Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons Paperback – July 1, 1995

I am a former Mormon that has been lead to the truth about Jesus Christ. Mormons claim they are Christian but Mormonism CLEARLY denies the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Sure they believe that Christ died on the cross for us but according to Mormon teaching, the blood of Christ is not powerful enough to get you into Heaven. According to Mormon teachings, you have to earn your way to Heaven, you have to either participate in Mormon rituals or have them preformed for you after your death.Mormons use the King James version of the Bible as part of their cannon. However, the Bible takes a back seat to The Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price. In their Articles of Faith, Mormons state:"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God"Read this statement CAREFULLY! This statement undermines the authority of the Bible! It is commonly believed and taught in the Mormon church that the Bible is not reliable because it has been purposely changed over the course of history by evil men with the sole intent of deceiving men and leading them to hell!I hate the Mormon church...but I love Mormons. Paul, speaking of the Jews, defines my view of Mormons and Mormonism. In the first verses of Romans 10 we read:"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:1-4 KJVAn interesting side note on Mormons wondering why people publish books that seek to teach people the truth about Mormon beliefs (many of which, not even active members of the church truly understand). On the the official Mormon website, you can find a version of the First Vision of Joseph Smith. Regarding God's response to Joseph's question about which church to join, this version explains: "Joseph was told to join none of the church that existed at that time."This statement is watered down considerably from the version of the story that is found in Joseph Smith History 1:19 (note that Joseph Smith History is part of The Pearl of Great Price and recognized as scripture by all Mormons.)"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."Who does Joseph claim that God is speaking of in this verse? The answer can be found in verse 5 of the same chapter:"Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, "Lo, here!" and others, "Lo, there!" Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist."Is it any wonder that Christianity feels the need to defend themselves? The goal of Mr. Rhodes book is not to harm or offend Mormons. It is to warn fellow Christians of the deceptive practices of the Mormon church and hopefully to lead Mormons to truth as I wasNever let a Mormon tell you that Mormonism does not attack Christianity. Never let a Mormon fool you in to thinking that their beliefs are not much different than yours.I would love to converse with you about questions you may have about how I was lead from the shackles of Mormonism into the truth and light of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If you are interested in open and honest conversation, feel free to email me at [email protected]. If you want to tell me I'm wrong for leaving Mormonism or tell me about how I'm destined for "Outer Darkness", please spare both of us the pain and don't write. :)In the service of Christ.

Ron Rhodes does many things right in this book. It has some pretty good doctrinal discussions and bible-centered responses to mainstream Mormon doctrines. That said, it has some of the classic drawbacks of anti-Mormon ("A-M") literature and avoids responding to some of the toughest pro-Mormon biblical scriptures. Here is a brief review of the book by chapters.Chapter 3 ("The Restored Church?") provides a generally good response to the biblical verses Mormons use to claim that a total apostasy occurred. However, Mr. Rhodes needs to expend a little more time and energy to find neutral, academic sources for his extra-biblical critiques of Mormon doctrine. Citing to other A-Ms (Farkas and Reed, Tanners, W. Martin, McKeever, etc.) is intellectually unbecoming. WILLING OMISSION ALERT: Mr. Rhodes provides no response to several pro-apostasy verses such as Isa. 11:11, Dan. 2:44, Amos 8:11-13 and 1 John 2:18-19.Chapter 4 ("True Prophets of God?"), which addresses Mormon prophecies and church structure, is unconvincing. Mr. Rhodes' response to 1 Cor. 12:28 is to claim that prophets no longer exist in the traditional sense (pp 72, 79). This claim might surprise many sects with which Mr. Rhodes claims fellowship, who still believe in the gift of prophecy along with other spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:11-13).Mr. Rhodes likewise falls short in his explanation of a lack of need for new apostles (p 73), considering the fact that the new testament shows several new apostles being ordained. WILLING OMISSION ALERT: Mr. Rhodes cites only one of the two tests for apostleship -- seeing Jesus -- and uses that to make his case there can be no new apostles, but ignores the other test -- that an apostle be a person "which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" -- that would puncture his argument because it is a test under Mr. Rhodes' interpretation of the verse that the apostle Paul clearly would have failed. See Acts 1:21-22.Mr. Rhodes is similarly shortsighted in claiming that because the foundation to the celestial city mentions twelve apostles (Rev. 21:14) that this necessarily means there can only be twelve apostles (p 74). Under his reasoning, not only would Paul, Barnabus and Matthias *not* be apostles, Judas Iscariot *would* be a foundation to the celestial city. Yikes!As an aside, note that Mr. Rhodes gets his date wrong on the appearance of the Salamander Letter (p 69). It was late 1983, not 1980. Get your facts straight, Mr. Rhodes.Chapters 5-6 (the Book of Mormon) are uneven. The author has some good material, such as a well-done rebuttal to purported Book of Mormon prophecies in Isa. 29:1-4 (pp 92-98) and Ezek. 37:16-17 (pp 101-103). By not overextending himself on Rev. 22:18, he also puts forth a good case that the JST version of the bible violated that verse (pp 111-113, 144).However, Mr. Rhodes' analysis of James 1:5 falls short (pp 105-111). I have never understood why A-Ms object so vehemently to the Mormons' straightforward interpretation of this verse, which also meshes with the injunction of Jesus in Mat. 7:9-11 (ask God for something and like a good father he will grant it).Chapters 7-10 (bible inerrancy) are weak. According to Mr. Rhodes, simply because a book is cited in the bible doesn't mean it was supposed to be included (p 140). Oh? He seems to be working backward from a conclusion. Mr. Rhodes previously cited Jer. 30:2 for the principle that inspired written words are scripture (p 91), but somehow, the book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chron. 29:29) is not? Call me simpliste, but that seems a tad inconsistent.I also got a laff out of Mr. Rhodes' table of fulfilled bible prophecies (pp 157-158). He would have had difficulty maintaining the fiction of biblical inerrancy when comparing Mat. 27:9 and Zech 11:12 (Matthew mistakes Jeremiah for Zechariah), so he glosses that over by referencing a more opaque Matthew verse (Mat. 26:15) and comparing it to Zech. 11:12, at the expense of the clearer Mat. 27:9.Chapter 11 (migration to the Americas and the other sheep) was adequate. Mr. Rhodes does a satisfactory job rebutting the Mormon interpretation of John 10:16, although he doesn't directly address the "hear my voice" issue.Chapter 12 (the Melchizedek priesthood) was poorly thought-out and unfocused. Mr. Rhodes' discussion of Melchizedek seems to be more an argument against some of his co-religionists, rather than against Mormons (pp 199-208). His alchemy for turning the priesthood of Jesus (Heb. 7:24) from the KJV's "unchangeable" into "untransferable" is to hunt for a preacher who says so (p 210). I guess when Mr. Rhodes said that when talking with Mormons one should "use only the King James Version of the bible" (p 35) he really meant to add "...except when it's convenient not to." Besides, if the priesthood were untransferable, then how did Melchizedek come to hold it? Hmm? Then, after telling us there is no more Levitical Priesthood and we cannot share in the Melchizedek priesthood (pp 213-215), Mr. Rhodes commits the classic A-M blunder of asserting "all who personally place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are 'priests'" (p 216). Am I missing something? Is there some other priesthood I don't know about?Chapters 13-15 (nature of God) have Mr. Rhodes struggling, mostly unsuccessfully, with various scriptures regarding God's nature. He tries to explain away the visibility of God by saying that when God spoke to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend" that just meant God was speaking to Moses "clearly and openly" (p 224), not that God was actually talking to Moses like one friend actually talks to another. I ask you: which interpretation is more literal and straightforward? I guess when Mr. Rhodes counsels us to employ "a literal method of interpreting scriptures" (p 181) he really meant to add "...except when it's convenient not to." Then he tries to shore up this hermeneutical sandcastle by pointing out that God refers to himself as a bird in Ps. 91:4 (p 224). Therefore, by some magic, that means Exod. 33:11 must be figurative too? Mr. Rhodes needs to read his own book, where he classifies the Psalms in the genre of biblical "poetry" and counsels "[t]he wise interpreter allows his knowledge of genres to control how he approaches each individual biblical text" (pp 180-181). So we should interpret historical narrative (Exodus) with poetry (Psalms)? Physician, heal thyself! Also, Mr. Rhodes later apparently forgets his position on this issue and states "Isaiah saw the Lord God Almighty seated on a throne" (p 304).Anyhow, on to other items. How does Mr. Rhodes come to the conclusion from Isa. 31:3 that God "is formless" (p 230)? Also, Mr. Rhodes' chief explanation for the plurality of Gods in Gen. 1:26-27 ("let *us* make man in *our* image") is that Queen Victoria did it as well (p 248). This explanation is unsatisfactory to say the least, but when you don't have the bible to back you up, I suppose you gotta go with something.On the trinity, if all three members of the trinity always had omniscience as Mr. Rhodes claims (p 258), how is that the Jesus is described as having *increased* in wisdom (Luke 2:52)? I was likewise mystified by Mr. Rhodes' analysis of Mat. 3:16-17 (the baptism of Jesus, with God the Father calling from heaven and the Holy Ghost descending like a dove on Jesus). The main thrust of his argument is that God is not three *personages* in one God, but rather "three persons in one Godhead" (p 255). Excuse my confusion, but isn't this the Mormon position? WILLING OMISSION ALERT: where is Mr. Rhodes' rebuttal to the Mormons' position that John 17:20-23 demonstrates a unity of purpose and not physical being? Any discussion Mr. Rhodes has on the nature of the trinity that doesn't address these verses is going to be, to a certain extent, a straw man.Chapter 16 (the pre-existence) is poor. In his attempt to explain away Jer. 1:5, Mr. Rhodes admits that the verse "speaks of God calling and setting apart Jeremiah before he was born" but then Mr. Rhodes also states "the verse says nothing about Jeremiah pre-existing in any state whatsoever" (p 299). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if God calls you and sets you apart, does that not *necessarily* mean you exist in some fashion?Mr. Rhodes also misapplies 1 Cor. 15:46 to the first and second stages of our existence (pre-mortal and mortal life), when the verse and the whole chapter of 1 Cor. 15 speaks to our second and third stages (mortal life and resurrection). WILLING OMISSION ALERT: nowhere in the chapter does Mr. Rhodes take on the tough pro-Mormon scriptures such as Job 38:4-7 or, if you're hung up on who the "sons of God" are, Prov. 8:27-31 (sons of men were with Wisdom in the pre-existence).Chapters 17-20 (salvation in Mormonism) is uneven. Mr. Rhodes does a decent job refuting Mat. 5:48 (pp 313-316), but a poor job of trying to explain why baptism is unnecessary and why baptism for the remission of sins does not exist, when the bible clearly states it does (Acts 2:38) (his argument is essentially a word play on the word "for" in Acts 2:38 (pp 327-329)). His analyses of John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 are likewise unconvincing. In Mark 16:16 in particular, his response to "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" is to sic the second clause of that verse on the first (p 332). That's hardly harmonious scripture interpretation, I think you'll agree.There's more word play in Mr. Rhodes' analysis of James 2:24, 26 and the need for good works. Mr. Rhodes proclaims "a person is justified by faith alone" (p 335). Too bad for Mr. Rhodes the scripture actually states "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24). Nothing like flat-out contradiction of scripture, is there?Regarding the spirit world, I'll give Mr. Rhodes his props for tackling 1 Pet. 3:18-19, although his response is to essentially argue that the scripture should be ignored in favor of other scriptures (pp 352-353). He tries to make Heb. 9:27 ("it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment") do too much. Nowhere in this verse can you extract the idea that "immediately following the moment of death comes judgment" (p 353), particularly when the bible says the final judgment occurs only at the end of the Millennium (Rev. 20:2, 11-12).Overall, Mr. Rhodes certainly compiled a more detailed book than Messrs. Reed and Farkas, and the book provides an interested reader such as myself a good bang for the buck. However, the book is too uneven and internally inconsistent in its analyses to be considered ultimately worthwhile. Like Messrs. Reed's and Farkas' book, it is convincing only to those who already are convinced, but no more.

I know several Mormons at my work and have had chances to talk to quite a few as they do their evangelism. All the ones I met have been very nice people, but of course they follow a false prophet and teach a false gospel. This book does a great job of pointing out many of the inconsistencies in Mormonism and can be a valuable tool in helping to get a Mormon to reconsider what they believe. Remember, they are coming from the belief that they are the only "true" Christians and that everyone else that says they are a Christian is following a corrupted version of Christianity. They also believe that while the Bible is still useful, it has been corrupted over time and ultimately only the Book of Mormon is pure. This book helps point out some of the logical facilities in their belief system and some of the particular problems with Joseph Smith, the Mormon church, and the Book of Mormon itself. You can never guarantee that you will be able to change someone's mind, but bringing up the right points and having the right information can make a big impact.Of course, when talking with anyone who is not a believer (Mormon or otherwise), we should always remember that we are not a Christian because we are smarter or better than them, but only by God's grace. We will have nothing to brag about when we stand before Him, but will give Him all the glory for the salvation He has given to us who believe. We need to remember this when talking with others and remain humble. Making childish remarks about their undergarments is not going to win any of them over (if you don't know what I'm referring to, it is a belief they hold about "sacred undergarments"), but showing them the TRUE love of Christ will go a long way.

Seems like an excellent book, very interesting. I am definitely going to get some more of the titles in this series. Would also be good for a Christian book club. So glad I came across this.Haven't finished it yet, so held off 1 star as I can't review the parts I have not yet read.Love that you can either read it from cover to cover, or pick a chapter and read it as you need it, in any order.

If you decide you want to challenge the Mormons with the truth then this is a great resource. But do it with a fellow Christian!

Excellent tool. Easy to digest.

Great work by Ron Rhodes. I have read many of Ron's work. All are equally good... though it is a first time I am reading on this subject if feel this book give a good intro on the subject and thorough evaluation of some of the important issues. I really appreciate Ron Rhodes for his efforts. Thank you amazon.ca for helping me to get his book.

not what i thought it was the whole message of the book is untrue