Truth Magazine

By John A. Smith

I recently had the opportunity to attend a special seminar for ministers and teachers at Possibilities Unlimited (a unique drug and alcohol treatment center for young people in Lexington, KY). I was not prepared for what I was going to experience. Few things that I have seen in my life have affected my thinking as dramatically as did the noontime presentation by the “Possibilities Unlimited Players.”

The curtain slowly opened to reveal seven “druggies” who were going to tell the story of their sordid past by reenacting recent counseling sessions. They spoke of their addiction to and experimentation with cocaine, marijuana, alcohol and a variety of other harmful substances. Their involvement with drugs had caused them to become withdrawn from parents and disinterested in school work. None of this surprised me as I had witnessed the same things several years ago when I taught junior high school. These seven young people, who ranged in age from 15 to 23, bravely stood before a room full of strangers to impress upon the adults present the severity and complexity of the drug abuse epidemic in central Kentucky. As they spoke I was suddenly struck with a terrifying realization. These young people looked just like my kids and the other young people where I preach! They were all clean-cut, well-dressed and very mannerly.

I comforted my fears with the rationalization that they had been “transformed” by the P.U. staff. Surely just weeks before they had been wearing grubby jeans and t-shirts which advertised the latest in hot drug culture music. In my mind I pictured the boys as having long greasy hair pulled back in pony tails with 17 earrings on one ear. The girls, I assumed, most likely didn’t look much better. And so with this rationalization to comfort me for awhile the presentation was a little less frightening.

After the young people had finished their presentation, they stood before an audience of about 150 adults and agreed to answer any questions that we might have. I found many of their answers more troubling than their appearance.

One lady wanted to know if they had been exposed to any type of spiritual training. I thought of my own children and the number of sermons and classes they had attended. Surely this, I reasoned, was a certain vaccine against drug involvement. But this was shattered when five of the seven responded that they had been active in some type of church youth group on a regular basis, even while heavily involved in drugs. I found out later that most of these had been members of conservative evangelical churches which respected and promoted a biblical standard of morality. Obviously just “going to church” was not going to be enough. Again I was shaken.

Later during the question and answer session, they were asked if any of them had come from broken homes. I pictured each of these courageous young people trying to put their lives back together without the ‘support of a loving and happy home. Surely the divorce and domestic turmoil to which they had been exposed had contributed greatly to their drug involvement. So, my kids are safe. After all they have their mother and father living happily together in the same home. However, my stomach began to quiver as I kept tally of their answers. Only one out of the seven had come from a broken home. Most of them described their families as caring and loving. I was suddenly beginning to feel overwhelmed.

The final question was asked through teary eyes by a woman who had sat quietly near the side of the cafeteria. With a distinctive quiver in her voice she asked what their parents could have done or not done that would have kept them from becoming so heavily involved in drugs. (I found out later that this woman was the mother of one of the young ladies on the stage.) They each responded with two suggestions which were extremely insightful. Their suggestions were that their parents trust them less, not making excuses for them, and be harder on them.

By being naively trusting and making excuses to teachers and neighbors, the parents had become “enablers.” They were actually making it easier for their children to become increasingly more involved with drugs. The young people said they often attempted to cover up drug induced behavior by weaving some wild and fanciful tale which the parents appeared to buy without question or, at least, chose not to confront. Thus the parents made it easier for their children to continue their downward spiral into the abyss of drug abuse. These young people were crying out for discipline. They did not possess the self-discipline needed to resist the various temptations to which they had been subjected. They needed and wanted parents to impose rules which were fairly and firmly executed.

As I was leaving the cafeteria, I begin to once again picture Molly and Tom. Diane and I had always tried to be realistic with them. We were strict with them. We set guidelines for their behavior and swiftly carried out the appropriate discipline if the rules were violated. So maybe we didn’t have anything to worry about. And after all, in spite of everything else, neither of them look like a “druggie.”

Later in the day I had the opportunity to talk privately with Dr. George Ross the director of Possibilities Unlimited. I complimented him on the fine program and the appearance of the young people. I was impressed all day with how well dressed and groomed the clients were. I told him how glad I was to see institutions which imposed dress and grooming standards. I was not prepared for his response. Appearance was after all among my last fortresses of convenient parental comfort. His words hit me like a thunder bolt. “The way you see them now is the way they looked when they came to us.” I couldn’t believe my ears. They had not been wearing grubby jeans, gigantic ear rings, or drug music t-shirts. They were by all appearances clean cut, “All-American,” rosy cheeked young people. They looked just like my kids!

I pondered this for days as I looked into the eyes of Molly and Tom with fear and uncertainty. My heart ached as I pictured having to take them to a similar treatment center. So many of my defenses had been stripped away. For days I felt vulnerable and so inadequate to help them face the various pressures coming their way. I talked with them about what I had seen, the advice of the young people and their friends. We prayed about it as a family and discussed it again.

I am convinced now that there are no easy answers or easy preventions to the problem of drug abuse and young people. As parents we need to set a good example for our children. As we bring them up on the pure milk of the Word, we need to show them how it applies in practical ways in their lives. Knowledge of God’s Word is not enough. They need to begin developing the wisdom to see how it can have a positive and practical effect in their lives. They need to see and be impressed with the benefits of a pure and holy lifestyle. Their lives and ours must revolve around Jesus Christ and service to him and others. We need to pray with them and for them – trusting in God and not in our abilities to raise them.

I wish that every parent could have seen these brave young people struggling so hard to overcome the cruel slavery to drugs. We all need to be stopped and troubled by them as we ponder the rearing of our own children. We must learn to look beyond the outward appearance to determine what is really going on inside their minds and bodies. Parents need to take the time to talk with their children and be involved in their lives.

Dr. Ross presented the following signs as important indicators of the possibility of drug activity:

How can you tell If your ‘normal’ kid is on drugs?

Are you looking but not seeing?

School – Has the adolescent brought home lower grades and developed a negative attitude toward school? Does the adolescent skip classes? Has the adolescent been suspended or expelled? Heavy drug users often drop out of school.

Dishonesty – Has the adolescent concealed drug usage and either denied or minimized it when discovered? Has the adolescent been caught stealing from parents or shoplifting? The adolescent may resort to cheating at school or forging school excuses.

Personality Changes – Has the adolescent changed friends, started using foul language, or begun lying about his activities? Seclusiveness and avoidance of adults, and irritability and fits of anger or rage with little or no provocation are common. There is a loss of motivation, lowering of ambition, loss of drive toward goals, and no quest for excellence.

Sexual Behavior – Promiscuity is common, with consequences of venereal disease or pregnancy. Girls may be on birth control pills.

Law Breaking – Traffic violations, vandalism, shoplifting, breaking and entering may occur.

Physical Condition – Personal grooming and hygiene may deteriorate. Speech and actions may be detectably slowed. Gait and posture may change. Clothing and hairstyle may change. Younger teenagers may have decreased physical development of sexual characteristics. In girls, menstruation may become infrequent and decreased.

The adolescent may exhibit a lack of vitality, with need for excessive sleep at unusual times. Eating habits may be altered and weight loss may occur. Bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, volubility, excessive or inappropriate laughter, along with slowed speech and decreased coordination may indicate marijuana use. The adolescent may attempt to conceal bloodshot eyes with eye drops, and mask marijuana or alcohol odor with perfume or shaving lotion.

Medical Condition – Infections of the skin and respiratory tract are common. A chronic cough without apparent infection may occur. Extreme fatigue and lassitude are common. The adolescent may complain of frequent colds or chest pains.

Family Relations – Immaturity and withdrawal from family relationships are common. The adolescent may avoid being seen with parents or siblings and avoid family outings. Household responsibilities and chores may be neglected. The adolescent may accuse parents of “hassling” or not trusting him. The adolescent may become manipulative, striving to create conflict between parents.

Although many of these indicators often appear in any teenager as part of normal puberty, if an adolescent demonstrates a large number of these characteristics, then there is a high probability that he is harmfully involved in drugs.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 558-559
September 21, 1989

By Robert F. Turner

Is it heresy to suggest we may be placing too much emphasis upon the presence of each and every church member at each and every service? Well, the Scriptures still read, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. . . ” (Heb. 10:25); and many years of experience testify that “oncers” and those who frequently “miss services” are the weak, and the first to “fall away.” But our stress on “attendance” may be out of balance with other aspects of the problem. While we are counting bodies it is possible we are neglecting the very basis for coming together: selling short those elements that give attendance its proper sphere and meaning.

Jesus taught, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (Jn. 6:27). He was not saying it was wrong to work for food, but that there was something more important than food for. the body. Peter said of wives, “Whose adorning, let it not be the putting on of apparel; but . . . the hidden man of the heart”. (1 Pet. 3:34). He did not question the wearing of clothes, but put them in a less important place than “the ornament of a, meek and quiet spirit. ” In like fashion, while physical presence is a part of “together” worship, there are other essential elements without which our presence means little. We need to seek and understand these things, and stress their importance.

Malachi wrote 100 years or more after the Israelites returned from captivity, apparently in the days of Nehemiah. Despite God’s goodness and mercy in bringing the exiles home and the blessings of a rebuilt temple, the priests, and the people had allowed their worship to degenerate into a farce. They offered polluted bread upon the altar, and sacrificed blind, lame and sick animals (Mal. 1-6-8). God said through Malachi, “Oh that there were one among, you that would shut the doors, that ye might not kindle fire on mine altar in vain.” Better to close up shop than to make such a mockery of their service to God. In verse 13, “Ye say also, Behold, what a weariness is it.” One need not say this to show it in his attitude and conduct.

The real problem is identified in Malachi 2: “If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory unto my name, saith Jehovah of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart” (v. 2, emphasis mine). Brother Homer Hailey comments, “Malachi teaches that although ritual may be important in religion, it is not. an end in itself. Ritual is only of value when, it expresses a deep and sincere spiritual worship unto God” (The Minor Prophets, p. 403). Here “ritual” refers to the form or order of conducting worship, N.T. examples stipulate elements of approved worship, but the “five items” are vain if we do not lay it to heart. We must not neglect the “spirit” of “spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:23-24).

Jesus identified something else more important than mere presence, in worship. “If you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23-24). This is placed in an old covenant setting, but the principle is clear. We can not worship acceptably when we have made no effort to correct our life and standing with our brethren. McGarvey-Pendleton comment: “Reconciliation takes precedence of all other duties, even of offerings made to God. . . . The offering of unclean hands is an abomination” (Fourfold Gospel).

The Hebrews passage (10:24-25) gives assembling a purpose other than and in addition to worship. “Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking . . . but exhorting.” Lightfoot says, “The thought is not so much that they were to encourage one another to meet together but that they were to meet together where such encouragement was available in the assembly. A chief function of public worship, according to Paul, is the edification of all who come together (1 Cor. 14:26ff)” (Jesus Christ Today). Obviously the benefits of assembling can not be had by those who neglect and forsake coming together, but we should be able to see that “attendance” alone is barren and of little value.

Sometimes the forsaker says, “My parents made me go when I was a child, and I determined when I was older . . . . ” Parents have obligation and authority to direct their children in right paths, but “nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) goes far beyond forced attendance. The far more needful and difficult task is to teach the child to love the Lord and the brethren, to understand the reason and purpose of worship, and to want to serve God. Preachers, elders, and other zealous members may make the same mistake when they pressure the delinquent into attending. “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Cor. 10:4-5) but involve “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” It is not enough to capture the body, we must capture the heart for Christ.

Look carefully at 2 Corinthians 5:14f. “The love of Christ constrains us.” The “constraint” or police force of the kingdom of Christ operates through glad tidings upon the heart. We are made to realize we are lost in sin, to appreciate Christ’s unselfish sacrifice in our behalf, and are “forced” by fear, appreciation, and love to obey him. But this divine discipline does not stop with baptism. The true convert, being “renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Eph. 4:23), is a “new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17), and the law written on the heart (Heb. 8:10) dictates his life. Discipline must not be allowed to degenerate into mere social pressure. The conscience of taught and converted persons becomes the police force of the Lord’s kingdom.

What then are our obligations to delinquent members? We must seek to “restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1); “stir you up by reminding you” (2 Pet. 1: 13); exhorting and warning (Heb. 10:25ff). It is extremely important that our disciplinary actions be just that: an effort to teach more perfectly, and to stir their latent conscience to action. Even Paul’s delivery of Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan was “that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:20). The “punishment” of the incestuous man was inward, for Paul said forgive and comfort “lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:6-7). The withdrawal of 2 Thessalonians 3 was “that he may be ashamed” (v. 14). Camal weapons do not bring souls to Christ, nor can brow beating make faithful Christians. But a properly taught and tender conscience is a powerful force indeed.

We may place too much emphasis upon attendance alone or “per se,” but I would never suggest we could over emphasize the true need and reason for assembling with the saints, or meeting any of our divine obligations. It is important however, that we teach brethren to “lay it to heart,” if we would have faithful attendance and a worship which is acceptable before the throne of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 551-552
September 21, 1989

By Mike Willis

A few weeks ago, brother Hoyt Houchen sent me a letter resigning his work with Guardian of Truth in the question-answer column. Brother Houchen has done a commendable job in writing this column, supplying us with the fruits of his study of God’s word. We appreciate his good work and commend him for it. We regret his decision to resign but recognize that changes sometime occur. We wish him the best in his continued service to God.

Clinton Hamilton to Write Column Upon brother Houchen’s resignation, a search began to find the best qualified person to write this column. Brother Clinton Hamilton has been selected to write the question-answer column for Guardian of Truth.

Brother Hamilton is well qualified for this task. Born 13 March 1924, he graduated from Freed-Hardeman University in 1944, received his B.A. from Union University in 1946, received a master’s degree in Medieval European history from Vanderbilt University in 1947, and his Ph.D. from Florida State University in 1964. Brother Hamilton joined the staff at Florida College in 1949 and served there as dean of students (1949-1954) and dean (1949-1950, 1954-1968). He then moved to Ft. Lauderdale, FL to work with Broward Community College as academic dean and has served as executive vice-president of that institution for several years. He is widely recognized for his accomplishments in education throughout the state of Florida. He also has served in the Rotary Club with distinction. In contrast to many educated and busy men who have turned away from God, brother Hamilton has exalted Christ as Lord of his life.

He was baptized into Christ at Vardaman, Mississippi in 1935 by his great uncle, E.L. Whitaker, Sr., at 11 years old. In December 1942, he began preaching and has continued preaching ever since. He has contributed articles to several magazines circulating among Christians and has served as elder in two congregations. He has held meetings throughout the country and made himself available to participate in such activities as the Arlington Meeting.

For several years, brother Hamilton has moderated the open forum at Florida College. His comments in that forum direct men to the text of Bible, which is the only source of authority and with which he shows intimate familiarity.

Several years ago, brother Hamilton had a heart attack which nearly took his life. Fortunately his life has been spared and he continues to serve the Lord’s people.

Brother Hamilton married Margaret Allen of Glasgow, Kentucky in 1946. They have two children and two grandchildren. They now reside in Plantation, Florida.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, p. 548
September 21, 1989

By Harry R. Osborne

On May 15 & 16, 1989, there was a public discussion on Mormonism at the meeting place of the Wonsley Drive congregation in Austin, Texas. The discussion was arranged as a result of a series of lessons presented by brother Robert W. LaCoste (who works with the Wonsley Drive church) on denominational doctrines. Brother LaCoste wrote various denominational churches inviting them to hear the lessons and respond to the teaching if they so desired.

Darryl Townsend, a stake president in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, came to hear the lesson and manifested a desire to respond when the occasion for such could be arranged. Mr. Townsend made it clear that he would not agree to a “one-on-one debate,” so a panel discussion was proposed with no more than three people on each panel. Therefore, the Wonsley Drive elders asked Joe Price (of Kaysville, Utah) and Harry Osborne (of Alvin, Texas) to participate in the discussion along with brother LaCoste. During the discussion, however, Mr. Townsend decided to take all of the time given the LDS group for speeches.

Synopsis of Discussion

A good number of brethren from various congregations in the Austin area had the opportunity to hear Mormon doctrine firsthand. Mr. Townsend made clear a number of basic positions of the LDS church. He stated the Mormon doctrine which declares that Adam’s sin was an essential part in the progression of man for, without Adam’s sin, man could not have received “mortality” and a body. It was further reasoned that if man had no body, he could not be raised with Christ and set out upon the Mormon hope of eternal progression which ultimately aims at men becoming gods of their own world. Not surprisingly, Mr. Townsend did not mention the last step in that theory (men becoming gods), realizing that teaching would not be viewed with great favor by much of his audience. If ever a theory claimed that sin caused grace to abound, this Mormon doctrine is the one!

In reviewing salvation, Townsend took the position that every person in human history approved by God was a “Christian.” He claimed that Adam was the first Christian (cf. Acts 11:26). He claimed that the Old Testament prophets knew and understood the plan of salvation declared in the New Testament (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12). Therefore, not only were the prophets Christians, but those who accepted the messages of the prophets were also Christians.

The Mormon concept of the church as a centralized, all-controlling institution became clear in Mr. Townsend’s presentations. In reviewing the first century church declared in the New Testament, Townsend asserted that Peter was the “chief apostle” and “presiding elder” despite the Bible teaching which would deny any place of primacy for Peter (e.g. – 2 Cor. 12:11; Gal. 2). Townsend also claimed that Jerusalem was “church headquarters” based on a misunderstanding of Acts 15 (cf. Gal. 1:15-17). He viewed those listed in Ephesians 4:11 as being the perpetual “church offices” which bring unity through their continued day-to-day supervision over official church decisions. Instead, the context makes it clear that the ones mentioned in verse 11 make unity possible through the truth that they revealed and declared (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The focus for unity is on the message of truth in the Bible, whereas Mormonism puts the focus on official church structures.

Mr. Townsend also took a great deal of time giving the audience his “personal witness” that the Book of Mormon is from God. He spoke of the events and statements declared in the Book of Mormon and those within the Bible as equally true and authoritative. He related a personal story of seeing an archeological site in Central America which had what he claims was a ‘Jewish star of David” on the wall by an altar. He took this as a confirmation that Israelites had journeyed from the Middle East to the Americas around 600 B.C. as claimed in the Book of Mormon. This was an interesting claim since the “star of David” was not used by the Jews as a symbol of their religion until the late 18th or early 19th century! An excellent discussion of the “star of David” (called the “Magen David” among the Jews) can be found in the Encyclopedia Juddica (book 11, pp. 687-698).

It is true that the same symbol was found in Mesopotamia, Britain, India, Spain, the Roman Empire, and a host of other places earlier in history. However, it was not a symbol of Judaism and was often connected with pagan magic or used merely as a decoration. As a decoration, this six-pointed star was used alongside the swastika. Would our Mormon friends see proof in this of an early link between Jews and Nazis? If Mr. Townsend is correct about his unsubstantiated sighting of this hexagram, how does it verify that the Book of Mormon boat-people were Jews from Palestine? The fact is that Mormons have repeatedly made false claims from archeology which have been soundly refuted time after time. For instance, the Smithsonian Institute issued a letter to refute the fraudulent claim by Mormons that the Book of Mormon was used as a guide to archeological finds in the Americas. Even Mormon scholars in the archeology of the Americas have condemned the repeated attempts by other Mormons to use ruins and artifacts of a period postdating the Book of Mormon to verify the culture presented in the book. Maurice Barnett’s materia on Mormonism gives excellent detail regarding these matters.

Brethren LaCoste, Osborne and Price gave presentations and answered questions on three major areas. Joe Price spoke first on the Bible as the complete and final revelation of God’s will to man. Harry Osborne spoke on the nature of true and false prophets with specific application to Joseph Smith as a false prophet. Bob LaCoste spoke on the nature and organization of the New Testament church. Tapes of the discussion were made and are available by contacting the Wonsley Drive congregation in Austin, Texas (the address and phone number are listed in the directory at the back of this publication).

Lessons Learned

Having briefly reviewed the discussion, I would like to make a few remarks on lessons I learned in this endeavor. First, I was strengthened through the good work done by brethren LaCoste and Price in this effort. In an age where the world and many brethren herald the horrors of religious conflict, it is worth noting that the good done in this discussion was all as a result of brother LaCoste’s unabashed defense of the truth and the open, specific investigation of error. Some may decry such a clear and militant approach, but it has been and continues to be the way that people deceived by error may come to see the truth of God that they might be saved. I love Bob as my brother (we dropped the “in-law” long ago), but I love him for his work’s sake even more.

Brother Price was of far greater help in this work than can be told. Joe has lived in the Salt Lake City area among the Mormons for about 6 years. During much of that time he has carried on a daily call-in radio program to answer religious questions. His is probably the most knowledgeable person on Mormonism among our brethren today. He is able to perceive their points, analyze them in light of the Bible, and answer in a way that makes the truth clear to the ordinary Mormon. That talent was much needed in this discussion where an estimated 40 to 50 Mormons were present over the two nights.

A second lesson learned from this effort was the degree to which Mormonism has changed approaches to conform to mainstream denominationalism. When those of us preaching the truth made specific application of the principles taught to refute Mormon doctrine, Mr. Townsend and his fellow Mormons were outraged. In the words of one young “elder” (?), it was said, “I didn’t come to hear what You were against, but what you were for!” They told us they were “not comfortable” with a format that had any rebuttal regardless of how kind and honorable it might be. I remember as a boy that Mormons had a far more militant approach. They were out to convert those with whom they discussed their doctrine. They did not hestitate to compare doctrinal differences with others in a good spirit. The Mormons in this discussion were quick to acknowledge the kind spirit shown towards them in the differences, but believed that any “negative” teaching should not be done. They wanted us to accentuate the “positive” areas of our agreement and leave the other alone.

Before the Tuesday night session, Mr. Townsend referred us to a decision made regarding this matter in the last “General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The Salt Lake Tribune quoted two church officials regarding the decision. Dallin H. Oaks of the “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” said that church members should not “contend over doctrines” (cf. Jude 3). He went on to say that debates 6 tare not effective in acquiring gospel knowledge. Gospel truths and testimony are received from the Holy Ghost through reverent personal study and quiet contemplation.”

Glenn L. Pace, “second counselor, Presiding Bishopric,” was quoted as characterizing the comparisons of Mormon doctrines with conflicting teaching as “attacks.” He said, “As members of the church, we are appalled by such attacks. Hopefully, it makes us more sensitive and extra careful not to make light of the sacred beliefs of other denominations” (The Salt Lake Tribune, April 2, 1989, p. A-6). Thus, any discussion of differences was to be viewed as a personal “attack” upon Mormons and “making light” of their doctrines. Mr. Townsend suggested this was the reason he would not engage in any discussion of differences.

As a doctrine of man, it is not surprising that Mormonism would adopt this posture which is embedded in the religious world around us. The past few decades have seen the denominational would around us do the same thing. The only ones the religious world around us wants to condemn are those who condemn others! (Consistency, thou art a jewel!) They can debate most eloquently on the proposition that debating is wrong. Such is to be expected from those who do not believe, practice and preach the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 1:8-13; 1 Pet. 1:22-25).

However, it is a troubling thing when our brethren seems to be “going to the Mormons” and other denominationalists in this matter! How many times lately have we heard our own brethren declare that we ought to “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative” in our preaching? How many times have we heard it claimed that honorable controversy and debate “don’t do any good” in teaching and learning the truth? Recent months have seen our brethren decrying the open discussion of differences regarding divorce and remarriage as “personal attacks” and “making light” of others. Are we in the process of following the Mormons down a path of fearing honorable and open discussion of God’s truth? Do we have no more assurance than they in the things we have learned (2 Tim. 3:13-17)? 1 fear already that too many brethren would be more comfortable with the approach of the Mormons than that of the apostle Paul or even Jesus (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-5; 2:16-19; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Gal. 2:11-17; Matt. 22,23). If we do not stop this spirit of compromise, we may end up with the Mormons – for eternity.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 561-562
September 21, 1989