His Only Begotten in this world.”( Orson Pratt, The Seer page 172)

also

“We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord inherit their wives in eternity as well in time: and God the Father has already begotten many thousand millions of sons and daughters and sent them into this world to take tabernacles;…” (Orson Pratt, The Seer page 172)

Now, if Orson Pratt teaches that God the Father has a plurality of wives, then there must be a plurality of “heavenly mothers” in Mormonism. But here is an interesting problem for Mormonism (with thanks to my friend for this insight): if Joseph Smith is going to become a “God” and gets his own planet to populate, he certainly won’t be having Emma Smith as his wife (and future heavenly mother) as she apostasized with her children to the RLDS church. So Mormonism tells us that families will be together in eternity, however their very own “prophet” Joseph Smith won’t have that happen with him because Emma Smith and her children left, thus blowing their chance of being in the celestial kingdom with Joseph Smith.

Conclusion

 

 

 

It has been seen that the Mormon doctrine of the ‘heavenly mother’, whil not emphasised nowadays, has been a central teaching of Mormonism from the early days. The doctrien has no support from Scripture, from the history of the early Church or from the history of Israel, nor even from the Mormons’ own Book of Mormon. Yet it is a belief which continues to be believed to this day. And necessarily so, for it is a central component of the Mormon doctrine of ‘eternal progression to godhood’, and can hardly be denied without creating ever bigger problems for the Mormon religion.
Lasty we have seen that according to the early Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, God the Father had multiple wives!! So who is the “heavenly mother” supposed to be, if there are several of them? This is yet another enormous problem for Mormonism. Hardly wonder, then, that their missionaries dare not speak about the “heavenly mother”.

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/eternalmother.html

Sean’s Faith Website   Mormonism Index page =======================================

The concept of a MOTHER GOD is purely pagan as this video of the Babylonian account of creation shows. All pagan accounts of creation, like in Egypt or Samaria, speak of the creator as A FEMALE GOD.

 

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

***RECOMMEND THIS BLOG*** CLICK HERE TO SEND an E-mail referral to a friend