The film does not fairly portray the Mormon Church, Mormon history, or Mormon belief. It makes extensive use of half-truths, faulty generalizations, sensationalism, and is not reflective of the true spirit of Mormon faith. We find particularly offensive the emphasis that Mormonism is some sort of subversive plot-a danger to the community, a threat to the institution of marriage, and destructive to the mental health of teenagers. We are of the opinion that the film relies heavily on appeals to fear, prejudice and unworthy human emotions.

And the Anti-Defamation League had this to say about the current video:

"This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century. The only difference is that back then, it was the film, 'The God Makers,' and today it's the DVD, 'Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith.' It was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

So, I would say if that is the "truth" you are understanding about Mormonism, then I think you need to find better sources.

bytebear wrote:

Finally, I see your website link promoting the video Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith. Just know that the producers of that video are the same producers of the Godmakers (although this particular video is far more slick). Of that particular video, the National Conference of Christians and Jews said:

*notes that Sandra Tanner was involved in the video*

Sorry, but that right there kills it for me.

The simple truth of the matter is that, despite what people would have non-Mormons believe, the Tanners have established a track record of being deceptive in regards to their arguments against the church. In fact, she and her husband were synonymous with "cherry-picking verses" and "intellectual dishonesty" to such an extent that their name alone renders any work about the church in doubt.

The Tanners also got sued not only for breaking the law but for attempting to circumvent the settlement they made after the first suit. The Tanners reprinted an entire chapter from the Church Handbook of Instructions without permission, violating the church's copyright on the work. The Tanners settled out of court when the church threatened legal action, but promptly violated the spirit of the agreement by linking to no less than four websites that had the same material and encouraging other people to make as many copies as possible.

bytebear wrote:

I would agree with you if it were not for John 3:5 and Acts 2:38  which say that you must be born of water and the spirit (i.e Holy Ghost0 and that you receive the Holy Ghost only AFTER baptims. There is an order of things. and you are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Strait is the gate and few who find it. The gate is baptism and it opens salvation to us. Without it, we can hever have the Holy Ghost.

As far as John 3:5: It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once--through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he can't enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process.

As far as Acts 2:38, see http://www.carm.org/christianity/baptis … d-acts-238 but in short in the context of the entire Bible, it is not teaching baptism as necessary for salvation.