I noticed the above video in which Hayden Carroll discusses the restored gospel, the beliefs and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with Kelly Powers, an evangelical Christian who does not have a favourable opinion of the LDS Church—except that Hayden Carroll doesn’t do a very good job of it; so I am going to add my two cents. It is a long video, so I am going to have to be selective, and comment only on a few highlights. At about 6:04 minutes into the video, Hyden Carroll asks the following question of Kelly Powers:
How do you feel about his [Mark Driscoll’s] rhetoric, about “Mormons are demonic”? How do you feel about that?
To that Kelly Powers, at around 7:52 minutes into the video (skipping some introductory remarks for brevity) gives the following answer:
… So, to answer your question, I do believe that the Mormon church is demonic, but I am not saying you as an individual are directly evil. That is not my intention. I believe if anyone is truly not believing in the biblical Jesus and the biblical gospel, they are being led astray by demonic influences. And that is how I would answer your question.
My answer to that would be that the LDS Church believes in the biblical Jesus and biblical gospel. The burden of proof would then be on him to demonstrate the opposite. Hayden Carroll, however, responds to it as follows:
How do you justify your view of the biblical Jesus, considering that the Trinity doctrine of the consubstantiation is not found in the biblical text, Right? Because I would just turn that back on you; and I would say: You are actually the one who doesn’t have the biblical Jesus, right? So now it is up to each of us to justify our Jesus, if you want to say it like that. … And … I have asked this question to I don’t know how many Christians, and not a single one is able to justify the Trinitarian notion of the oneness of God, using the Bible. … So I would criticize that … I would question the presumption that you have the correct understanding. … Let’s talk about how we know what the biblical Jesus is?
That is not a good start. I am LDS; and I have no issue with the concept of the Father and the Son being “consubstantial,” or being of the same “substance”. The controversy over the “substance” arose following the Arian heresy in the fourth century, who argued that the Father and the Son were not of the same “substance”—meaning that they were not made up of the same kind of “stuff”. That was his way of arguing that Jesus Christ was not truly divine—only God the Father was divine—which went contrary to historical Christian beliefs. And LDS scripture affirms the full divinity of Jesus Christ, no arguments. That is where the phrase “of one substance” or “consubstantial” in the Nicene Creed originates from. It is an affirmation of the divinity of Jesus Christ—against the Arian heresy which stated the opposite. Its purpose is to affirm the full deity of Jesus Christ, which Arius denied—and which the LDS Church, scripture, and doctrine fully affirms. The purpose of inserting the word “consubstantial,” or “of one substance,” in the Nicene Creed, was not to convey the idea that the Father and the Son were “one being”. That issue arose much later. It was simply to affirm the full divinity of Jesus Christ—which the Arians denied—and which LDS theology fully supports. LDS theology also teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct and separate beings—which is a different issue from the concept of them being of the same “substance”. Then skipping some more of the discussion for brevity, at around 9:25 minutes into the video Kelly Powers raises the following objections to LDS beliefs and doctrines:
Right. So, one of the things that I find interesting is on the screen, if you can see that, this is 1 Nephi 14 [verses] 9 and 10. Just kind of going back to what you were just talking about a second ago. And this apparently was written 600 BC; so it is before the time of the birth of Jesus, before the Christian church, and all these different things. And it says this: “It came to pass that he said unto me, look and behold the great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. He said unto me, Behold, there are save two churches only: one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God, belongth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” And I assume that you know Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, which says that the only true church is the Latter-day Saints. And I assume that you also know Joseph Smith’s testimony, when he is being asked to know which one to join, he is told they are all wrong, their creeds are an abomination, they are all being led astray.
So when I was sharing before you came on, a lot of times we as Protestants or Evangelicals, or I just call myself a born again Christian, we get labeled with this kind of like, this hatred, if you will, towards Latter-day Saints. And I think it is actually kind of a little bit reversed, if you know Joseph Smith; because it was actually Joseph Smith who actually first went out against the denominations and groups back then, claiming they were all wrong. They were all an abomination. And well, he was claiming that he was the one who was now giving them the true gospel. In fact, if you remember correctly, unless you are different, you know that the Articles of Faith talks about that you believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons; but it also says there are three gods; says three gods. And Joseph Smith also said, to know the first principle of the gospel is to know that God was once a man who became a God; and we can become gods too. Do you have any disagreement with anything I just shared there?
He asks several questions, and my answer to it is a little bit different from Hayden Carroll’s answer. In answer to 1 Nephi 14:9-10, about there being only “two churches” (the church of God, and the church of the devil), as he has pointed out, that was said around 600 BC. In that context, the word “church” is used in a generic sense; it is not used in a “denominational” sense. We know that there are far more than just “two churches” in the world (denominationally). What that passage of scripture (1 Nephi 14:9-10) is saying is that all the inhabitants of the earth—regardless of their religious affiliation (be they Christians or non-Christians), they all broadly fall into two categories: the “church of God” or the “church of the devil”. If they are good and righteous, and do what is good and right in their lives, they broadly fall into the category of the “church of God” regardless of their religious affiliation, and they will be saved; but on the other hand, if they are wicked and evil, and act unrighteously, they fall into the category of the “church of the devil” regardless of their religious affiliation, and they will be damned (unless they repent). It is the same kind of thing that Paul teaches in Romans 2:6-16; also Peter in Acts 10:34-35; and Jesus in John 5:28-29. What all of that is saying is that people don’t have to be “Christians” to do what is good and right in their lives, be approved by God, and be saved. If they do what is good and right out of a good conscience, and according to their own cultural norms and religious traditions, they broadly fall into the category of the “church of God,” and will be saved: “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29); and if, on the other hand, they do wickedly, and act unrighteously, they fall into the category of the “church of the devil” (unless they repent), and will be damned. That applies broadly to all of mankind, regardless of what religion they adhere to. That is the message that 1 Nephi 14:9-10 is trying to convey—which is also confirmed by Romans 2:6-16; Acts 10:34-35; John 5:28-29 in the Bible. That is the answer to the first part of his question.
Another passage of scripture he references is Doctrine and Covenants 1:30, in which the LDS Church is referred to as God’s “only true Church”. That is a different context. In that context, the word “church” is used denominationally. It is saying that the LDS Church is God’s only true “denominational” Church—that it is so acknowledged by God. It is still not saying that all the other churches are bad, or evil; or that their adherents cannot be classed as true believing Christians, who can have a saving faith in Jesus Christ. That is not what it is saying. The LDS Church respects other Christian churches and denominations. In Doctrine and Covenants 18:20 the Lord says, “Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil”. In that sentence, in the first part, the word “church” is used denominationally. It is admonishing Latter-day Saints not to “contend” with, oppose, or fight against other Christian churches or denominations. The LDS Church respects other Christian churches (as well as non-Christian religions). In the second half of that sentence, when it says, “save it be the church of the devil,” in that part the word “church” is used in a non-denominational sense (as previously discussed). The “church of the devil” in that context simply refers to all the inhabitants of the earth who act wickedly, and do evil in the world—regardless of their religious denomination or affiliation. The LDS Church “fights” against the “church of the devil” by opposing wickedness and evil in the world—of any kind whatever. That is how it “contends” against the “church of the devil”—by opposing wickedness and evil in the world. But it has no animosity towards other Christian churches and denominations—nor against non-Christian religions for that matter. All are respected from the LDS point of view. In Doctrine and Covenants 10:53-55 the Lord says:
Doctrine and Covenants 10:
53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.
54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;
55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.
This revelation was received before the LDS Church was officially organized. In verses 54-55, the word “church” is again used in a generic, non-denominational sense. In other words, the Lord regards all true, faithful, believing Christians in the world (of whatever denomination), who have a saving faith in him, as belonging to “his church” (broadly speaking), and they will be saved. In the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 16 the Lord says:
3 Nephi 16:
6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.
7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.
In other words, in the latter days (our day), the Lord is going to restore the gospel, his true Church, through the Gentiles rather than through the house of Israel (his covenant people), because the Gentiles “believe in him,” and the house of Israel doesn’t. And how do the Gentiles “believe in him”? Because they are, for the most part, “Christians” (regardless of their particular denomination). The Lord respects the Gentiles, because of their “belief in him” (generally speaking), so that he is going to restore the gospel, his true Church, in the last days among the Gentiles, rather than among the house of Israel (his ancient covenant people). So Kelly Powers has got his understanding of LDS beliefs and doctrines badly wrong.
Another passage of LDS scripture that he has misunderstood and misquoted is the account of the First Vision, in which Joseph Smith asks the Lord which of the Protestant sects he should join (which he had encountered in the “religious excitement” that he speaks of); and the Lord tells him that he should join none of them, and that those “professors” of religion were all corrupt, and that their “creeds” were an abomination to the Lord. Again, that is not a reference to the whole of Christendom. It is a specific reference to that special group of Protestant sects that Joseph Smith had encountered in that religious “excitement” that he speaks of, who were actually fighting among themselves to gain supremacy among the people at the time. It is specifically their (Protestant) “creeds” and confessions that are being condemned—not the whole of Christendom. That pretty much answers all of Kelly Powers’ questions.
Hayden Carroll, however, in responding to Kelly Powers, goes off on a tangent, and talks about all kinds of unrelated and questionable topics that are irrelevant to the question that Kelly is asking. As far as Acts 15 is concerned for example, Kelly is entirely right—and Carroll is wrong. The “disputing” was not among the Apostles. It was with the Judaizers (certain Jewish converts to Christianity at the time) who insisted that the Gentile converts to Christianity should be “circumcized,” and adhere to the Law of Moses. That is what the “disputing” was about. And in either case, all of that is irrelevant to the original question that Kelly had been asking. Hayden Carroll likes to think that he is defending the LDS Church, while he is being an embarrassment to it. Then skipping a lot of irrelevant talks, and jumping to 33:30 minutes into the video, Hayden Carroll asks Kelly Powers the following question:
Okay, so help me understand. You believe the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians. Is that true?
After which the conversation turns into another lengthy discussion about sola scriptura, which as previously discussed in my earlier blog posts, the LDS Church has no issues with. The theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is very much sola scriptura—the only difference being that we have a lot more scripture than traditional Christianity does. In addition to the Bible, we also have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price; which together with the Bible, constitute the scriptural canon of the Church. And the theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is derived strictly and exclusively from that scriptural canon—and from no other source. The fact that we believe in modern day prophets and Apostles, and in continuing revelation, does not alter that fact. Unless a new revelation is received and canonized, the theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is strictly based on, and derived from, the existing scriptural canon—and from no other source.
That has been the unanimous verdict of the presiding officers of the Church in the past, who have spoken authoritatively on the subject, as previously quoted and discussed in a previous blog post which can be seen here. There I have provided scriptural references, as well as authoritative quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee (all former Presidents of the Church), as well as B. H. Roberts, affirming that LDS scripture is the ultimate and authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine—thus affirming that LDS theology and doctrine is very much sola scriptura. I consider these sources to be infinity more authoritative than the personal opinions of Hayden Carroll, Thoughtful Faith, and such like. LDS theology is fully sola scriptura, absolutely, 100%, no arguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment