Bruce
Setchfield
Independence, Missouri
My Testimony
My dear Latter Day Saint friends, the following is my testimony of the
reasons I left the RLDS Church.
My wife and I came to Independence from Detroit the next day after we were
married in June 1945, which was about two weeks after my discharge from the
Army. Both our families were RLDS. We had agreed that Independence was to
be our home, because to us it was Zion, and we wanted to raise our family in the
best possible circumstances. We still believe it was better than Detroit. A few
months after arriving in Independence we were settled in a little home near the
Stone Church, and our oldest son was on the way. He was born the same day that
Frederick M. Smith died, if I remember right, March 21, 1946. As time passed our
family increased to five children and we had moved out in the country to 35th
street, which had not yet been annexed to the city. We now attended the Gudgel
Street RLDS Church, and my wife, Sarah, was teaching a Book of Mormon class.
This was about l955 or 56. As Sarah studied the Book of Mormon to prepare her
lessons, she discovered things that seemed to disagree with the Doctrine and
Covenants (D&C) and the teachings of the church. The main thing, as I
remember, was the issue of High Priests, two priesthoods (Aaronic and
Melchizedek), Patriarchs, Seventies, etc. which were in the church, but not
found in the Book of Mormon, nor the Bible, that is, under the new covenant.
Disagreement over this matter, and perhaps other things, finally led to our
decision to leave the church. At this point let me say that we had no bad
feelings toward any one in the church. We did not leave in anger, and we were
not "kicked out.” However, some of our relatives and friends were very
distressed, especially my mother, because they thought we had left the one and
only true church.
Not long after leaving the church we learned about a group of former RLDS
members who called themselves "The Church of Christ" and who were
putting ads in the Independence Examiner against RLDS beliefs. Their church was
located at the corner of Crysler and Linden streets, thus they became known as
"the Crysler group.” We started attending, and were born again and
baptized the following summer, July 1957. I need to explain here that the Book
of Mormon has very similar teaching as the Bible about the transgression of
Adam, the fall of man, and plan of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus
Christ. This vital doctrine is not taught in the RLDS Church. In fact, my wife,
who still believes the Book of Mormon, says it was the Book of Mormon that led
her to Christ. I have rejected the Book of Mormon, but for other reasons.
Now, dear friends of the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) I will explain to
you a part of what I see that is unacceptable about the Book of Mormon, and part
of what I see that is unacceptable about Latter-Day-Saintism. I don't intend to
cover it all, or go into great detail; I couldn't. What I will try to do is
briefly tell you enough to stimulate your curiosity. I will try to encourage you
to search it out for yourself, as I did.
As a Latter Day Saint I heard testimonies of members who claimed they
"knew" the Book of Mormon was true because God had revealed it to them
in a supernatural way. So, in my way of thinking, I reasoned that if God could
reveal it to others, He could to me also, and so I prayed that He would. I knew
there were doubters, as well as believers, but I wanted to know for myself. I
prayed for some time but no answer came. I believe I was afraid I might get the
answer I didn't want. When I came to the point where I was willing to accept the
truth, whichever way it was, God began to answer my prayer, but not in the way I
expected. It seemed as though God were saying, "search it out for yourself,
the answer is there, just find it." So I started to review the Book of
Mormon.
It had been a long time since I had read it through, although I had been exposed
to a lot of discussion about some parts of it. Following is one of the things I
focused my attention on. It is stated in the early part of the Book of Mormon,
(I Nephi 3:170) that the "great and abominable church" has taken away,
or omitted, "plain and precious" parts of
the Bible that were originally there, the purpose of this alteration being to "pervert
the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts
of the children of men.”
The assumption is clear; that since the plain and precious things have been
taken out, now they must be restored. This called for a restored church with a
restored gospel and a leader that is called of God. I believe that this was
intended to prepare the mind of the reader or pave the way, for the revelation,
later in the book, (II Nephi 2), of a coming 'prophet and seer'
whom the Lord will raise up, whose name is to be Joseph, and whose fathers name
is also Joseph. This Joseph was to be of the seed of Nephi. The prophecy stated
further that he was to "bring forth my word" (the Book
of Mormon) to the descendants of Nephi. (the Lamanites, or Indians). However,
later events seemed to indicate that the author was referring to himself. Not
long after the Book of Mormon was published, and the Church organized, Joseph
Smith set out to preach to the Indians. Joseph was thereby fulfilling his own
prophecy. The Indians, so far as the record indicates, were not interested.
Now I will try to show you that it is impossible for the 'abominable
church', or any other church or individual to remove any part of God's word, the
Bible.
The writing of the scriptures was completed when John, the last Apostle, wrote
the Book of Revelation. This, and the other Apostolic writings, were copied,
shared, and circulated among the Christian congregations. They respected them,
and accepted them as the Word of God. The writings of the Apostles, together
with the Old Testament, had become their basis for worship, instruction,
and spreading of the Christian faith. Paul wrote, "Ye are built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
chief cornerstone." (Ephesians 3:20) They had a love for the
scriptures and a zeal for preserving the writings exactly as they had come from
the original writers.
As the faith spread, the scriptures were translated from the original Greek into
other languages, and were passed on to succeeding generations of Christians,
since through this process, there were many copies, in many hands, any attempt
to alter them would be detected. They just couldn't get away with it. There were
some scribal errors, and variances in translation, as one might expect, that
were unavoidable, but it was impossible to introduce any significant
changes. There was nothing that changed any doctrine, or destroyed the harmony
that existed between the many books that make up the Bible. Thus we see God's
method for preserving the integrity and permanence of His word.
The above is a very brief description of the process which preceded and lead up
to the canonization of the Bible. The canonization was merely the official
recognition of the writings that had already been accepted
throughout the Church. There is much more to be said on this subject, but you
may be assured that everything that God intended to be in the Bible is still
there. Most Christians will agree with me that the 'plain and precious' part of
the Bible IS the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus
Christ; - that's what its all about. And that, according to the
Book of Mormon, is the part that has been taken out. Of
course the gospel has not been taken out, so what is meant by the 'plain
and precious' parts?
Now, may I ask, why would God allow the 'abominable church' or anything else to
frustrate His purposes? Is He that helpless? And do you know anyone whose mind
has been perverted, or whose heart has been hardened, by reading the Bible? On
the contrary, millions of lives have been changed by believing and responding to
the truth of the gospel. The only conclusion possible is that the Book of Mormon
is in error, and that this is evidence of its human authorship. There are other
things the Book of Mormon says about the Bible that are untrue. I will leave
that up to you.
There has been a lot of history written about the process by which our present
day Bible has come into existence. I suggest that you read up on it so you will
know for yourself. None of it is in agreement with the account given in the Book
of Mormon. A review of the historical facts should show anyone that the Book of
Mormon is in error.
Especially preposterous is the part that says the 'abominable church' has taken
away the covenants that God made with Israel. (I Nephi 3:161,169) How could this
possibly happen? The 'abominable church' would have to have been the sole
custodian of the Jewish scriptures in order to remove the covenants. It was not,
and the covenants have not been taken out. Our God is a covenant
keeping God (Psalm 33:11).
A belief that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, and that Joseph Smith is
that 'choice seer' foretold by the Book of Mormon, is basic to all branches of
the restoration movement. Though the various branches of Mormonism differ in
their application of Joseph Smith's revelations, and those of his successors,
they all agree in the belief that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the
Book of Mormon is inspired scripture. Were it not for this belief in the Book of
Mormon and Joseph Smith, none of the restoration churches would be left with a
reason for their existence. The Book of Mormon was the launch pad for all
branches of Mormonism. It set the stage for the beginning of Latter-Day-Saintism
and the unbiblical concept of Zion in America.
The plan for Zion in America originated in the Book of Mormon. It is
first mentioned in I Nephi 3rd chapter; -"Blessed are those who seek
to bring forth Zion at that day (when the Book of Mormon comes forth) for
they shall have the gift and power of the Holy Ghost."
Next in the plan is in III Nephi 9:50. Zion is to be located in this land.
(America) Jesus is depicted as
telling the Nephites, "and the Father hath commanded me that I
should give unto you this land for your inheritance."
In verse 58 he says it is to be a "New Jerusalem",
and it is to be the fulfillment of a covenant that God made with Jacob.
Now, my dear friend, I have found three things I am in disagreement with in the
Book of Mormon plan for Zion in America: First the location. In the Old
Testament scriptures Zion and Jerusalem are synonymous terms. When Isaiah or
Jeremiah spoke about Zion they meant Jerusalem. Second, America as the
land of inheritance for Israel, or any of its tribes. Not so. God promised the
land containing modern day Israel, and quite a bit more, to Abraham's
descendants, and then reiterated the promise to Jacob. Read about it in Genesis.
Third, The gathering. In God's timing, it will happen, and has nothing to
do with the Book of Mormon. When all Israel's enemies have been defeated, in the
millennium, Israel will be gathered "from the four corners of the
earth" to the land of their inheritance. That means all the
tribes, not just certain ones. (see Ezekiel 37:21,22) Now consider this, Would
God nullify his promise to Israel by promising something different later on?? Of
course not! God keeps his promises. I conclude, Independence is not Zion. I
thought so once, but I was mistaken. Sorry, but Zion is an empty dream, no
closer to reality than it was in 1830. I know for some that is a harsh
statement, but if you can exchange your dream for reality, it can turn into a
blessing. Nothing can be more satisfying and fulfilling than to accept the
invitation to come to Christ and be born again.
I hope and pray that
this will be your choice.
Much that is known
about the life of Joseph Smith and his activities is on record in the archives
of the Mormon church. Things that were damaging to the church have been
suppressed or ignored. Many people, interested in the beginnings of Mormonism,
have done their research. They have the testimony of neighbors and others who
knew the Smith family during the era before 1830. One of the things that stand
out, and what the church doesn't want you to know, is the Smith family's
involvement in the occult. Yes, including the parents, they were practitioners
of the occult, which is witchcraft. Joseph Smith used a peep stone to
pretend to find buried treasure. This is documented in the record of a court
case in which he was found guilty, and fined, for being a 'glass looker'. It is
reported, also, that his mother, Lucy Mack Smith read palms, and that his
father, Joseph, Sr., 'put a hex' on a gun at a turkey shoot, and other such
instances of occult practice. This and other information about the involvement
of the Smith family in the occult is detailed in an article in 'The Salt Lake
Messenger', "Was Joseph Smith a Magician?" Issue 95, April 1999. It is
available from Utah Lighthouse Ministry, which is a rich source of information
for anyone investigating the beginnings of Mormonism.
Bruce Setchfield
Independence, MO
You can send an email
to Bruce at brusarset@comcast.net. |
