Joseph Translating out of a Hat

[Vance]

This notion that God has only one authorized representative on earth, who is given superior knowledge and access to Him than all others is simply wrong.

AGREED!!! Good thing we don't believe that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I found the apologetic response interesting to this over the years. When I became interested, the apologists flat out denied that such a thing happened and that it was ridiculous. Whitmer, the source of the story, was never in a position to see the translation, that no one saw JS do any of the translation.

Who do you mean by "the apologists," and which ones specifically denied it "flat out"? It's a matter of history that has been written, among other places, in the Ensign magazine. I have my doubts about your account.

[MCB]

David was even debating between joining the RCC or the Mormon Church and when he choose to join the RCC, everybody I knew and respected on that Mormon oriented message board congratulated him on making that decision....you are definitely talking through your hat about my or the other Mormons' hate for Catholics and the RCC.

You and those friends may be an exception, or I may have experienced anomalies. You may want to look through the threads at catholic.com to see some of the hostility, particularly from your friends, Zerinus and Why Me, as well as some others. Since I realized the reason you claim a Catholic "apostasy" is to validate the BoM, there has been little more hostility. And this debate had been going on for YEARS!!

When Smith preached the King Follet discourse, he separated himself from the Biblical God.

It was before that, but that was the clincher.

[Vance]

The essentials of scripture are plain and not in dispute amongst Protestant Christians i.e.

Yeah Right! LOL!!!

Mormonism strikes at the very foundation of these things.

Only the manmade and false ones.

Joseph Smith said that all our creeds were an abomination and all our professors were corrupt.

No, that was Jesus that said that.

How can we have fellowship with such people?

Fellow-shipping with Jesus is not as bad as you might think.

Mormons don't believe what we believe - in fact it was LDS who first held us to ridicule and scorned our beliefs.

You poor victim you.

These are good people and I get along with them very well. But I cannot endorse their beliefs any more than I can endorse the beliefs of my Hindu and Buddhist friends.

And why should I care?

I cannot say that Mormons are the same as me. They are not. LDS doctrine is fundamentally different to what I believe.

Ok, So?

There was one comment above that stated that LDS doctrine is Biblical. Well I'd like to quote one scripture that does show that the teachings of Joseph are opposed to the Bible:

"Hear O Isreal the Lord your God, the Lord is one."

Yes, the Lord is one Lord.

And what about these verses? Just to mention a few.

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

When Smith preached the King Follet discourse, he separated himself from the Biblical God.

Nah!! Only from the erroneous interpretations of the past.

[Vance]

I like Catholics!

Especially when they talk like this.

http://strongreasons.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/you-mormons-are-ignoramuses/

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You and those friends may be an exception, or I may have experienced anomalies. You may want to look through the threads at catholic.com to see some of the hostility, particularly from your friends, Zerinus and Why Me, as well as some others. Since I realized the reason you claim a Catholic "apostasy" is to validate the BoM, there has been little more hostility. And this debate had been going on for YEARS!!

It was before that, but that was the clincher.

For the record Zerinus has had several warnings on this board and it would seem he is about worn out his welcome. I disagee with his posting style.

And the best people I met on my mission were catholic. THey were awesome and I loved to go over to their house and talk with them about religon.

[MCB]

For the record Zerinus has had several warnings on this board and it would seem he is about worn out his welcome. I disagee with his posting style.

I appreciate that action on your part.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

On the point of continuing scripture: When was the last time a modern prophet canonized scripture in Mormonism? Why have there been no additions to the D&C for years?

Surely God has not become mute to his own prophets has he? I see no evidence of continuing revelation Mormonism. No additional scripture.

This is irrelevant. We don't have to canonize what the prophet says for it to be just as important as scripture. Continuing revelation and scripture are not necissarily the same thing. Though, revelation can at time be scripture. I hope you realize this.

As to you last assertion you are simply wrong. Ever hear of the BoM, the D&C, or the PofGP? Not to mention that last time something was canonized was in 1978. That was only 31 years ago. I suggest you take the mote out of your Catholic eye. They have not had new scrtipure in almost 2,000 years.

[Deborah]

This notion that God has only one authorized representative on earth, who is given superior knowledge and access to Him than all others is simply wrong.

Actually we have several authorized representatives, Apostles of God who are authorized representatives, as well as all those who are designated by those with authority. As to the superior knowledge and access, we are all entitled to that but only one is authorized to speak for the Lord to the world. We can all receive our personal revelation and knowledge and are expected to seek it.

The essentials of scripture are plain and not in dispute amongst Protestant Christians i.e. Who is God.

Really? I know a lot of Protestant religion who don't even agree on the proper mode of baptism. You will also get different description of the Trinity depending on who you ask.

There was one comment above that stated that LDS doctrine is Biblical. Well I'd like to quote one scripture that does show that the teachings of Joseph are opposed to the Bible:

"Hear O Isreal the Lord your God, the Lord is one."

Not understanding how this is opposite to LDS teaching for as we read In John 17:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

These verses describe how Jesus is saying his disciples will be one with him as the Father and he are one. So does this mean that we are only a multiple personality of Jesus?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I appreciate that action on your part.

Not that I have power to ban him, but I have seen the mods remove him from certain threads and threaten to ban him.

[ERayR]

You and those friends may be an exception, or I may have experienced anomalies. You may want to look through the threads at catholic.com to see some of the hostility, particularly from your friends, Zerinus and Why Me, as well as some others. Since I realized the reason you claim a Catholic "apostasy" is to validate the BoM, there has been little more hostility. And this debate had been going on for YEARS!!

It was before that, but that was the clincher.

Zerinus and Why Me as far as I know are not official spokesperons for the LDS Church. The claim of apostasy has nothing to do with validating the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon can and would stand rather there was an apostasy or not. What is relevent to the apostasy is the authority claims of the respective denominations. To me Catholic authority claims can not stand a close scrutiny.

[Nathair/|\]

MCB, Joseph Smith might have looked into his hat while translating the BofM, but you are definitely talking through your hat about my or the other Mormons' hate for Catholics and the RCC.

Are you sure it's not his diaper?

(edit to add: I did say I am a barbarian.)

[Nathair/|\]

Mormonism teaches a false view of the Godhead, creation, atonement, nature of salvation, the nature of sin, the sovereignty of God and so on. Mormonism is not consistent with Biblical Christianity in any respect. That is why Christians believe that Mormonism is a false gospel.

So Christians do not believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that by the Word all things were created that were created, that the atonement does not cover my sins, that God is not the ruler of the universe? Is that your argument?

[Darth_Bill]

Who do you mean by "the apologists," and which ones specifically denied it "flat out"? It's a matter of history that has been written, among other places, in the Ensign magazine. I have my doubts about your account.

It is mostly recollection. When I started following FAIR, very shortly after you started it, most of the accounts of the stone in the hat was criticed, and notice my words, because Whitmer (or whoever it was) was never in a position to see the translation. It isn't that it was wasn't written by Whitmer, printed in the Ensign, Church News or whatever. There was a defined level of skepticism. Now that skepticism doesn't seem to be there anymore. Yes, I have noticed the account is now seen in official and semi-official publications. We seem to not take umbrage of the account anymore. That is just my perception of the account.

Is it now an accepted historical account, that Joseph Smith did allow Whitmer to witness the translation of the BoM and that this is the accepted procedure of translation? Any CFR that this IS how it happened? I'm asking because I am LDS, a defender of the faith, just like you, and I would like to be comfortable with my history. Perhaps I am completely off in what my history was and what I told investigators. Did Joseph translate separated from his scribe or was that something that only happened in a certain instance? Is there corraboration from other witnesses that Joseph translated in a particular way. I know Joseph said some things every once in awhile, and I'm comfortable with his account. I am perfectly happy with being wrong.

That aside, I do have my perception, that we were, at one point, uncomfortable with the rock in a hat, but now we are not. Perhaps you have a different perception. I'm ok with that to, but don't imply that I am being deceptive. I am not. This is perception, point of view. I love what you have done with your talent and skills in defending the church and I wish I had a tenth of your ambition.

[Darth_Bill]

In the fair wiki it is quoted thusly

David Whitmer, who only came in contact with the translation after the loss of the 116 pages, indicated through a friend that

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a 'Seer Stone,' which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.[25]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

So, this is a second hand account, possibly third as it attributes Joseph as saying it, not Whitmer as a witness.

Also, for clarification, I am not saying that people were balking at the seer stones themselves, but at this method of use and the possibility that Whitmer could have seen it. Now it appears to me that he didn't actually state that he saw it. Now it is a second hand account of what Joseph said. Perhaps not the best account to have.

What can I say, it was a perception that I had.

[DonBradley]

It seems to me that LDS simply assume the first without giving much consideration to the other two - particularly the second possibility. LDS do defend against the third possibility on the grounds that Joseph was a poorly educated farm boy that couldn't have possibly made it all up and so on and so forth. Ok that's fair enough. But what about the second option? It doesn't seem to ever enter the LDS calculations when considering the origin of the BoM. Could it be that some other spirit was responsible for this? If so, how would we know?

Because it makes people live better lives (and by their fruits ye shall know them--a criterion of judgment offered by Jesus, and brings them closer to God. Further, see below.

It seems to me the only reliable thing to do would be to test it against already revealed scripture rather than to seek a spiritual confirmation of unknown source that is independent from Bible scrutiny.

I can understand why this sounds good, but it ultimately fails.

Would each new portion of the Bible have passed this test from the perspective of those who had only previously extant texts? Or better yet, did each new portion do so from their perspective? If so, why did so many reject the new revelations of the truth? The method you propose places an awful lot of weight on the interpretation of the existing text. Yet new revelation often makes its own, very non-obvious interpretation of earlier scripture. Who, for instance, before the fact would have predicted all the details of Jesus' life later identified in the Gospels as prophecies of him? Who actually did predict all this from the texts at hand? Did anyone draw up a list of traits of the true messiah's life that basically amounted to a pre-Gospel? No. Hence, it's dangerous to rely entirely on our interpretation of existing scripture as a way of ruling out new proposed scripture, making flesh our arm.

More importantly, your suggested method risks sewing up the mouth of God by not going deep enough. Here's how: Scripture is accepted as scripture for reasons--i.e., on criteria. And these reasons or criteria have to do primarily with religious/spiritual factors--hence the texts are accepted as scripture, rather than merely as histories or interesting stories. This would apply to the Bible, including its earliest books, as much as to anything else. People--communities--had to make some initial determination, based on some religious criteria, as to what constituted scripture.

Was historicity a real, definitive criterion (i.e., were books actually ruled out on this basis; did only historical books get accepted as scripture)?

Apparently not, since systematic historical methods, which we now have, did not then exist, and since such texts as Daniel, Job, and the Flood story made it in.

Was demonstrable authorship by the claimed prophet or apostle a real, definitive criterion (i.e., were books actually ruled out on such a basis; did only non-pseudepigraphal apostolic and prophetic texts make the cut)?

No, since the one's making the decision did not have the tools to make such determinations and, again, texts like Daniel, Job, most of the "Pauline" epistles, 2 Peter, and the story of the woman taken in adultery made the cut?

Was agreement with previous scripture a real, definitive criterion (i.e., did new texts really always agree with all the old ones)?

If so, why are there conveniently available lists of hundreds of overt contradictions between biblical texts, and how did change, such as the Josian reform, allowing Gentile converts, and abolishing the law occur?

The real criteria for the acceptance of new scripture were not intellectual criteria along the lines you propose, but spiritual criteria. The Bible is a collection of works that have brought people into perceptible relationship with God, texts in which His sheep have heard His voice.

Take the pericope of the woman taken in adultery. It is of unknown authorship, and, objectively judged as an isolated scrap of tradition, of dubious historicity. The manuscripts of the Gospel of John for the first three centuries don't have it. It apparently circulated as a free-floating narrative until finally grafted into John. And why was it grafted into one of the gospels, for goodness' sake, when it was quite unprovenanced and clearly not actually part of the gospel? Because it was so powerful. Basically, it was thought too good not to be true, because of the power of its spiritual message. Although it didn't belong in the gospel, it clearly belonged in the Gospel. So a way was found to wedge it in.

The real way to test proposed new scripture would be to apply the same criteria used in accepting biblical texts as scripture--such as that used in accepting the pericope of the woman taken in adultery--to those new texts, such as the Book of Mormon. Outside of this, one is not testing whether something is of God at all, but merely whether it fits formal criteria that make intellectual sense to those proposing them but which would have disallowed some of the present scripture that is alleged to be the measure of all things!

Let's remember too that according to Paul in Galatians, the fruit of the spirit is love, peace, joy...all experiences that millions, including myself, have found abundantly through the Book of Mormon, even a "peace that passeth understanding." This is something you can test for yourself, since the judgment of God's own Spirit is (unlike the original and divinely intended meaning of each text) available to you in an unmediated way--and it, like the voice of God to the prophets, always trumps people's traditional or formal criteria.

To suggest that we can develop intellectual criteria, that while not clearly applied to or allowing of the original scripture, that would permit us to reject proposed scripture that bears such clear good fruit in the lives of millions, through which millions of good and sincere religionists hear His voice so clearly, and by which they encounter Paul's "fruits of the Spirit" so consistently and completely is the height of human folly, a rejection of God's tests given in scripture and of His Spirit.

My best to you in your searches,

Don

[Calm]

When I became interested,

when was this?

the apologists flat out denied that such a thing happened

when you say "apologists" are you talking about an organized group you were engaged with or about all apologists in general? If the latter, I find this very interesting because I've heard of the story of the hat for quite some time and haven't heard it denied by anyone remotely familiar with church history.

Now there is a level of acceptance of the story. I really don't have an opinion, but marvel at the spin involved.

Are you saying that the exact same individuals you talked to before who denied it are now supporting it (for the reason that he couldn't be reading off a manuscript if his head was in a hat)? Or something else?

[urroner]

when was this?when you say "apologists" are you talking about an organized group you were engaged with or about all apologists in general? If the latter, I find this very interesting because I've heard of the story of the hat for quite some time and haven't heard it denied by anyone remotely familiar with church history.Are you saying that the exact same individuals you talked to before who denied it are now supporting it (for the reason that he couldn't be reading off a manuscript if his head was in a hat)? Or something else?

When I was in seminary, in Utah, during the late 60's, early 70's, we were told about Joseph Smith putting his face in a hat during the translation process.

[canterdogs]

So Christians do not believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that by the Word all things were created that were created, that the atonement does not cover my sins, that God is not the ruler of the universe? Is that your argument?

We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. They constitute one God not three. They have eternally been God. The Father did not go through a period of mortal probation to prove His worthiness. He has always been God. Man is the creature of God, not of the same species. God created everything by the power of His Word. Man is has fallen because of sin. The fall was not a fall upward, but was a tragedy and treason against a holy and righteous God. Jesus' atonement covers all sin. There is no sin that Christs' sacrifice does not cover.

We do not believe in an eternal regression of gods. We do not believe in an eternal mother. We do not believe that God can be contained in a body. We do not believe that God can be contained period. He is all powerful, infinitely holy, righteous and good. Man cannot attain godhood. Further, we believe that never attained His Godhood by working His way through a period of mortal probation. He has eternally been God and there is no other God. The Father did not physically procreate us. He did not physically procreate Jesus or Satan. Jesus and Satan are not spirit brothers. Nor are we spirit brothers and sisters of Jesus and Satan.

I think these are statements that are in contradiction to LDS doctrine.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one. They constitute one God not three.

And it begins again. More talk about 3 people that make up one person. Replace the word God with person and see if it makes any sense.

We are talking about 3 beings in one being.

We believe that the Father, Son and HG are one. They constitute one person not three.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Father did not go through a period of mortal probation to prove His worthiness.

We are in agreement. Who has claimed that teh Father has had a mortal probation. Did Jesus have a mortal probabtion?

He has always been God.

Correct he has always been our God. No one has claimed differently.

Man is the creature of God, not of the same species.

The bible disagrees with you. For we are the offspring (the greek can mean same species as) of God.

God created everything by the power of His Word.

The bible never uses the word that God created every thing in the universe or exsistance. But for the most part I am not arguing this.

Man is has fallen because of sin.

Nothing new here.

The fall was not a fall upward, but was a tragedy and treason against a holy and righteous God. Jesus' atonement covers all sin. There is no sin that Christs' sacrifice does not cover.

Who has claimed that the fall was upward? Nice straw man. And the bible again disagrees with you that "there is no sin that Christs' sacrifice does not cover. The sin agains that HG is unforgiveable.

More to come. So far you are not doing very well.

We do not believe in an eternal regression of gods. We do not believe in an eternal mother. We do not believe that God can be contained in a body. We do not believe that God can be contained period. He is all powerful, infinitely holy, righteous and good. Man cannot attain godhood. Further, we believe that never attained His Godhood by working His way through a period of mortal probation. He has eternally been God and there is no other God. The Father did not physically procreate us. He did not physically procreate Jesus or Satan. Jesus and Satan are not spirit brothers. Nor are we spirit brothers and sisters of Jesus and Satan.

I think these are statements that are in contradiction to LDS doctrine.

[Joseph Antley]

When I was in seminary, in Utah, during the late 60's, early 70's, we were told about Joseph Smith putting his face in a hat during the translation process.

I taught it to a youth Sunday School class about a year ago. Most of them thought it was pretty cool.

[canterdogs]

No, it is a description of God's MO, He works through prophets. Who do you think wrote Hebrews any way?

Yes, He has. So?

See Eph 4:11-14

So? All do not have authority so act for and in behalf of God. The Bible is quite clear on this.

So?

True, He speaks through His prophets and through His Spirit.

Well, when you claim that the canon is closed, you are basically admitting that you know that God doesn't have any thing else to say to us worth writing down.

Can you get a live branch from a dead tree? I think not!

And Peter talked about the RESTITUTION of all things, (See Acts 3:21) as did Christ, (See Matt 17:11).

True, but it is an absolutely worthless warning UNLESS there were going to be TRUE prophets.

You are free to believe what ever you want. But don't think that we can't defend our beliefs using Bible scripture, because we can.

You missed it. The "antichrist" teaches that Christ isn't in the flesh. The "antichrist" refuses to recognize that Christ has a body of flesh. The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that Christ has a body of flesh. Now do you understand the clue?

?

Ephesians 4 talks of prophets... elsewhere Paul talks of those who have the gift prophesy. Is this the same as prophets in the LDS sense? No. God does not channel His authority through one person, or a council of person like the 12. All are available to receive gifts of the spirit. Prophets are not put above pastors and teachers or any other members of the body of Christ. Prophets in the type of Moses, Elijah and so on are not needed anymore, because one greater than these has already come. His teachings are recorded in the NT. The NT contains the fullness of Christs' teaching and knowledge unto salvation. What Mormonism tries to do is to say that we have more and better information that thousands and millions of faithful Christians didn't have for centuries. Of course this statement is absurd. At what point in time did God ever withdraw Himself totally from humanity? When does God not reserve and preserve His remnant? He never has.

The canon is indeed closed. The OT and NT contain God's revealed word to man. They span all of time and are relevant for all times. What we have in the Bible is something historical. Something that we know has sustained believers for centuries. Of course you will say that "well when the epistles came they were new. How is this different to new LDS scripture?" There's a fundamental difference. The NT is the logical extension of the OT. Of course the teachings of the Messiah are to be recorded for all generations to have. Christ taught us all things needed to establish the church. This is quite different from introducing a new volume of scripture no had ever heard before about a people no one had ever heard before and events that simply vanished from memory until Joseph Smith miraculously found them. This is not to be considered scripture and is not accepted by any other Christian community - be they protestant or catholic.

No LDS doctrine can not be defended from the Bible. Where in the Bible do we find that there is an eternal regression of gods? Where in the Bible do we find an eternal mother? Where in the Bible do we find that the Father passed through a period of mortal probation? Where in the Bible do we find a plurality of gods? Of course Mormonism can not be defended from the Bible, that is precisely the reason why there was a need for additional scripture. Further, LDS "wrest" the teaching of Paul and other scripture to there own "destruction" as Peter says in 2 Peter. Peter says that "untaught" men do this. Do you get the clue?

Where are the Christians who believe that Christ did not come in the flesh? Christians believe Christ "became flesh" when He came to earth. Meaning that before His coming, He was not flesh. We believe that Christ was resurrected bodily. This is not in conflict with our doctrine. What is in conflict with the Bible is this notion that Jesus was a spirit child of the Father - not the eternal God Himself. That is why Joseph Smith had to translated John 1:1 as saying that Jesus was "of God" NOT that He was indeed "God".

[Darth_Bill]

When I was in seminary, in Utah, during the late 60's, early 70's, we were told about Joseph Smith putting his face in a hat during the translation process.

Hey, guys, great for you. If you read my post, I mentioned that it was a perception. Some, not all, of the "apologists", the rag-tag, non-professional, evidently sequestored lowlifes that hung out on the board back when FAIR had one took a bit of an contrarian point of view to the story. Perhaps it was the third-person nature of it. Perhaps it was because Whitmer was involved. Perhaps I'm completely wrong and really need to get a life. Whatever. Congradulations, you are better edumacated than those that I read back then. Why the critics use it to ridicule is now completely beyond me.

Please understand, I'm not personally going to promote the story, told 3rd hand, as completely accurate history. Multiple stories exist about the translation. This is just one of them.

[urroner]

?

Ephesians 4 talks of prophets... elsewhere Paul talks of those who have the gift prophesy. Is this the same as prophets in the LDS sense? No. God does not channel His authority through one person, or a council of person like the 12. All are available to receive gifts of the spirit. Prophets are not put above pastors and teachers or any other members of the body of Christ. Prophets in the type of Moses, Elijah and so on are not needed anymore, because one greater than these has already come. His teachings are recorded in the NT. The NT contains the fullness of Christs' teaching and knowledge unto salvation. What Mormonism tries to do is to say that we have more and better information that thousands and millions of faithful Christians didn't have for centuries. Of course this statement is absurd. At what point in time did God ever withdraw Himself totally from humanity? When does God not reserve and preserve His remnant? He never has.

The canon is indeed closed. The OT and NT contain God's revealed word to man. They span all of time and are relevant for all times. What we have in the Bible is something historical. Something that we know has sustained believers for centuries. Of course you will say that "well when the epistles came they were new. How is this different to new LDS scripture?" There's a fundamental difference. The NT is the logical extension of the OT. Of course the teachings of the Messiah are to be recorded for all generations to have. Christ taught us all things needed to establish the church. This is quite different from introducing a new volume of scripture no had ever heard before about a people no one had ever heard before and events that simply vanished from memory until Joseph Smith miraculously found them. This is not to be considered scripture and is not accepted by any other Christian community - be they protestant or catholic.

No LDS doctrine can not be defended from the Bible. Where in the Bible do we find that there is an eternal regression of gods? Where in the Bible do we find an eternal mother? Where in the Bible do we find that the Father passed through a period of mortal probation? Where in the Bible do we find a plurality of gods? Of course Mormonism can not be defended from the Bible, that is precisely the reason why there was a need for additional scripture. Further, LDS "wrest" the teaching of Paul and other scripture to there own "destruction" as Peter says in 2 Peter. Peter says that "untaught" men do this. Do you get the clue?

Where are the Christians who believe that Christ did not come in the flesh? Christians believe Christ "became flesh" when He came to earth. Meaning that before His coming, He was not flesh. We believe that Christ was resurrected bodily. This is not in conflict with our doctrine. What is in conflict with the Bible is this notion that Jesus was a spirit child of the Father - not the eternal God Himself. That is why Joseph Smith had to translated John 1:1 as saying that Jesus was "of God" NOT that He was indeed "God".

You state all this as fact, incontestable fact, yet you only offer you opinion as the only source of this fact. Interesting.