Why Christianity is Different From Mormonism

Cris, I haven’t seen you appeal to anything for proof of the authenticity of your system of belief that is any different, or any more persuasive, than the things that millions of Mormons appeal to for proof of the LDS system. Or Muslims or Buddhists, for that matter. I don’t understand why you think you’re somehow different.

It’s not that I think I am different. It’s that I think Christianity is different. All of those religions have contradictory truth claims, they can not all be right. So the challenge is to do some honest investigation. When you do biblical Christianity comes out on top as utterly distinct. It is not even close. (follow the blue hyperlinks for documentation)

I’m not appealing to my feelings or a “burning in my bosom”. I appeal to the accuracy of the New Testament transmission. I appeal to the historical veracity of the Bible as verified by archeology. I appeal to the 100′s of prophecies fulfilled in Jesus. The accurate prophecies concerning nations like Israel, Tyre, Greece and Rome. I appeal to the historical argument for Jesus resurrection which you can find presented and defended on this site. Joseph Smith was dragged from jail and beaten to death for being a con man, Buddha has a grave, Muhammad has a grave, Jesus has an empty tomb and lots of evidence supporting his resurrection. This is exactly where Mormonism utterly fails. Textual criticism shows the book of Mormon to be plagiarized. Archeology and DNA science has proven the book of Mormon to be false. There are also numerous documented false prophecies given by Smith.

I don’t think I am any different, just blessed, and I want you to find the truth as well.


The Mormon DaVinci Code


The recent debate which ensued over my Christian Transhumanism research attracted the attention of the Mormon Transhumanist Association.  Mr. Lincoln Cannon seemed to feel slighted that they only merited a passing mention because I do not consider Mormons to be Christian. It’s disingenuous in the extreme that they identify as such. They are not even remotely Christian. It is clear that they do not follow the New Testament teachings of Jesus, rather the elaborate fictions created by a masonic con man Joseph Smith. I recently read a piece by researcher William H Kennedy who connected Italian dictator Mussolini to Mormons via their common belief to be blood descendants of Jesus.(Apparently, Mussolini was even given the “baptism for the dead” and is a Saint in the LDS Church.)[1] Mussolini aside, this fact about the Mormon bloodline belief I had to verify for myself.

Not only is it true, apparently Smith even claimed to be in the blood line of Jesus. In the book, Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism’s Sacred Bloodline, Vern G. Swanson cites Brigham Young on the matter of Smith’s pure divine heritage:

“That blood which was in him was pure and he had the sole right and lawful power, as he [Joseph Smith] was the legal heir to the blood that has been on the earth and has come down through a pure lineage. The union of various ancestors kept that blood pure.” [2]

LDS apostle, Wilford Woodruff, recorded Joseph Smith claiming that Jesus was married in his journal on July 22, 1883:

“Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married.” [3]

This was not a unique belief but was common within the Mormon leadership as Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated,

“Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified” [4]

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt also held the heretical belief,

“One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus — such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them — namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were His wives” [5]

Smith did not exhibit Christ like character. His arrest record and womanizing are a matter of public record. The book of Mormon has been demonstrated by scholars to be plagiarized from various sources. It’s all available in the historical record and it does not bode well for Latter Day Saints. So are Mormons Christian?  Was Jesus a polygamist? Is the DaVinci Code true?

Not a chance.

When Mormon Transhumanists use these conjured Mormon scriptures to prop up their ambitions to make gods of themselves you can be sure they are deceived. There are a host of other reasons why Mormons are not Bible believing Christians, let me commend to you the film The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon:


[1] William H. Kennedy. The Mussolini Code. http://www.williamhkennedy.com/ducedavinci.html (accessed 02/25/20110)

[2] Vern G. Swanson. Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism’s Sacred Bloodline. Google Books Link. 285.

[3] Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883.

[4] Orson Hyde. Journal of Discourses 2:82

[5] Orson Pratt. The Seer, p.159 http://www.archive.org/details/OrsonPratt

Three Peas in a Pod: Mormonism, Transhumanism & Pelagianism

I have been challenged here by a Mormon on the topic of “Christian Transhumanism” on which my research is published at Raiders News here .  A foundational problem is that my paper was written to Christian Bible believers. My challenger is neither. While he seems to claim the term “Christian”, there are profound inconsistencies in his reasoning. They are so fundamental to his worldview, that an exchange is not likely to be fruitful. It is my sincere hope that he might recognize his error and turn to Christ but realistically my goal for responding is simply that those who are in Christ might learn from seeing his errors exposed. Perhaps I can put a stone in his shoe? Snippets of his response are in red, my responses are in black. In the first paragraph he reveals:

One aspect of this critique is accurate: Christian transhumanists do tend to be driven by a Pelegian view of sin, which is nonetheless compatible with Christianity. However, the other two aspects of the critique are inaccurate; some biblical anthropologies and educated understandings of Christian theology are quite compatible with Transhumanism.

With his blatant embrace of heresy in the very first paragraph, it’s quite tempting to say “check mate, thesis proven” and leave it at that. The British monk Pelagius (c. 354–415) declared that human effort and merit could bring about salvation without divine grace. Pelagius was vigorously opposed by the church father Augustine and deemed a heretic in 418 at the Council of Carthage.  A proper definition of Pelagianism includes that it is heretical:

Theologically, Pelagianism is the heresy which holds that man can take the initial and fundamental steps towards salvation by his own efforts, apart from Divine grace.[i]

The law of non-contradiction is quite clear that ‘A’ cannot be ‘B’ and ‘non-B’ at the same time and same place.  Thus, my opponents next statement that “some biblical anthropologies are compatible” is rendered incoherent since Pelagianism is an unbiblical anthropology. It can not be biblical and Pelagian. That said, he seems to believe that Mormons are Christians as well. Of course, that is demonstrably false and Pelagianism is a key factor. Mormon theologian Sterling M. McMurrin stated “The theology of Mormonism is completely Pelagian.”[ii] The nineteenth century work of cultic fiction known as the Book of Mormon even went so far as to alter the clear words of scripture:

Bible: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” (Ephesians 2:8)

Book of Mormon: “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (II Nephi 25:23).

Of course, Mormonism is no more Christian than Islam, in fact they are quite similar, see this video here. Furthermore, it is really quite odd that there are Mormon Transhumanists being that most transhumanists are scientifically literate. DNA testing has conclusively proven the book of Mormon is a work of fiction, as there are no traces of Semitic DNA markers in North American Indians. This evidence is so damning that even high level Mormon scholars have left the cult. For an excellent documentary expose’ I highly recommend: DNA vs. the Book of Mormon.

From the beginning, Cris creates a false dichotomy between technology and Christ, claiming the two are incompatible means of conquering death and creating utopia.

There is no false dichotomy presented but a real one.  Quite the contrary, I wrote, “Thus, we have a mandate to engage in some of technologies discussed but with the explicit caveat of when it is exclusively directed toward the healing aspect of medicine.” I love technology. I just don’t agree with making an idol of it or myself. I especially do not agree with using it to supplant Christ’s job description in scripture. The Bible is crystal clear about how, when and by whom death will be conquered:

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. ” (1 Corinthians 15:22–26)

The Mormon transhumanist hopes to do this through man made technology, not God.  However, it is Christ’s destiny to abolish death, not sinful fallen mankind.  He has demonstrated my point for me. It is a biblical dichotomy.

Also from the beginning, Cris establishes a narrow interpretation of Christianity, thereby assuming his own conclusion that Christianity is incompatible with Transhumanism. This is well illustrated by the one sentence of dismissive attention that he gives to the Mormon Transhumanist Association, despite the fact that it is by far the largest group of Transhumanists that identify as Christians.

Identifying themselves as “Christian” is not enough (Matt 7:22). This is the crux of matter. He criticizes me for having a narrow view. This is a charge I am more than happy to accept. If it were up to me it would not be so narrow, but I have submitted to higher authority. For it is not my idea, it was that of my Lord and Savior who said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13)

Of course Mormon transhumanism only merited this one sentence in my paper, “There is a Mormon Transhumanist association, which is hardly surprising in light of their polytheism and apotheosis doctrine.” My paper was a critique of “Christian Transhumanism” not Mormon Transhumanism. Carl Teichrib recently covered that topic. I was addressing alleged Christians. Mormons are not Christians in any sense of the word. Nearly all of his argumentation further proves my point. For example:

Also, there is potential for irony in Cris’ appeal to self-denial and humility: as it can be self-indulgent and arrogant to focus exclusively on improving one’s self, so it can be to refuse and resist improving one’s self. In positive terms, the Bible tells of a time when the dead will be raised and the living changed to spiritual bodies, incorruptible and immortal in comparison to our present bodies. This is enhancement, and it is by definition compatible with biblical ethics.

God does these things, not man! The dead will be raised by God at Christ’s return:

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51–53)

We will be transformed by God at Christ’s return, not by Lincoln Cannon, Ray Kurzweil or Max More’s materialistic musings.

Cris compounds the problems with his criticism by claiming that transhumanists consider our bodies simple hardware or biological prostheses. The problem with this claim is its irony, given that he presumably holds to the common Christian notion that our bodies are precisely that: prostheses for our souls.

Again he seems woefully ignorant of what orthodox biblical Christianity holds true. I will let scripture make my case once again:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19–20)

Christians do not live for themselves but for Christ. This is why things like posthuman enhancement are opposed to sound biblical doctrine; as followers of Jesus we “present our bodies as a living sacrifice.” (Rom 12:1)

The real substance (pun intended) of Cris’ criticism is that he considers philosophical materialism to be incompatible with Christianity.

Yes, absolutely I do!

In the actual world, apart from his particular brand of Christianity, he’s simply incorrect. Some Christians are philosophical materialists, as are most Transhumanists. Clearly, in practice, the two can be compatible in this area.

This is so profoundly incoherent that I am almost at a loss for words. For meaningful discourse using language to be possible both parties must agree to the law of non-contradiction. If up is down and red is blue, reasoning is no longer possible. Accordingly, if you are a philosophical materialist you are necessarily an atheist. A typical philosophical dictionary defines it as a:

Belief that only physical things truly exist. Materialists claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object. Prominent materialists in Western thought include the classical atomists, Hobbes, and La Mettrie.[iii]

God is an immaterial being. If you are a philosophical materialist then you do not believe in God. God is spirit (Num. 16:22; 2 Cor. 3:17 Heb. 12:9). God is not a man (Num 23:19). He is not composed of matter. As his attributes like omnipresence imply, he is immaterial or nonphysical. This is very clearly stated by Jesus in John 4:24, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth,” and is also implied in the many references to his invisibility (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15–16).[iv] Also Jesus reassures the apostles that he is not immaterial after the resurrection in Luke 24:39 by telling them,

See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (Luke 24:39)

So we have Jesus explicitly teaching God is a spirit and also that spirits do not have flesh and bones. Thus anyone who believes God is material does not follow Jesus and is necessarily not a Christian. Christians believe Jesus.

No mere theist or even a self respecting deist, let alone Christian, is a philosophical materialist. That is an absurdity on the order of a square circle or a married bachelor. It gives me a headache imagining the massive level of cognitive dissonance that must result from such an internally contradictory worldview. Perhaps he will defend “Christian Atheism” in his next post?  In the end, heretical beliefs such as Pelagianism always lead to larger errors like Mormonism or “Christian Transhumanism.” They are man centered and self-aggrandizing as opposed to Christ centered and God glorifying.  It all leads back to the original lie in the garden,

“The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” ” (Genesis 3:4–5)


[i] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1257.

[ii],Sterling M. McMurrin. The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion 1965.

[iii] “Materialism” in Philosophical Dictionary  http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m2.htm#mat (accessed 2/20/20011)

[iv]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1998), 294.

The Poison Fruit of the Serpent Seed

Often times we gaze upon a seed and have no idea what sort of plant it might become. A children’s poem expresses this idea: “Plant a seed and watch it grow. What it shall one day be, we do not know.” Ideas are like seeds as well. Often we do not see where they might lead. Like the seeds in the poem, sometimes the only way to judge an idea is to see what it grows into. A very small notion can grow into an ideology very quickly. Hitler’s idea of racial supremacy was a small seed that grew into a world war and well over 6 million dead bodies. Marx and Lenin’s atheistic ideas have led to over ten times that. Clearly, ideas are potent. In theology, a very small error can have a collateral effect on nearly every other doctrine. Huge heresies nearly always grow from very small seeds.

One such idea is the Serpent Seed doctrine. This is the teaching that in the Garden of Eden, the serpent had sexual relations with Eve. The result was that she bore Cain. The primary notion is that the original sin was sexual. This has some visceral appeal because the doctrine that fall of man resulted from a poor produce selection seems fanciful. Sexual temptation is something we all can relate to and agree is powerful. The problem is that it is directly opposed to the clear and explicit word of God. It is easily refuted by Genesis 4:1.

Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.” (Genesis 4:1, NAS)

Of course the old King James translation uses the euphemism based on the Hebrew that “Adam knew his wife…” which some disingenuous serpent seed devotees have attempted to obfuscate. These arguments are completely without merit as the Hebrew יָדַע rendered “to know” is obviously properly understood by its context to mean “had sexual relations” because the result is that “she conceived.” The context and grammar make this absolutely clear. In fact it is used in the same way two more times in the same chapter.

Cain had relations with (knew) his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. (Genesis 4:17, NAS)

Adam had relations with (knew) his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.” (Genesis 4:25, NAS)

Attempts to argue that this use of “knew” only implies knowledge are blatant special pleading. The context rules out any other meaning for the term. So how can anyone possibly pass this absurd idea off as biblical?

For scriptural justification, advocates of the view point to the curse God gave to the Serpent:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” (Genesis 3:15, NAS)

This verse contains a puzzling yet important ambiguity: Who is the “seed” of the woman and the “seed” of the serpent? It seems obvious that the purpose of this verse was not to answer that question but rather to raise it. What we see are the battle lines of a cosmic struggle being laid down. The epic of salvation history, the drama that later biblical writers saw behind the deed of, “That ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray” (Rev 12:9:) to “dust will be the serpent’s food” (Isa 65:25) culminating with Christ’s ultimate triumph with “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.”(Rom. 16:20a)

Of course one could raise a valid complaint that snakes and humans cannot procreate. While I am of the opinion that the Hebrew term nacash is referring to something much more than a snake, there are debates on just what the seed of the serpent actually is. That aside, the biblical text does not allow it to be the line of Cain. Still yet, the idea has appeal for cult leaders and racists because they have justified an “us versus them” paradigm. The ‘us’ is inevitably the heretical cult that teaches the doctrine and the ‘them’ is virtually anyone they disagree with.

And that brings us full circle to ask, “What is the fruit of the Serpent Seed doctrine?” It is demonstrably demonic, the fruit of occultism and bigotry. After the Babylonian captivity, some Pharisaic Jews began viewing the account of Eve and the Serpent allegorically. They taught that Cain was actually Satan’s offspring. They also that taught Cain and his descendants had no opportunity to be restored to God. It also reared its ugly head in the ninth century Jewish Midrash called Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer and various Targums (Jewish commentaries) which altered Genesis 4:1. These Targums have been appropriated to support the sensationalist claims by those who defend the Serpent Seed heresy. Of course these Targums are dated in the middle ages 1500-2000 years after Genesis was written and are easily discredited by the Dead Sea Scrolls texts  and the LXX which contains the traditional rendering of Genesis 4:1 and is dated centuries earlier (~200 BC). [1]

It is in this connection that we are to understand the use of ידע for sexual intercourse (Gn. 4:1, 17, 25 etc.), not only of the man but also of the woman (Nu. 31:18, 35; Ju. 21:12).[2]

Notwithstanding, the Serpent Seed is a staple of the Kabbalists who teach that God created two “Adams” one with a soul and the other, the Nacash, without one. This is recorded in the Zohar:

Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial — good wine mixed with bad. (Zohar Bereshith, 36b)[3]

It also appeared in early Gnostic writings and was explicitly rejected by Irenaeus (c. 180) in Against Heresies “Others, again, portentously declare… this one (Eve) sinned by committing adultery.”[4] It persisted in Gnosticism in works such as the Gospel of Philip (c. 350). It was also foundational to the Manichaeans, one of the major Iranian Gnostic religions, and was again deemed heretical by St. Augustine in the 4th century.[5] The occult gnostic roots sprouted from this seed were resoundingly deemed heretical by the Fathers. What have these roots grown into? Racism.

Modern adherents to the Serpent Seed doctrine are largely occultists and white supremacists. Hitler was fascinated with the occult and embraced the racist teaching. The Christian Identity Movement teaches that white people are the descendants of Adam and are hence the only chosen people of God.[6] The Klu Klux Klan also believes the Serpent Seed doctrine. They and other hate groups believe it to be their duty to exterminate the lineage of Cain and Ham. Rotten fruit indeed.

Pentecostal Pastor William Branham also taught that the fall of mankind resulted from Eve having sexual intercourse with an upright Beast whom Adam had named ‘Serpent’.[7] In addition, Arnold Murray, the pastor of the Shepherd’s Chapel, is a current promoter of this unbiblical heresy.[8] While attempting to mitigate his stance with disclaimers, Jim Wilhelmsen teaches it explicitly as a racial theory stating,

That both Cain (White) and Abel (black) could represent races that were never in the intention of God’s structure, one being a direct seed of the serpent, and the other an “out of time seed of the woman.”[9]

He also advocates it in his statement of faith stating, “We believe in two literal seeds mentioned in Genesis 3”[10] Unfortunately, that seems to rule out the traditional spiritual interpretation.

Another recent popularizer is Joye Jeffries Pugh in her book Eden – The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666 which argues,

Through Cain, Satan had created a human from his own seed. Cain was the first offspring produced as a result of the Sons of God mating with a woman.[11]

She then proceeds to spin and elaborate yarn about Egyptian secret societies and fallen angels while providing scant documentation. Much like The DaVinci Code, it makes for entertaining mythology but offers little in the way of substance. Other modern day adherents include Sun Myung Moon, Way International, some Islamic sects, some Oneness Pentecostals, some Satanists and British Israelism. With strange fruit like this – it’s better to smash the seed before it grows.

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8, NAS)

Persecution and false ideas are the devil’s primary devices. In Ephesians 6, arguably the definitive text on spiritual warfare, you don’t find special rituals or prayers to recite for casting out demons. The tools of spiritual warfare are the helmet of salvation that you always have on, the sword of the spirit is the word of God which you can read, and the belt of truth which should always be around your waist. In other words, the more you are familiar with the truth the more impenetrable your spiritual armor. Praying at all times in the spirit, spiritual warfare is primarily on two fronts:

  • Challenge of persecution that we are to persevere in
  • Challenge of error, false doctrines, and false ideas

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:5, NAS)

The Serpent Seed doctrine is the seed of error.

This piece was originally written for my friends at Nephilim Hybrids.com


[1] Michael S. Heiser.“Was Cain Fathered by the Devil? No, Wait — Extraterrestrials” http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2008/06/was-cain-fathered-by-the-devil-no-wait-extraterrestrials/ (accessed 2/12/2011).

[2]Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. 5-9 Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 Compiled by Ronald Pitkin., ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), 1:697.

[3] Zohar Bereshith 36b  http://books.google.com/books?id=Ux3bSDa2rHkC&pg=PA223 (accessed 2/12/2011).

[4] Irenaeus. Against Heresies (1.30).  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103130.htm (accessed 2/12/2011).

[5] Augustine. Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm (accessed 2/12/2011).

[6] Chester L. Quarles. Christian Identity: The Aryan American Bloodline Religion.(McFarland & Company. 2004) 68.

[7] William Branham “The Serpent’s Seed” http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=522 (accessed 2/12/2011).

[8] Matt Slick. “The Serpent Seed and the Kenites” http://carm.org/serpent-seed-and-kenites (accessed 2/12/2011).

[9] Jim Wilhelmsen “Lemonade Out of Lemons: God’s Plan for Racial Harmony” http://www.echoesofenoch.org/two_seeds.htm (accessed 2/12/2011).

[10] Jim Wilhelmsen.“Statement of Faith” http://www.echoesofenoch.org/Whowearepg.htm (accessed 2/12/2011).

[11] Joye Jeffries Pugh. Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666. (Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing..2006) 31.

ISCA Conference April 29-30

I plan to attend  the ISCA Conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina on April 29-30, 2011.