Stephen E. Jones

Jesus is Jehovah Quotes: Unclassified quotes: June 2008

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; JiJ unclassified & classified quotes] [My Jesus is Jehovah! blog]

The following are quotes added to my Jesus is Jehovah unclassified quotes database in June 2008.
The date format is dd/mm/yy. See copyright conditions at end.

2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec.

2/06/2008
"Trinitarians point to John 20:28 as proof that Jesus is God. There Thomas said (NW): `My Master and 
my God!' How can this argument be answered?-F. W., Philippine Republic. Jesus is a god. `God' means a 
strong one. Christ is called `The mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, `a god' at John 1:1 (NW), and `the only- 
begotten god' at John 1:18 (NW). Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is 
called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. So Thomas 
could call Jesus God, but not THE God, and three verses later Jesus is called `the Son of God,' as we read 
(NW): `But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, 
and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.' So there was no objection to 
John's reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas' 
address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus 
was God's Son. In this same chapter (20:17, NW) Jesus said: `I am ascending to my Father and your 
Father and to my God and your God.' He was not ascending to himself." ("Questions From Readers," 
Watchtower, September 1, 1955, p.143. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"The title `Mighty God' applied to Jesus Christ at Isaiah 9:6 is also used to prove that Jesus is God, 
because Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 speak of Jehovah God as `mighty God.' But here again too 
much is read into the texts. Only the superlatives and the infinites can dogmatically be limited to 
Jehovah, such as `the Most High.' Jesus is a god, a mighty god, and so is Jehovah a God, a mighty 
God. But additionally, Jehovah is the mighty God and also the God Almighty. The term in the 
Hebrew, el gibbór, `mighty God,' is not limited to Jehovah, but the term el Shaddái, `God Almighty,' 
is.-Gen. 17:1." ("What Does the Bible Teach About the Divinity of Christ?," Watchtower, September 
15, 1961, p.551. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"Jesus Christ ... Referred to as a Mighty God, but not the Almighty God, Jehovah Isa. 9:6 `There has 
been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his 
shoulder: And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God.' Ex. 6:3 `I used to appear to 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known 
to them." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Make Sure of All Things, Hold Fast to What Is Fine," 
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1965, p.282. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"Although Jesus is spoken of in the Scriptures as `a god,' even `Mighty God,' yet he magnified his Father, 
referring to him as `my God and your God.' (John 1:1; 20:17; Isa. 9:6) He agreed with Moses, who had earlier 
stated: `Jehovah is the true God; there is no other besides him.' (Deut. 4:35) Jehovah stands in utter contrast 
to such objects of worship as idols, deified humans and Satan the Devil. In contrast to all such, Jehovah is, 
as Jesus called him, `the only true God.'-John 17:3." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "United in 
Worship of the Only True God ," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 1983, p.13. 
Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"Christ occupies a position far higher than imperfect men, or Satan. If such can be referred to as `gods,' 
surely Jesus can be, and was, referred to as a god. Because of his unique position in relation to 
Jehovah, Jesus is `the only-begotten god' (John 1:18), a `Mighty God' (Isaiah 9:6), and `a god' (John 
1:1). So there was nothing improper about Thomas' referring to Jesus in that way. Thomas was saying 
that Jesus was a god to him, a divine, powerful one. But he was not saying that Jesus was Jehovah, 
which is why Thomas said, `my' God and not `the' God." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Accurate 
Knowledge of God and His Son Leads to Life," Watchtower, June 1, 1988, p.19)

2/06/2008
"But in the latter part of John 1:1, such translations as listed in paragraph 8 render the second the·os' (a 
predicate noun) as `divine' or `a god' instead of `God.' Why? Because the second the·os' is a singular 
predicate noun occurring before the verb and without the definite article ho in Greek. In this verse, such 
a sentence construction points to a characteristic or quality of the subject. It highlights the nature of 
the Word, that he was `divine,' `a god,' but not the almighty God. This is in harmony with the many 
scriptures that show that `the Word' was God's spokesman, sent to earth by God. As John 1:18 states: 
`No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god [the Son created in heaven by almighty God] 
who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has [come to earth as the man Jesus and] 
explained him [almighty God].'" (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Accurate Knowledge of God and 
His Son Leads to Life," Watchtower, June 1, 1988, p.17. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"JESUS CHRIST ... These facts give solid support to a translation such as `the Word was a god' at John 1:1. 
The Word's preeminent position among God's creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God 
created all things, and as God's Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called `a god' or mighty one. The 
Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called `Mighty God,' though not the Almighty 
God, and that he would be the `Eternal Father' of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his 
own Father, `Jehovah of armies,' would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God's Adversary, Satan the 
Devil, is called a `god' (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), 
then with far greater reason and propriety is God's firstborn Son called `a god,' `the only-begotten god' as 
the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Insight on the 
Scriptures, Volume 2: Jehovah - ZuZim," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1988, p.54. 
Emphasis original) 

2/06/2008
"WORD, THE ... These renderings would support the fact that Jesus, being the Son of God and the one 
used by God in creating all other things (Col 1:15-20), is indeed a `god,' a mighty one, and has the quality of 
mightiness, but is not the Almighty God. Other translations reflect this view. The New English Bible says: 
`And what God was, the Word was.' The Greek word translated `Word' is Lo'gos; and so Moffatt's 
translation reads: `The Logos was divine.' The American Translation reads: `The Word was divine.' Other 
readings, by German translators, follow. By Böhmer: `It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine 
being.' By Stage: `The Word was itself of divine being.' By Menge: `And God (= of divine being) the Word 
was.' And by Thimme: `And God of a sort the Word was.' All these renderings highlight the quality of the 
Word, not his identity with his Father, the Almighty God. Being the Son of Jehovah God, he would have the 
divine quality, for divine means `godlike.'-Col 2:9; compare 2Pe 1:4, where `divine nature' is promised to 
Christ's joint heirs." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2: Jehovah - 
ZuZim," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1988, p.1202. Emphasis original) 

2/06/2008
"Jesus is spoken of in the Scriptures as `a god,' even as `Mighty God.' (John 1:1; Isa. 9:6) But nowhere is he 
spoken of as being Almighty, as Jehovah is. (Gen. 17:1) Jesus is said to be `the reflection of [God's] glory,' 
but the Father is the Source of that glory. (Heb. 1:3) Jesus in no way seeks the position of his Father. He 
said: `It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.' (Luke 
4:8) He exists `in God's form,' and the Father has commanded that `in the name of Jesus every knee should 
bend,' but this is all done `to the glory of God the Father.'-Phil. 2:5-11; see also pages 212-216." (Watchtower 
Bible & Tract Society, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New 
York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, p.150)

2/06/2008
"God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: `Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.' Does 
this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called `Mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be 
Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before 
Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that 
was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone 
who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as 
`mighty God,' just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called `God Almighty.'-Gen. 17:1." 
(Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," [1985], Watchtower Bible & Tract 
Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1989, p.413. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as `gods,' 
mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is `a god.' Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus 
is a `Mighty God.'-John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6. But does not `Mighty God' with its capital letters indicate that Jesus 
is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that 
Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was 
called `Mighty,' there can be only one who is `Almighty.' To call Jehovah God `Almighty' would have little 
significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior 
position." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?," [1989], Watchtower 
Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, Reprinted, 2008, p.28)

2/06/2008
"... Isaiah 9:6 ... Jesus is also `Mighty God' and `Eternal Father.' This does not mean that he usurps the 
authority and position of Jehovah, who is `God our Father.' (2 Corinthians 1:2) `He [Jesus] ... gave no 
consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.' (Philippians 2:6) He is called Mighty 
God, not Almighty God. Jesus never thought of himself as God Almighty, for he spoke of his Father as `the 
only true God,' that is, the only God who should be worshiped. (John 17:3; Revelation 4:11) In the Scriptures, 
the word `god' can mean `mighty one' or `strong one.' (Exodus 12:12; Psalm 8:5; 2 Corinthians 4:4) Before 
Jesus came to earth, he was `a god,' `existing in God's form.' After his resurrection, he returned to an even 
higher position in the heavens. (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6-11) Further, the designation `god' carries an 
additional implication. Judges in Israel were called `gods'-once by Jesus himself. (Psalm 82:6; John 10:35) 
Jesus is Jehovah's appointed Judge, `destined to judge the living and the dead.' (2 Timothy 4:1; John 5:30) 
Clearly, he is well named Mighty God." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Isaiah's Prophecy Light for All 
Mankind Volume 1," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 2000, pp.130-131. 
Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"Although Jesus is spoken of in the Scriptures as `a god,' even as `Mighty God,' nowhere is he spoken of 
as being almighty. (John 1:1; Isa. 9:6; Gen. 17:1)" ("Theocratic Ministry School Review," Our Kingdom 
Ministry, December, 2001, p.5)

2/06/2008
"Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that 
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Although this verse is more often used by 
Christians to challenge Mormonism, Mormons themselves will sometimes quote it in connection with their 
claim that the church set up on earth by Jesus Christ soon became apostate, teaching `another gospel,' and 
so needed to be restored. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century did not accomplish this, they 
assert, because the church was beyond reform. A total restoration was required, and this took place in 1830 
when Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church. It is true that another gospel was introduced early in the 
history of Christianity; that is what the apostle Paul wrote the Galatians about and warned them against (Gal. 
1:6). From the rest of Paul's letter it appears that the other gospel being taught in Galatia had to do with 
salvation through works (compare Gal. 3:1, 2). Actually, there were a number of `other' gospels taught by 
persons who sought to `pervert the gospel of Christ' (Gal. 1:7). Some of these are mentioned specifically in 
the Bible: `the doctrine of Balaam,' `the doctrine of the Nicolaitans,' and the `doctrine' of `that woman 
Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess' (Rev. 2:14, 15, 20-24). The epistles of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, 
and John are full of warnings against false teachers and false teachings working their way into the church. 
But, did those other gospels succeed in penetrating the church to the point that the true gospel of Jesus 
Christ was lost and forgotten? No. In combating the counterfeit gospels, these Bible writers left us their 
inspired epistles outlining and defending the true gospel. Thousands of early manuscripts have survived to 
this day, preserving what they wrote. Controversies continued to disturb the church in the centuries that 
followed, but those disputes, too, are well documented with writings pro and con surviving for our 
examination. With church history so well preserved, it is possible for us today to trace the development of 
doctrines and practices over the years. ... Yet, in the mountains of manuscripts dating back nearly two 
thousand years, nowhere do we find evidence that the church originally taught anything resembling the 
`restored gospel' of Mormonism. If it were true that the church founded by Jesus Christ originally taught 
such LDS doctrines as the plurality of Gods, men becoming Gods, celestial marriage, and God the Father 
having once been a man, and if it were true that those doctrines were later set aside in favor of what is now 
considered orthodox Christianity, there would certainly be some record of this. There would be very ancient 
Bible manuscripts containing those teachings that could be compared with later manuscripts leaving them 
out. And there would be writings pro and con debating those teachings, dating to the time when they were 
allegedly repressed. But no such evidence is available. ... But, instead of ancient manuscripts, Mormons rely 
on the writings of Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received his information by direct revelation. The 
evidence actually points to Mormonism being the `other gospel' and orthodox Christianity being the 
historically verifiable original gospel of Christ. Regardless of whether Joseph Smith received his information 
from an angel or from other sources, it still differs from what is recorded in the Bible. So the Scripture 
applies: `But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we 
have preached unto you, let him be accursed."' (Reed, D.A. & Farkas, J.R., "Mormons Answered Verse by 
Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, pp.89-90. Emphasis original) 

2/06/2008
"Galatians 1:8 Another Gospel .... In Galatians 1:6-8 we read, `I marvel that ye are so soon removed from 
him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel; which is not another; but there be some 
that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 
any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' The Mormons 
often cite this verse in their attempt to prove that the early church became completely apostate (believing 
`another gospel') and was thus in need of restoration. This restoration allegedly came through the Mormon 
prophet Joseph Smith. ... First you will want to make clear what Galatians 1:8 does not say. The text does 
not even remotely hint that there would be a total apostasy of the entire church. Mormons are reading 
something into the text that is not there. By allowing Galatians 1 to speak for itself, a person would never 
come to the conclusion that it is referring to a complete apostasy of the entire church. You will then want to 
clarify the nature of the false gospel the Galatians had bought into: It was a gospel of legalism, which added 
works to faith. This was not the same gospel Paul had preached and by which the Galatians had been saved. 
Apparently false teachers had been at work confusing the Galatians (see Acts 15:24; 20:29-30). ... This, in 
effect, added law to the grace Paul had been preaching. It is clear, then, that the `other gospel' being taught 
in Galatia had to do with salvation through works (see Galatians 3:1-2). There are numerous other so-called 
`gospels' that pervert the true gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:7). These include the `doctrine of Balaam,' the 
`doctrine of the Nicolaitans,' and the `doctrine' of `that woman Jezebel; which calleth herself a prophetess' 
(Revelation 2:14,15,20-24). No matter what kind of gospel it is and no matter who it comes from (even an 
angel), if it goes against the authoritative gospel already handed down, it is to be rejected and is accursed 
by God. Commentator G. Walter Hansen explains, `Even the authority of a messenger from heaven or the 
authority of Paul himself must be tested by loyalty to the gospel. It is important to note that Paul holds 
himself accountable to this ultimate measure of authority.' [Hansen, G.W., "Galatians," InterVarsity Press: 
Downers Grove IL, 1994, p.37] Measuring the `gospel' of Mormonism against that expressed in Galatians and 
the rest of the New Testament (a gospel of grace, not works), it becomes abundantly clear that the LDS 
works-gospel is in fact `another' gospel that must be pronounced anathema-accursed by God, and deadly 
to people seeking to enter His kingdom." (Rhodes, R. & Bodine, M., "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the 
Mormons," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1995, pp.49-50. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"The Christ of the Mormons cannot save, for he is as the Apostle Paul describes him, `another Jesus,' the 
subject of `another gospel,' and the originator of a `different spirit,' whose forerunner (the angelic 
messenger, Moroni) was anticipated by the Apostle (Galatians 1:8 and 9) and who along with the entire 
revelation is to be considered `anathema' or more literally from the Greek, `cursed' by God. It may be difficult 
for some to grasp what is in fact an incredible concept, but Mormonism fits perfectly into the descriptions 
given by the Word of God. The greatest of the apostles, in his second letter to the Corinthian church, after 
mentioning a counterfeit Jesus, gospel and spirit, goes on to state that such occurrences should not come 
as a surprise to the Christian church: `For such are false apostles, deceitful workmen, transforming 
themselves into apostles of Christ, and it is not surprising, for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel 
of light. It is therefore no great marvel if his servants also transform themselves as servants of 
righteousness whose end will be according to- their works' (II Corinthians 11:13-15, Greek). This is harsh 
language indeed, but it is the language of God's choosing and it cannot be ignored by anyone who takes 
seriously the revelations of Scripture and apostolic authority. Mormonism, with the apostles, priesthood, 
temples, secret signs, symbols, hand shakes and mysteries, quite literally masquerades as `the church of the 
restoration'; but at its heart, in its doctrine of the Messiah, it is found to be contrary to every major Biblical 
pronouncement." (Martin, W.R., "The Kingdom of the Cults: An Analysis of the Major Cult Systems in the 
Present Christian Era," Bethany Fellowship: Minneapolis MN, 1977, p.193. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"Latter-day Saints maintain that they are Christians who believe in the Bible and preach the doctrines of 
Christianity. The truth, however, is that Mormons are not Christians. In fact, Mormonism contradicts 
Scripture at every turn. For example, the LDS teaching that there exists more than one god is refuted by 
numerous biblical passages, including Isaiah 44:8 where God declares: `[Y]ou are My witnesses. Is there any 
God besides Me ... ? I know of none.' The Lord has also stated: `Before me there was no God formed, and 
there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10). Even the demons realize there exists only one God, and they tremble 
(James 2:19). Church apostle James Talmage has stated: `We believe in a God ... who has attained His exalted 
state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share.' 
[Talmage, J.E., A Study of the Articles of Faith, 1948, p.430] Yet in Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 48:10-11, God 
assures us that He shares His glory with no one. Such verses indicate that the Mormon goal of becoming a 
god will never be reached." (Abanes, R., "Cults, New Religious Movements, and Your Family: A Guide to 
Ten Non-Christian Groups Out to Convert Your Loved Ones," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, 1998, p.221)

2/06/2008
"Regarding our alleged pre-existence, Brigham Young explained that , people are `first made spiritual, and 
afterwards temporal [fleshly].' [Young, B., Journal of Discourses, 1:50.Paul the apostle, however, taught 
differently: `[T]hat was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural: and afterward that which is 
spiritual' (1 Cor.15:46, KJV, emphasis added). Paul is simply saying here that the natural, or physical, comes 
first, then comes the spiritual. Zechariah 12:1, in agreement with Paul, indicates that God forms the spirit 
within the body of each man and each woman on earth, rather than in the womb of a celestial Heavenly 
Mother. One biblical passage often cited by Mormons to support their pre-mortal doctrine is Jeremiah 1:5: 
`Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified 
thee, and I ordained thee a prophet' (KJV). This verse, on the surface, does seem to say that God indeed 
knew us before we were born. Mormons assert, therefore, that for God to have had such knowledge, we 
must have existed with Him in heaven prior to being born. But in context, Jeremiah is not referring to a pre-
earth life with God. The passage is speaking of God's omniscience (compare Ps. 139:11-12; 147:5; 1 John 
3:19-20), specifically His foreknowledge. The Old Testament prophet is addressing the fact that even before 
our births, God knows everything about our lives-including our identity. He knows us as if we already 
existed. As Romans 4:17 puts it, "God ... calleth those things which be not as though they were" (KJV)." 
(Abanes, R., "Cults, New Religious Movements, and Your Family: A Guide to Ten Non-Christian Groups 
Out to Convert Your Loved Ones," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, 1998, pp.221-.222. Emphasis original)

2/06/2008
"Concerning our identity as God's children, Scripture nowhere says that we were procreated in the heavenly 
realms as literal sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and his wife. Instead, we are described by the 
Bible as children of God by adoption (Rom. 8:15). Furthermore, Scripture explicitly states that God is not a 
man (Num. 23:19;1 Sam. 15:29; Hos. 11:9). The Bible also tells us that God did not evolve into deity from a 
mere man who himself had to worship another god-i.e., his Heavenly Father. God has always been God 
(Isa. 41:4; 57:15; Rom. 16:25-26). In the words of Psalms 90:2 and 93:2, God has been God "from everlasting to 
everlasting." He is unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:17-18; James 1:17). The Mormon concept of God as a man 
with a body of flesh and bones 119 is also contradicted by Scripture. John 4:24 says, "God is spirit," and 
Jesus taught in Luke 24:39 that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones." Clearly, Mormons believe in 
"another Jesus ... a different spirit ... a false gospel" (2 Cor. 11:4). The true Gospel, according to Scripture, is 
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Compare this message with the words of LDS 
authority George Q. Cannon: "Who is there that believes more in true evolution than the Latter-day Saints-
The evolution of man until he shall become a God.... That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ believed by the 
Latter-day Saints." 120 (Abanes, R., "Cults, New Religious Movements, and Your Family: A Guide to Ten 
Non-Christian Groups Out to Convert Your Loved Ones," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, 1998, p.222. 
Emphasis original)

3/06/2008
"Sing Praises to Jehovah, 1984 Musically the book of 225 songs released in 1984 differs from earlier versions in 
that it provides notations for guitar. But more significant is the different doctrinal emphasis commented on in the 
Watchtower Society's book Revelation-Its Grand Climax At Hand! `In the songbook produced by Jehovah's 
people in 1905, there were twice as many songs praising Jesus as there were songs praising Jehovah God. In their 
1928 songbook, the number of songs extolling Jesus was about the same as the number extolling Jehovah. But in 
the latest songbook of 1984, Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus. This is in harmony 
with Jesus' own words: "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28) Love for Jehovah must be preeminent, 
accompanied by deep love for Jesus and appreciation of his precious sacrifice and office as God's High Priest 
and King. (p. 36)' This comment reveals that Watchtower leaders are well aware that the organization's doctrinal 
shifts over the years have made it far less Christ centered, and that this changed emphasis is reflected in its 
songs of worship. But what the quotation fails to reveal is that the shift away from Jesus Christ has been 
accompanied by a growing emphasis on the organization, which itself takes on the role of a corporate false Christ 
obeyed as master and looked to for salvation." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Sing Praises to Jehovah," 
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1984, pp.166-167) 

3/06/2008
"From its inception, the Mormon Church has consistently and adamantly opposed the clear biblical teaching 
of justification by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9). In fact, few religions are more 
hostile to the biblical teaching of salvation by grace than Mormonism. Talmage refers to `a most pernicious 
doctrine-that of justification by belief alone.' [Talmage, J.E., A Study of the Articles of Faith, 1974, p.107] 
Joseph Fielding Smith taught that `mankind [is] damned by [the] `faith alone' doctrine.' [Smith, J.F., 
Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p.139] McConkie complained, `Many Protestants ...erroneously conclude 
that men are saved by grace alone without doing the works of righteousness.' [McConkie, B., Doctrinal 
New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, p.229] Because salvation by grace is thoroughly rejected, Mormonism 
forcefully teaches a system of salvation by works of righteousness and personal merit. Both the Book of 
Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants teach `works salvation.' Further, virtually every Mormon 
authority of past and present has emphasized the absolute necessity of salvation by works and personal 
righteousness. Heber C. Kimball taught, `I have power to save myself, and if I do not save myself, who will 
save me? All have that privilege, and naught can save us but obedience to the commandments of God.' 
[Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p.269] Talmage referred to `the absolute requirement of individual 
compliance with the laws and ordinances of his [Jesus'] gospel by which salvation may be attained.' 
[Talmage, J.E., Jesus the Christ, 1976, p.5] Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized that `the new birth is also a 
matter of obedience to law.' [Smith, J.F., The Way to Perfection, 1975, p. 189.] Bruce McConkie believed 
that the great defender of justification by faith alone, the apostle Paul, is `the apostle of good works, of 
personal righteousness, of keeping the commandments, of pressing forward with a steadfastness in Christ, 
of earning the right to eternal life by the obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.' [McConkie, B., 
Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, p.294, 279] But, again ... the Bible teaches only one way of 
salvation-by grace through faith alone. `Of Him [ Jesus], all the prophets bear witness that through His name 
everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins' (Acts 10:43). Jesus Himself taught that salvation 
was secured by faith alone. For example, `Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes 
Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life' 
(John 5:24). `Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life' (John 6:47). `Jesus answered and said 
to them, `This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent' (John 6:29). ... As early as 
Genesis we read, `Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness' (Genesis 15:6 NIV). 
The apostle Paul comments on this verse when he asserts, `What does the Scripture say? "Abraham 
believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness"' (Romans 4:3 NIV). ... Paul confessed that even 
though he was a righteous man according to the law, he counted it `but rubbish in order that I may gain 
Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that 
which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith' (Philippians 
3:8-9). Does this sound as though Paul was a great defender of salvation by good works and of `earning the 
right to salvation' by obedience to gospel law? To the contrary, Paul repeatedly emphasized salvation was 
secured by grace through faith in Christ alone, as the following Scriptures prove: `For we maintain that a 
man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law' (Romans 3:28). `By grace you have been saved through 
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast' 
(Ephesians 2:8,9). `But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer 
grace' (Romans 11:6). `I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then 
Christ died needlessly' (Galatians 2:21; see also Romans 4:5,6; 10:4; Galatians 3:11; Titus 3:5). Mormonism, 
because it teaches a religious system of salvation by good works and personal righteousness, comes under 
the condemnation so clearly expressed by the apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8 (NIV): `But even if we or an angel 
from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally 
condernned!'" (Ankerberg, J. & Weldon, J., "The Facts on the Mormon Church," Harvest House Publishers: 
Eugene OR, 1991, pp.28-30. Emphasis original)

3/06/2008
"The Bible does not prophesy a total apostasy in the early church. Let us consider the two primary 
passages Mormons cite in support of their view-Galatians 1:6-8 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3.3 Galatians 1:6-8 
`I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are 
turning to a different gospel-which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into 
confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should 
preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!' This passage 
records the apostle Paul's warning against believing a different gospel. Notice that there is no indication 
that there would be a total apostasy of the entire church throughout the world. The local church in Galatia 
was the focus of these statements by the apostle Paul. The Galatians had apparently succumbed to a gospel 
that added works to faith. Certain Jewish Christians, unhappy with the way Paul freely invited Gentiles to 
come to God, had begun to visit the churches he had established. Their purpose was to `Judaize' these 
Gentile believers-to persuade them that after believing in Christ they needed to take the additional step of 
getting circumcised.' This effectively added `law' to the `grace' Paul had been preaching. Galatians 3:1,3 
says, `You foolish Galatians!...After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by 
human effort?' Paul responded by emphasizing that any gospel that contradicted the gospel of grace 
already authoritatively handed down to them is to be rejected. He even held himself accountable to this 
standard (see Galatians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3). A Counterfeit Gospel The gospel of Mormonism is one of 
works, which contradicts the gospel of grace taught by Paul (Ephesians 2:8,9). The Mormon gospel falls into 
the category of `a different gospel' (Galatians 1:8)." (Rhodes, R., "The 10 Most Important Things You Can 
Say to a Mormon," Harvest House: Eugene OR, 2001, pp.10-11. Emphasis original)

3/06/2008
"2 Thessalonians 2:3 `Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the 
rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.' Mormons say this 
verse speaks of an apostasy that would engulf the entire church, making a restoration imperative.' Contrary 
to the Mormon view, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does not say there would be a total apostasy of the entire 
church. Paul was referring not to a general global apostasy but rather to a specific, distinguishable apostasy 
that is still to come (see 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 4:3,4; James 5:1-8; 2 Peter 2; 3:36; Jude). 
Second Thessalonians 2:3 is an end-time apostasy that occurs before the second coming of Christ. (Verse 1 
sets the context by making specific reference to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.) Paul is speaking about 
a distinguishable apostasy headed by a distinguishable `man of lawlessness' (the Antichrist) that will 
take place before the distinguishable second coming of Christ at a specific point in time. The 
manifestation of this `man of lawlessness' in the future will be an actual historical event." (Rhodes, R., "The 
10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Mormon," Harvest House: Eugene OR, 2001, p.12. Emphasis 
original)

5/06/2008
"After his illicit marriage to Fanny Alger in Kirtland, Smith took Lucinda Pendleton as a wife in 1838/39. 
Pendleton, coincidentally, was the widow of Captain William Morgan (see pp. 36-37), who was kidnapped 
and murdered for exposing Freemasonry secrets. Not until 1841 in Nauvoo, however, was Smith's seemingly 
insatiable lust for women and young girls unleashed. He began cautiously by taking only three plural wives 
in 1841: Louisa Beaman (26-years-old), Zina Diantha Huntington (20-years-old), and Presendia Lathrop 
Huntington (31-years-old). [Compton, T., "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," 
Signature Books: Salt Lake City UT, p.4] After these successful ventures into the forbidden realm of 
polygamy, Smith in 1842 married eleven more women. Then, in 1843, he acquired at least another seventeen 
wives. These thirty-three marriages are so well-documented that they are beyond legitimate dispute. Other 
historians-e.g., Fawn Brodie, D. Michael Quinn, and George D. Smith-have identified even more women who 
were probably married to Joseph. Their research indicates forty-eight, forty-six, and forty-three wives, 
respectively." (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight 
Windows: New York NY, 2002, pp.192-193)

5/06/2008
"One rarely discussed aspect of Joseph's polygamy is that many of the women he married were already wed 
to other men `and cohabitating with them when Smith married them.' [Compton, T., "In Sacred Loneliness: 
The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Signature Books: Salt Lake City UT, 1997, p.15] Smith, then, advocated 
not only polygyny (i.e., marriage by a man to more than one woman), but also polyandry (i.e., marriage of a 
woman to more than one man), both of which are subsets of polygamy (i.e, multiple marriages). Interestingly, 
out of Smith's first dozen marriages to other women, nine of them were already married to some of his closest 
friends, each of whom were also high-ranking members of his leadership core. [Ibid, pp.4, 15-16] Moreover, 
the wives continued to live with their husbands after marrying Smith, but would have conjugal visits from 
Joseph whenever it served his needs." (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon 
Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, p.193)

5/06/2008
"Smith often demanded the wives of his male followers as a test of their devotion to him. Then, when they, 
after agonizing over the issue, finally offered up their wives, he would tell them they had passed a test of 
allegiance and would not have to follow through with their decision. For instance, Smith went to John 
Taylor, who would become the LDS church's third president, and said to him, `Brother John, I WANT 
LEONORA.' Taylor was stunned, `but after walking the floor all night, the obedient Elder said to Smith, `If 
GOD wants Leonora He can have her.' According to Wilford Woodruff: `That was all the prophet was after, 
to see where President Taylor stood in the matter, and said to him, Brother Taylor, I don't want your wife, I 
just wanted to know just where you stood.' [Van Wagoner, R., "Mormon Polygamy: A History," Signature 
Books: Salt Lake City UT, 1989, p.62]" (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon 
Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, p.193. Emphasis original)

5/06/2008
"One of the most obvious examples of this involved Heber C. Kimball, Smith's long-time friend and 
unwaveringly loyal apostle, who dearly loved his wife Vilate. Heber and Vilate were `intensely devoted to 
each other,' apparently a bit too devoted for Smith. So in early 1842, the prophet made a shocking demand of 
his devoted disciple to `surrender his wife, his beloved Vilate, and give her to Joseph in marriage!' [Whitney, 
O., "Life of Heber C. Kimball," Stevens & Wallis: Salt Lake City UT, 1945, pp.93-94] For three days Kimball 
anguished over giving his wife to Joseph, until finally he was asked to choose between Mormonism and his 
wife. He chose Mormonism: With a broken and bleeding heart, but with soul self-mastered for the sacrifice, 
he led his darling wife to the Prophet's house and presented her to Joseph. `Joseph wept at this proof of 
devotion, and embracing Heber, told him that was all that the Lord required.' It had been a test, said Joseph, 
to see if Heber would give up everything he possessed. [Whitney, pp.333-335]." (Abanes, R., "One Nation 
Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, pp.193-
194)

5/06/2008
"Joseph's wives also included at least one mother/daughter pair (Patty Bartlett and Sylvia Sessions) and 
three sets of sisters: Delcena and Almera Johnson; Sarah and Maria Lawrence (aged seventeen and nine 
teen, respectively); and Emily and Eliza Partridge. These marriages are significant because by entering into 
them Smith blatantly violated God's Old Testament prohibition against marrying either a woman and her 
mother (Lev. 18:17) or a woman and her sister (Lev. 18:18)." (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A 
History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, p.194)

5/06/2008
"Smith's youngest wife was fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, the daughter of Heber and Vilate. Helen 
was first asked by her father to become Joseph's wife. But she refused. Then Smith himself approached 
Helen, saying to her the same words he had uttered to seventeen-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney: `If you will 
take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father's household & all 
your kindred.' [Compton, T., "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Signature Books: 
Salt Lake City UT, 1997, p.499] Helen agreed, later recalling: `This promise was so great that I willingly gave 
myself to purchase so glorious a reward.' [Ibid, p.499]" (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A History of 
the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, p.194)

5/06/2008
"Emma, meanwhile, did everything in her power to fight Joseph's polygamous activity. She threatened to 
leave him, argued with him, denounced him, and refused to accept the new doctrine. [Van Wagoner, R., 
"Mormon Polygamy: A History," Signature Books: Salt Lake City UT, 1989, pp.51-54, 59-60] In an effort to 
silence her objections, Joseph issued a revelation wherein God commanded Emma to cease condemning her 
husband, and accept his divinely-appointed wives-or else be damned. [D&C 132:52] This July 12, 1843, 
revelation was read to Emma in private and given to several of Smith's most trusted followers, but it would 
still be kept secret from the vast majority of Saints living in Nauvoo. It would not be publicly released until 
1852, and not printed in the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876." (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: 
A History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, pp.194-195)

8/06/2008
"Smith, however, did not realize the level of secret information that had been gathered by the dissenters. 
Only when the newspaper's first issue of June 7, 1844, appeared did he understand what had happened. 
Resolution 12 in the publication, which read `we will not acknowledge any man as king or law-giver to the 
church; for Christ is our only king and law-giver,' indicated that a member of the Council of Fifty had 
betrayed him. [Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844, p.2] ... The dissenters declared: `We are 
earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same 
abominations and whoredoms ... [Nauvoo Expositor pp.1-2]" (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: 
A History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, pp.196-197)

8/06/2008
"The Nauvoo Expositor also lodged serious charges against Smith for adultery, fornication, lewd 
behavior, and abuse of his flock, especially numerous women, who after swearing to never divulge what was 
revealed to them, under penalty of death, were told that they were to become Smith's spiritual wives. 
[Nauvoo Expositor, p.2] The writers of the Expositor lamented: `It is difficult-perhaps impossible-to 
describe the wretchedness of females in this place, without wounding the feelings of the benevolent, or 
shocking the delicacy of the refined; but the truth shall come to the world. The remedy can never be applied, 
unless the disease is known.' [Nauvoo Expositor, p.2] Additionally, the dissenters accused Smith of 
holding himself above the law, stealing from non-Mormons, attempting to unite church and state, harboring 
ungodly resentment against enemies, forcing unjust and unwarranted financial demands upon the Saints, 
and misappropriation of church funds. [Nauvoo Expositor, p.2] To make matters worse, the initial issue 
promised that future publications would include affidavits `to substantiate the facts alleged.' [Nauvoo 
Expositor, p.3]" (Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls 
Eight Windows: New York NY, 2002, p.197) 

9/06/2008
"The officially-recognized revelation concerning polygamy that is now contained in modern editions of 
Mormonism's Doctrine and Covenants (section 132) is dated July 12, 1843. But long before this statement 
was issued, Smith had been sexually active with women other than his wife, some of whom he married in 
secret ceremonies. In fact, by the time D&C 132 was transcribed, Smith had taken at least twelve additional 
wives. As far back as 1830, Joseph had sought extra-marital relations with an Eliza Winters of Harmony, 
Pennsylvania. According to Levi Lewis, a cousin of Smith's wife, Emma, Joseph tried to seduce Winters, but 
failed to do so. [Lewis, L., Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834, in Howe, E.D., Mormonism Unvailed, 
1834, p268] A year later, however, Smith would use his clout as the church's prophet to justify infidelity and 
influence women to accept his sexual advances. Circumstances greatly favored such a move on his part." 
(Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New 
York NY, 2002, p.130)

10/06/2008
"Since its earliest days, Mormonism has been an emotion-based religion opposed to intellectual, rational 
thought. Potential converts were told in the 1800s, just as they are instructed now, to `feel' the validity of 
Mormonism independent of reasoning. This `feeling,' often described as a `burning in the bosom,' allegedly 
is the `witness of the Spirit' (i.e., God) that Mormonism is true. Although the `feeling' is completely 
subjective, its power over Mormons cannot be overstated. Even when faced with irrefutable facts that 
undermine the LDS church, a Saint will cling to their `witness' and often resort to simply repeating their 
personal testimony, as a kind of mantra that helps them sustain a state of unthinking, faith-bolstering denial. 
They will say something like: `I bear you my testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church, and that the Book of Mormon is true.' 
Such a response also shows obedience to LDS leaders, who have counseled their followers to not only 
shun anything that might shake their faith, but also to simply not think and obey church authorities. ... What 
about being led astray by an erring prophet? Circular reasoning helps alleviate any such concerns. 
Basically, the Mormon is taught: Since the church's prophet is directed by God, then he cannot lead the 
church astray. He cannot lead us astray because he is the church's prophet, who is directed by God." 
(Abanes, R., "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church," Four Walls Eight Windows: New 
York NY, 2002, pp.412-413)

13/06/2008
"David Berg, who was born in 1919, followed in his parents' footsteps, travelling in the early years of his 
marriage as an itinerant preacher, with his wife and the two oldest of his four children in tow. He built his 
own church in Arizona, but was forced to leave - his version is that he was inviting the poor and barefoot 
Indians into the church, which did not find favour with his white congregation. But there was also a 
suggestion of sexual misconduct. .... After his mother's death he was soon leading `The Teens for Christ' 
movement on the beaches, a fast-growing group as more and more long-haired drop-outs decided that the 
equally long-haired, bearded preacher talked their language, played their music and answered the profound 
questions they had been asking about the meaning of life. .... It was at this time that he began to see himself 
as another Jesus, leading his drop-out followers like Jesus led his disciples. He knew exactly how to enlist 
more and more followers, with his diatribes against parents, college, society and organised religion. It was 
only one more step towards preaching `forsake all and follow me', just as Jesus had done. And there were 
plenty of hippies, who had already forsaken home, family, regular jobs and education, who were only too 
willing to follow him. At this stage his teachings were closely based on fundamentalist interpretation of the 
Bible and Christianity, with special emphasis on the apocalyptic last days: it was as his power and following 
increased that he became more and more megalomaniac and bizarre, and began to `receive' prophecies and 
revelations that had no biblical foundation. He claimed to be `in contact' with a spirit called Abrahim, who 
had been a gipsy king. ... By this time the group had left the Californian beaches and were wandering the 
USA in small communes, living wherever they could and preaching their genuine, if misguided, message. 
David Berg claimed he was receiving `revelations' direct from God, who he said told him that the USA would 
be destroyed for its iniquity. He preached that a `new Church' was necessary because the old Church had 
failed to live up to God's expectations. His followers were fervent believers, accepting all that he said. When 
he told his wife and four children that the Lord had told him to live with his mistress, he painted her as the 
`new Church', the new bride, while his long-suffering wife Jane was the `old Church'. Berg has the ability to 
talk fluently in quasi-biblical language. His followers were told to accept this arrangement `lest I come upon 
thee in My wrath and destroy thee who would despise the Word of the Lord.... For thou art my Queen and 
thou shalt reign with me forever. And thine accusers will be cast into outer darkness and there shall be 
weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.... For she is Mine and is married unto Me.' Berg took the name 
Moses David to reinforce his position as God's last prophet on earth. He recognised the power of mystery: 
he did not mix with his followers and lived a rather reclusive life with Maria and Jane (who had been forced 
to accept that, after twenty-six years of marriage, she had been demoted), and other `wives' whom he took 
from time to time, together with a close coterie of family and loyal friends. He communicated with his 
followers by letter. These letters, crudely illustrated and written in a mixture of American slang and King 
James Bible language, became the most important structure in the organisation. Mo letters were handed to 
all disciples, and eagerly awaited. (An incessant stream of them is still sent out, each one containing more of 
Berg's biblical ravings and homespun philosophy. Gradually from about 1973 the content became more and 
more heavily sexual, although it was not until 1976 that everyone in the movement was encouraged to join 
Berg in his open attitude to marriage and sex." (Ritchie, J., "Sex for Jesus: The Children of God," in "The 
Secret World of Cults: Inside the Sects that Take Over Lives," Angus & Robertson: London, 1991, pp.12-14)

18/06/2008
Jacob 2:23-29 "23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus 
saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek 
to excuse themselves in committing awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning 
David, and Solomon his son. 24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, 
which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led 
this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a 
arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that 
this people shall do like unto them of old. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word 
of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be bone cwife; and concubines he 
shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And bwhoredoms are an 
abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my 
commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes."

23/06/2008
"Is the Devil a personification or a person? Knowledge of the Bible's view of this matter will prove to be 
most beneficial. Bible scholar Louis Matthews Sweet explains why: `Not only is the Bible entirely free from 
the extravagances of popular Satanology, which is full of absurd stories concerning the appearances, tricks, 
and transformations of Satan among men, but it exhibits a dependable accuracy and consistency of 
statement which is most reassuring.' The earliest direct references to Satan (literally, `the Satan') in the Bible 
are found in Job, chapters one and two. These chapters introduce Satan when he is speaking with Jehovah 
God. (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7) This alone presents difficulties for any who, while professing belief in the Bible, 
claim that Satan is simply a personification of evil in someone. If `Satan' is only the evil in any person, the 
evil must have been in Jehovah God with whom Satan was speaking. But the Bible describes God as one `in 
whom there is no unrighteousness.'-Ps. 92:15. An experience that Jesus had with the Devil is similar. 
Matthew 4:1 relates that `Jesus was led by [God's] spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.' 
Was Jesus tempted by evil within himself? Such a view does not harmonize with the Bible's description of 
Jesus as `a righteous one' who `committed no sin.' (1 John 2:1; 1 Pet. 2:22) No, the Satan that appeared 
before Jehovah God and that tempted Jesus Christ was separate from them. You will note, too, that these 
accounts relate conversations between the Devil and God, and between the Devil and Jesus Christ. Both 
Jehovah God and Jesus Christ are persons. Can an unintelligent `force' carry on a conversation with a 
person? Also, the Bible calls Satan a manslayer, a liar, a father (in a spiritual sense) and a ruler. (John 8:44; 
14:30) Only an intelligent person could fit all those descriptions." ("Satan the Devil-Personification or a 
Person?," Awake!, Dec. 8, 1973, pp.27-28, p.27) 

24/06/2008
"The Jehovah of the Witnesses is a solitary majesty, rather than the first person of a Trinity; in contrast to 
him, Jesus is a god, but not God. And though Jehovah is the universal father, to us as to Jesus, he is not a 
particularly loving father. Power, not love, is his true attribute always. What this Jehovah seeks is 
supremacy, and a universal acknowledgment of his sway. The Jehovah of the Witnesses is remarkably like 
the Jehovah that the ancient Gnostics satirized and opposed, but where the Gnostics dissented, the 
Witnesses worship. What this Jehovah most wishes is his ultimate victory at Armageddon, in order to 
establish his name forever. The mission of Christ is not so much to redeem mankind as it is to help celebrate 
and vindicate the power of Jehovah. The power of Jehovah is the obsessive concern of the Witnesses. So 
intense is this exaltation of power in the Witnesses' writings that I must categorize it as pathological. By the 
criterion I have proposed for religious criticism, Jehovah's Witnesses is certainly the most dubious 
movement among our country's indigenous faiths. ... The writings of Russell and of Rutherford offend 
anyone's sense of human dignity, provided such a sense exists. They propose a theocratic Fascism that is 
not mitigated by assigning the dictatorship to a tyrant they call Jehovah." (Bloom, H., "The American 
Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1992, Reprinted, 
1993, p.160. Emphasis original)

28/06/2008
"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who, like the 
original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. They do not want to serve `shoulder 
to shoulder' with the worldwide brotherhood. (Compare Ephesians 2:19-22.) Rather, they present a 
`stubborn shoulder' to Jehovah's words. (Zech. 7:11, 12) Reviling the pattern of the `pure language' that 
Jehovah has so graciously taught his people over the past century, these haughty ones try to draw the 
`sheep' away from the one international `flock' that Jesus has gathered in the earth. (John 10:7-10, 16) 
They try to sow doubts and to separate unsuspecting ones from the bounteous `table' of spiritual food 
spread at the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses, where truly there is `nothing lacking.' (Ps. 23:1-6) 
They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, 
strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that 
commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago, and some have even returned to 
celebrating Christendom's festivals again, such as the Roman Saturnalia of December 25!" ("Serving 
Jehovah `Shoulder to Shoulder'," The Watchtower,  August 15, 1981, pp.28-29, p.29)

[top]