This is the second of my posts
commenting on some points of interest brought up in Richard Mouw’s interesting new
book, Talking With Mormons, in which he continues his comments as follows:
“In talking about the Mormon view
of revelation and authority, one point needs to be made clear at the outset. It
isn’t just that the Mormons have more revealed books than the rest of us. They
do, of course; but to say that doesn’t get to the heart of the issue. The real
point is that books are not where the true authority resides for Mormons.
“Evangelical Christians often
miss this basic point. We believe in sola scriptura; the “Bible alone”
is our supreme authority on the fundamental issues of belief and practice.” (p.
61.)
I have a lexicological problem
with the use of the word “authority” in that context. To me the word
“authority” means something that has decision making power, and is able
to enforce its decisions. The government is an authority, Congress is an
authority, the police are an authority, the law courts are authorities. In an
ecclesiastical context, in the Catholic Church for example, the Pope is an
authority, the Magisterium is an authority, the individual bishops are
authorities. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet is an authority, the First
Presidency is an authority, the Twelve Apostles are authorities, the stake
presidents and bishops are authorities. They are all authorities because each,
in their respective spheres of influence, have decision making powers,
and are able to enforce their decisions. But Protestantism does not have an authority. They relinquished any
semblance of authority when they rebelled against the Catholic Church. The
Bible is not an authority, because it has no decision making power,
and is not able to enforce its decisions. The Bible is at the mercy of
its interpreters. If someone interprets the Bible wrong, the Bible does not
have an independent voice to declare that interpretation to be wrong, and be able to do something about it. Only a proper “authority” could do that—which both
Catholicism and the restored Church of Jesus Christ possess—and Evangelicalism doesn’t! The Bible (any book of scripture in fact, including modern scriptures of the restored Church) can serve as an authoritative
source of reference; but not as an authority. There is a difference
between the two. Protestantism basically does not have an authority, simple as
that. They can bash the Bible all they want, but it will never give them even a
semblance of authority. He continues:
“But in a sense, of course,
that’s a little misleading. Back in the 1970s, when evangelicals were passionately
debating questions relating to ‘biblical inerrancy,’ James Packer—a theological
giant in the evangelical community—gave what was for me a memorable address on
biblical authority at a Wheaton College conference. He surprised no one by
affirming his own strong support for the idea of biblical inerrancy. But then he
went on to remind us all that holding to an inerrant Bible by itself doesn’t guarantee
orthodoxy. We must, Packer said, be clear about the fact that the Bible points
us to God’s supreme revelation in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
“What has stuck in my mind is the
way Professor Packer illustrated his point. He quoted from the hymn ‘Break Thou
the Bread of Life’: ‘Beyond the sacred page, I seek Thee, Lord.’ In our
devotion to the authoritative written Word, Packer said, we must always allow
it to point us to the worship and service of the Living Word.” (pp. 61–62.)
Agreed; but the Bible
accomplishes that by providing us with a theological framework in which
Jesus can be known, worshipped, served, and obeyed. If we get that theological
framework wrong, our salvation is not guaranteed. Merely bashing the Bible is
no guarantee that we have got that theological framework right. That is where the
authority becomes indispensable. The Bible itself is not the “authority,” because it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The function of the authority
is to inform us which of the possible interpretations is the right one. And as
far as I know there are only two churches which make a plausible claim to that
authority: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Catholic Church (one on the basis of
continuity, and the other by a Restoration). The Protestant churches cannot,
and in fact do not stake a claim to having such an authority. Bashing
the Bible gives them no authority. He then continues:
“For traditional Christianity,
then, the Bible’s supreme authority is a ‘pointing’ authority. It points us
beyond itself to Jesus Christ, who alone is ‘the way, the truth, and the life’
(John 14:6). When we say that ‘the Bible alone’ is our ultimate authority, we’re
insisting that in our efforts to comprehend God’s will for us in Jesus Christ
we need a lot of help in understanding the details, and that anything that
contradicts what the Bible tells us about God’s plan for the creation has to be
ruled out of bounds. This doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from other sources—our
intellectual pursuits, our personal experiences, the teachings that come to us
from the Christian past—but when such deliverances conflict with what the Bible
clearly says to us, the Bible trumps all other sources.” (p. 62.)
That is all well and good; but
what if somebody interprets the Bible differently from the way you do? Who is
to say that they are wrong, and you are right? This is not an idle or hypothetical
question; it is a very practical one. Look at all the splits that have taken
place form Protestantism since its inception—all on theological grounds. Who is
going to decide which one of them (if any) is the right one? He continues:
“For Mormonism, this reliance on writings—sacred
“pages”—is secondary. What they see as primary is the office of the prophet.
The most important thing to Mormons about their early history isn’t that Joseph
Smith dug up the gold plates containing the Book of Mormon in the early decades
of the nineteenth century. More importantly, Mormonism teaches that in the
person of Joseph Smith the ancient office of prophet was restored.” (pp.
62–63.)
That is generally correct; but
there is a subtle nuance here that I think Mouw has missed. It is true that the
Prophet is the highest spiritual authority in the Church; but the doctrine
or theology of the Church is firmly established in the canonized
scriptures of the Church—what we call the “standard works”. Nothing trumps
that—not even the Prophet—except when God wants to reveal new
doctrine to the Church. Barring that, the standard works trumps everything,
as far as establishing the doctrine of the Church is concerned.
Let me explain it another way: Is the Prophet capable of making a mistake in
doctrine? The answer is Yes. Has it happened in the past? Yes. Is there any
authority in the Church that is immune from making a mistake in doctrine? The
answer is No; no one is immune from making a mistake in doctrine. Are ordinary
Church members entitled to be able to detect such mistakes in
doctrine when they are made (by anyone), and not be misled by them? The answer is Yes, they are. But two conditions must be fulfilled before they can do
that: (1) they must be genuine students of the scriptures, and (2) they must
have the gift of the Holy Ghost. A Church member thus equipped is thus immunized
against being misled by anyone making a mistake in doctrine. Thus the
standard works trumps everything as far as determining the
doctrine of the Church is concerned. The Prophet himself is as much bound by that standard
as anybody else, when defining Church doctrine. Once something is canonized, and becomes part of the
standard works, it trumps everything, and becomes binding on the whole Church as
the standard of doctrine and orthodoxy. So there is a strong element of sola
scriptura in restored Church of Jesus Christ—but it works differently from the way it is
envisaged in Protestantism. Here are some statements from past Church leaders in
affirmation of what was said above:
“If anyone, regardless of his
position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by
the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine
and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is
merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new
doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it
as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve
and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which
contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same
token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B.
Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)
“If it is not in the standard
works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion;
and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the
standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement
Era, January 1969 p.13)
“It makes no difference what is
written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what
the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any
other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the
revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have
accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by
which we measure every man’s doctrine.
“You cannot accept the books
written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so
far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph
Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, pp. 203-04)
Richard Mouw then continues:
“For the followers of Joseph Smith,
the religious movement that he had established was a restoring of something
that had long been lost. And it wasn’t just the finding of an ancient book along
with the adding of some new books. It was the restoration of the kind of
heavenly visitations that occurred in ancient times.” (p. 63.)
That is quite correct of course;
but subject to the proviso mentioned above. The prophet’s authority is not
whimsical. It is not willy-nilly. Once the word of the Lord has been given, and
canonized, he is as much bound by that revelation as anybody else is in establishing or determining the doctrine of the Church. The theology and doctrine of the Church is still strictly defined by that scriptural canon. The house of God is a house of order, not a house of confusion. He then continues:
“There were times in Old
Testament history when godly people had no authoritative book to rely on in
understanding the will of God. Noah, Abraham, Moses—none of these had anything
like the Bible. God spoke directly to them. Similarly, in the New Testament and
the early church, there was much reliance on oral tradition—the memories of
what Jesus had taught and done, and later the memories of the teachings of the
apostles.
“There came a point, though, when
these testimonies were written down; and eventually those writings that the
church came to see as supremely authoritative became—in the forming of ‘the canon’—our
Bible. Christians became a ‘people of the Book’.” (p. 63.)
Latter-day Saints of course have different
ideas about that. We know from modern revelation that prophets of the Lord in
ancient times have been commanded to keep sacred records since the time of
Adam. The antediluvians had sacred records which were preserved by Noah and his
posterity. The Jaredites mentioned in the Book of Mormon had a copy of that
record which they took with them across the sea to their promised land. Abraham
and the patriarchs no doubt had copies of those records—as well as keeping
records of their own. And what is more, the Lord has promised that all of those
ancient records will one day be restored to the Church. He continues:
“Mormons insist on going ‘behind’
the process that produced ‘the Book.’ What matters about the Bible is that it
contains the teachings that had come directly from God to apostles and
prophets. And now, they argue, the prophetic office has been restored. This
means that ‘the canon’ isn’t ‘closed.’ Revelations continue. What binds
together the Bible, then, with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants,
the Pearl of Great Price, and any new authoritative deliverances from the
continuing line of the true prophets is that they receive their authority from
the fact that they come to us from those who have occupied—and continue to
occupy—the office of the prophet.” (pp. 63–64.)
That is correct of course, but
subject to the provisos mentioned above. He continues:
“I was attending a meeting
between several evangelical pastors and some LDS church leaders. After a
lengthy discussion of the issues of authority and revelation, we paused to give
our impressions of what had transpired. One of the evangelicals offered this
assessment. He told the LDS participants how much be admired them, and how much
he appreciated the friendliness and candor with which they had presented their
views. ‘The very fact that I have such a positive view of you folks as individuals,’
he said, ‘makes it very difficult to tell you how grieved I am because of what
you’ve been saying. You talk with such sincerity about Christ as the only
Savior, and about his atoning work on Calvary. But I simply cannot take what
you say about such things at face value. I believe that the Bible alone is our
authority. Anyone who adds to the biblical message is openly rejecting what the
Bible says about itself. The Christ that you’re talking about cannot be the
Jesus of the Word of God. Your so-called Gospel is a false Gospel and your Christ
is a pseudo-Christ. I can only plead with you in love: cast away these false
revelations and accept the pure teachings of the Bible as God’s Word!’” (pp.
64–65.)
There is an answer to that. It is
not as though Latter-day Saints are completely helpless and tongue-tied in the face of
such a charge. The answer to it is given by the Lord in the following verses:
D&C 84:
42 And wo unto all those who come
not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you
who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have
given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you.
• • •
63 And as I said unto mine
apostles, even so I say unto you, for you are mine apostles, even God’s high
priests; ye are they whom my Father hath given me; ye are my friends;
64 Therefore, as I said unto mine
apostles I say unto you again, that every soul who believeth on your words, and
is baptized by water for the remission of sins, shall receive the Holy Ghost.
• • •
74 Verily, verily, I say unto
you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my
name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost,
shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father's kingdom where my Father
and I am.
75 And this revelation unto you,
and commandment, is in force from this very hour upon all the world,
and the gospel is unto all who have not received it.
The hard truth is that early
Christianity apostatized in the first century; and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the original and true Christian Church. It is governed by revelation, and lead by true Apostles and prophets as in ancient times, and declares that the Canon of Scripture is not closed. The Bible is the word of God, and so is the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures of the Church. They complement each other and do not contradict. No one can wilfully and knowingly
reject its message of Restoration and be approved of God on judgement day. And special “woes” have been pronounced on those who reject its
message of the restoration of the gospel in order to “build up churches unto themselves to get gain”
(D&C 10:56), or to “become popular in the eyes of the world” (1
Nephi 22:23) etc. They will be damned; and where God and Christ are they will
not come, according to the declaration of the Lord. He then continues:
“Like that pastor, I too care
deeply about ‘the Bible alone’ as our supreme authority. And like him, I worry
greatly about wanting to add to the contents of the Scriptures with new ‘revelations.’
But for all of that, I don’t come to the same harsh depiction of the Mormon
Christ as a ‘pseudo-Christ.’
“For one thing, in the
conversation that we’d been having in this meeting, our Mormon friends didn’t
say anything about Jesus and his atoning work that contradicted anything in the
Bible. Indeed, more often than not, they had actually quoted passages from the
New Testament. When they did go beyond biblical appeals to quote from the Book
of Mormon, the things they cited said pretty much the same thing that you can
find in the Bible.
“I’ve had many hours of
discussion of such matters with Mormons, and they’ve never said in my hearing
that their later ‘revelations’ in any way corrected anything in the Bible. Instead,
the additional Mormon scriptures are always treated as further elaborations
upon—extensions of, supplements to—the contents of the Bible. I may disagree
with them on how they understand the relationship of ‘later’ to ‘earlier’; but
in fairness to the Mormons, they don’t talk as if the newer revelations somehow
supersede the older ones.” (p. 65.)
His integrity and willingness to
acknowledge the truth in the face of opposition is worthy of commendation.
