David Bartosiewicz has produced another video attempting to critique The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Does Mormonism Teach All Other Christian Churches Are Not Of God? Yes!”:
Dave could have saved some and simply quote D&C 1:30:
And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.
Additionally, Dave appeals to his own personal incredulity with rhetorical questions like “Do you really believe that?” strewn throughout the video. As I told him before, he really needs to buy a book on logic, as this is a common logical fallacy.
Dave begins with the claim he wants people to engage in critical thinking and (correctly) states that it is important to do such. It is a pity he doesn't do it himself. Here are just a few representative examples of his lack of critical thinking skills:
Why does the Doctrine and Covenants Contradict the Book of Mormon? Should it?
If Dave says "yes," then I would suggest he read the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent which condemned his views on justification, the Eucharist, baptism, and the formal sufficiency of the Bible. If "no," then he has shot himself in the foot.
In reality, if there is more than one denomination, that is one too many as there can only be one true Church (cf. Matt 16:18-19; 18:18; 1 Tim 3:15; etc), and this is seen how, in Acts 15, it was the Church and its leadership that explicated the teaching that Gentile converts would not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant (full discussion of this and other issues here). Sadly, Dave's unbiblical and ahistorical ecclesiology (among other things) blinds him from being rational on this and many other topics.
It should also be noted that, per his harping on the 2.2 billion figure, then the New Testament Church must have been preaching a false message--after all, they were numerically dwarfed by the various religions of their time.
He brings up that there are different accounts of the First Vision; this is not new to any informed Latter-day Saint, such as this April 1996 article from the Ensign by Richard L. Anderson or the recent essay on LDS.org on the First Vision as representative examples.
He then discusses JS-H 1:18-19:
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, then I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
Firstly, David obviously does not like the words of Jesus vis-á-vis the truth claims of non-LDS groups. However, if he were to be consistent (he never is, I know), he would have to condemn the apostle Paul for having anathematised the Judaizers at Galatia:
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. Btu 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 (ἀνάθεμα)! As we have said before, so now I reapt, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed(ἀνάθεμα)! (Gal 1:6-9)
Notice that nowhere in the letter he wrote to the church in Galatia, Paul never suggests that the Judaizers were insincere or were not morally upstanding individuals. Using David's "logic," Paul was in the wrong.
Secondly, he harps on the use of "personage(s)" in this passage instead of "God." However, this only shows he is ignorant of both Latter-day Saint and his own Trinitarian theologies! In LDS theology, the Father and Son (as well as the Holy Spirit) are "persons" (or "personages"), and there is nothing improper with using such terms to describe a member of the Godhead.
Additionally, in Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Spirit are "three persons" who share the same "being"; while "God" can be used of the individual "persons," it can also refer to the "being" of God and all three persons of the Tri-une God at once, so "God" is, in and of itself, an ambiguous term.
To say that his comment is silly is putting it nicely. Then again, this is not the first time Dave has shown himself to be ignorant of Trinitarian theology; another example can be seen in the post: Dave Bartosiewicz's binitarian theology and ignorance of the Lectures on Faith
Finally, Dave (again, without any exegesis offered, just bald assertions) claims that his (Evangelical Protestant) soteriology is true. However, as the following shows, he and the rest of the Evangelical Protestant world is preaching a gospel that is anti-biblical:
Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification
Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic
Throw in other issues, too, such as the overwhelming biblical problems with sola scriptura and problems with Trinitarian Christology, it is clear that David does not possess the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hopefully, someday he will see the error of his ways and repent before it is too late (Rev 21:8).
