Mormon FAQ

Socialism vs. the United Order

2010-12-08T23:01:00.000-08:00

The United Order does not describe a “capitalist” economy; but neither does it also describe a “socialist” one.

Socialism is defined as the state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. In socialism you don’t “own” anything, only the state does. You work for the state, and the state gives you what it thinks you deserve.

In the United Order God owns everything; but He trusts you with a title of ownership to his property according to the laws of this world; and you in turn trust Him with your property (which He has given to you) should He at any time require it. It works entirely on the basis of trust. The two sides (God and man) must trust each other implicitly, otherwise it won’t work.

Socialism amounts to economic dictatorship. It deprives people of the right to engage in legitimate economic activity. Mankind are as much entitled to economic freedom as they are to political freedom. By economic freedom I mean the right to trade, to own property, to invest, and to engage in legitimate business pursuits. That is as much an “inalienable right of man” (US Constitution) as is political freedom. Socialism deprives people of the right to do that. That is how it was in the socialist states in the Eastern Block before they finally collapsed.

The United Order doesn’t deprive you of the right to engage in those kinds of economic activities. On the contrary, in D&C 104 it specifically assigns to certain individuals “stewardships” which were essentially businesses, the purpose of which was to enable them to make money on it and live. The only odd thing about it was that they all had a “common treasury!” Their profits were shared, and they all had an equal right to draw upon the treasury for their business requirements. If one of the businesses was failing, it could rely on the financial strength of the others to survive, at least temporarily.

But in those days the world economy had not yet become heavily industrialized. The giant corporations that exist in industrialized economies of today did not exist at that time. If the United Order was to be practiced by everyone today, I don’t know how it would look like. Would it look like D&C 104? I wouldn’t know; but I doubt if it would. One thing I am certain: we wouldn’t be going back to the giant Soviet style industrial complexes which proved to be so inefficient, and ultimately such dismal failures.

It seems to me that there are some LDS scholars today who make the mistake of confusing socialism with the United Order.

Why I Disagree With Daniel C. Peterson’s Interpretation of 1 Nephi 11

2010-10-18T05:54:00.000-07:00

In his recent article in the Mormon Times: “How Nephi understood the Tree of Life,” Dr. Peterson reiterates his personal interpretation of 1 Nephi 11, which he had previously expressed in a longer article called “Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8–23,” published by the Maxwell Institute. The main thesis of his paper, or the main question he tries to answer, is expressed in the following paragraph quoted from the original article:

The question to be treated in this paper is, Why would Nephi, without any explicit direction from his guide, have seen an immediate connection between a tree and the virginal mother of a divine child? In other words, how, without any real explanation, would he recognize a depiction of Mary and Jesus as an elucidation of the meaning of a beautiful tree? In order to answer that question, I believe we must examine a facet of the history of ancient Israelite worship that has become much clearer only in the light of very recent research.

The problem with his analysis starts right here. He is basically asking the wrong question. He has misunderstood the “connection” in 1 Nephi 11. The connection is not between the “tree” and the “virginal mother”. The connection is between the tree and the coming of the Redeemer into the world. The “virginal mother” is unrelated to the symbolism of the three. She appears on the scene because she happens to be the conduit through whom the Redeemer was born. She was the parachute, so to speak, by means of which the Redeemer descended to earth. The symbolism of the tree does not relate to the parachute. It relates to the Person Who descended by means of it. His entire paper then centers on answering that wrong question; which of course explains why he gets the wrong answers. You don’t come up with right answers by asking, and then answering wrong questions. His article in Mormon Times starts as follows:

Nephi’s vision of the tree of life, among the best-known passages in the Book of Mormon, expands upon the vision received earlier by his father, Lehi.

“And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

“And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

“And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

“And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof” (1 Nephi 11:8-11).

Because Nephi wanted to know the meaning of the tree that his father had seen and that he himself now saw, we would expect “the Spirit” to answer Nephi’s question. But, instead, Nephi is first shown a young virgin and then, after an interval, sees the same virgin holding a child in her arms. And he is told that she is “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh” (1 Nephi 11:18).

The flaw in this reasoning is that he has jumped from verse 11 to verse 18, and overlooked the significant verses in the middle. Here are the verses he has skipped over:

12 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

The key to understanding the symbolism of the tree is in verse 16: “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” The meaning of that will be discussed later; but let us continue with his reasoning:

Then “the Spirit” asks Nephi the question that Nephi himself had posed only a few verses before: “Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?” (1 Nephi 11:21).

Strikingly, though the vision of Mary seems irrelevant to Nephi’s question—for the tree is nowhere mentioned in the angelic guide’s response—Nephi himself now replies that, yes, he knows the answer (1 Nephi 11:22-23).

Again, he has jumped over the significant verses. Let’s look at these verses in more detail:

19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

The meaning of the tree is directly linked to the “Lamb of God, the Son of the Eternal Father,” not to Mary. Mary has nothing to do with the symbolism of the tree at all. His attempt to link the two together is contrived, and is not borne out by the obvious meaning of the text.

His observation is correct that the angel does not directly answer Nephi’s question, but instead shows him a vision of the coming of the Savior into the world; and Nephi’s mind appears to miraculously light up, and comprehends the meaning of the tree! That phenomenon occurs in relation to the meaning of the “rod of iron,” and the “great and spacious building” as well. The angel does not directly tell Nephi the meanings of them; instead he shows him a vision of other things, and Nephi’s mind seems to light up, and discover for himself what they mean! If Nephi needed a prop to understand what the symbolism of the tree was (i.e. association with Asherah, according to DCP), what were the props that enabled him to comprehend the meanings of the “rod of iron” and the “great and spacious building”? The answer is that no props were needed. The meanings were revealed to him by light of the Spirit as the vision unfolded.

But Daniel makes two mistakes here. Firstly, he incorrectly associates the symbolism of the tree with Mary, whereas the symbolism relates exclusively to the coming of the Savior into the world. And then, having made that incorrect association, he tries to find an arbitrary explanation for Nephi’s inexplicable realization of the meaning of the tree by making the assumption that Nephi’s sudden realization is the result of the association of the symbolism of the tree with the Asherah mythology of the ancient Near East, which is a completely tendentious argument based entirely on an unlikely speculation. Daniel then continues his narrative as follows:

How has Nephi come to this understanding? Clearly, the answer to his question about the meaning of the tree lies in the virgin mother with her child. It seems, in fact, that the virgin actually is the tree, in some sense.

Not so! The symbolism of the tree has nothing to do with the “virgin mother”. And Nephi’s inexplicable “realization” can be explained in more scriptural, more logical ways. We have a similar situation arising in the vision of the redemption of the dead given to Jpseph F. Smith:

D&C 138:

28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

Here Joseph F. Smith is not given explicitly the answer to his question; instead, he is shown a vision of the redemption of the dead; and then he perceives the answer to his question by the light of the Sprit without needing to be expressly “told”. Nephi is undergoing a similar experience. He is having a spiritual vision. Spirit is communicating with his spirit. He doesn’t need the angel to verbally explain to him the meaning of every phenomenon he observes. He perceives things by the light of the Spirit as the vision unfolds. No prop, no “Asherah” mythology is needed to explain his ability to “know” things without being “told”.

Even the language used to describe her echoes that used for the tree. Just as she was “exceedingly fair and white,” “most beautiful and fair above all other virgins,” so was the tree’s beauty “far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.”

The linguistic similarities are incidental. It is hardly adequate to make the connection, in the light of all the evidence against it.

Significantly, though, only when she appeared with a baby and was identified as “the mother of the Son of God” did Nephi grasp the tree’s meaning.

Not so! He grasps the meaning when he is told by the angel: “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! . . .” (1 Nephi 11:21.) The connection is made with the “Lamb of God,” not with Mary.

Why would Nephi see a connection between a tree and the virginal mother of a divine child?

The answer is that he doesn’t!

His vision seems to reflect a meaning of the “sacred tree” that is unique to the ancient Near East and, in Israelite history, specifically to the period before the Babylonian captivity — Nephi’s era. This can only be fully appreciated when the ancient Canaanite and Israelite associations of that tree are borne in mind. . . .

The rest of his article basically becomes irrelevant from this point forward. Whether the Asherah mythology has, or ever has had an element of truth behind it, or whether it is just a myth pure and simple, I wouldn’t know, and I don’t think it is a significant factor in the discussion. Ancient cultures are full of mythologies of various kinds, some of which may or may not have been based on forgotten truths. I personally don’t think my time would be well spent trying to sift through them, a pursuit that is unlikely to ever lead to the discovery of undiluted truth. The rest of Nephi’s teachings in chapter 11, however, are worth examining in more detail:

24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.

25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

26 And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God!

27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; . . .

28 And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them. . . .

32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

That is what is meant by the “condescension of God,” and that is the real meaning of the symbolism of the tree. The word “condescend” (and its derivatives) as used in the biblical language of the KJV, do not have the negative connotations associated with it in modern English. Paul, for example, counsels the saints, “Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate” (Romans 12:16). What he means by that is to humble oneself to bring oneself down to the level of the common man, rather than aspire to those of high station in society because of wealth or privilege. It is another way of saying, “Don’t be class conscious!” It means, “Don’t stay aloof from the common people because you consider yourself better than them because of high birth, wealth, high intelligence, or privilege in society”. When Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, that was a great act of “condescension” on His part. He did it in order to set an example for them, so that they should do likewise. This is the explanation He gave after washing their feet:

John 13:

13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Washing people’s feet in those days was degrading task that would have been assigned to the lowliest servant. No king, ruler, lord, or master would have stooped so low as to wash his own servant’s feet. Jesus by this great act of “condescension” sets them an example to follow. Jesus elsewhere teaches the same doctrine in these words:

Luke 22:

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

However, Jesus’ greatest act of “condescension” was in leaving his father’s throne in heaven as the God of gods and Lord of lords, to come down to earth and be born as a mortal, keep company with us and instruct us at our own level, and ultimately offer Himself as a willing sacrifice for the sins of all the world, and the great love that was manifested by the Father and the Son by this tremendous sacrifice. There are many scriptures that in various ways refer to this great act of “condescension” by the Father and the Son. Here are some:

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Philippians 2:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

1 John 4:

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

D&C 138:

2 And reflecting upon the great atoning sacrifice that was made by the Son of God, for the redemption of the world;

3 And the great and wonderful love made manifest by the Father and the Son in the coming of the Redeemer into the world;

4 That through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved.

That was the great “condescension” that Nephi was talking about: the great love that was manifested by the Father and the Son in sending the Redeemer into the world to save the world by His death. The tree represents that love of God that was manifested through that act of “condescension”. That is what the vision of the “virgin mother and child” was intended to convey to Nephi. It is a representation of that “love” manifested by God in the coming of Christ into the world to humble Himself as the common man, and die to redeem all mankind. The symbolism of the tree has nothing to do with Mary at all.

Daniel also has a secondary thesis to his article, in addition to the primary one discussed above. He hopes, and expects, that his reasoning provides evidence that the Book of Mormon is an “ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition”. Well, I agree that the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition. As a Mormon I firmly believe that that is the case. But I don’t see that Daniel’s paper provides evidence in support of that claim. His article fails on both accounts. If “Asherah” was the last thing that Nephi had in mind as he saw and understood the vision of the three of life, then his secondary thesis fails just as his primary one does.

Answering Those Who Slander Joseph Smith

2010-10-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

There are some anti-Mormons who, when they run out of all other arguments against Mormonism, they turn to slandering Joseph Smith. The Muslims have a proverb that says: “The waters of the sea do not become unclean by the mouth of the dog.” Their slandering of Joseph Smith does not hurt him, it only hurts them. Jesus knew that His true followers would suffer such abuses at the hands of the wicked, and gave them these assurances:

Matthew 5:

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

They play part well by slandering Joseph Smith; and he also played his part well by being the great prophet of the Lord that he was, and a martyr to the cause of truth. Such folks of course have been from the beginning. Jude had this to say about such people of his day:

Jude 1:

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Even Jesus was called Beelzebub by His detractors; so why should Joseph Smith escape the tongue of slanderers and detractors of this generation? This is what Jesus had to say to those who called Him Beelzebub:

Matthew 12:

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Joseph Smith was no different. He was in the same situation as they were, so it is to be expected that he should receive the same treatment as they did. To him the Lord said:

D&C 122:

1 The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;

2 While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand.

In another place the Lord said to him:

D&C 121:

10 Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did Job.

11 And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun;

12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness;

. . .

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

President George A. Smith once said the following of those who slander and malign Joseph Smith:

“Many have belittled Joseph Smith, but those who have will be forgotten in the remains of mother earth, and the odor of their infamy will ever be with them, but honor, majesty, and fidelity to God, exemplified by Joseph Smith and attached to his name, will never die.” (Quoted by Harold B. Lee in “Closing Remarks,” Ensign, Jan. 1974, 125.)

LDS need not be troubled by those who slander and speak evil of against Joseph Smith. No prophet was ever harmed by the slander of wicked. Such folks have always only hurt themselves, never the prophets of God.

Was The Universe Created Or Has It Always Existed?

2010-09-07T04:34:00.000-07:00

Mormonism teaches that the building blocks out of which all created objects in the universe were created are eternal and have always existed, and were not themselves created by God. They are coeternal with God, and have been around for as long as God has been around (or longer). These building blocks are two things: they are referred to in modern revelation as “the elements” and “intelligence”:

D&C 93:

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.

The nature of these two substances (“elements” and “intelligence”) are not clearly explained, and we don’t know precisely what they are; although some of the properties they possess can be surmised from the descriptions given above. So when Mormons use the word “create,” they don’t mean making something out of “nothing,” but making something out of those pre-existent materials; and that is the sense in which I will use this term in this discussion.

In a discussion of this kind it is important that we define our terms clearly so that we don’t talk at cross-purposes, and both sides understand the same things from the same words. So when I say “create,” I don’t mean creating something out of nothing. I mean creating things out of those two building blocks out of which, according to the above revelation, all things were initially created by God.

The question I would like to address in this post is whether created objects have always existed (into the infinite past), or whether there was a time when no created objects ever existed. By “created objects” I mean things we normally associate with “creation,” such as birds and beasts and fishes and other animate life forms, as well as planets and stars and solar systems and galaxies. Have these things, in their organized or created forms, always existed, going back infinitely into the past; or if we go back far enough in time, there was a moment when they never existed—neither in this world nor in any other world in the universe? Was there a time when “creation” never existed? Brigham Young seemed to believe there wasn’t! He has famously said:

How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity. You cannot comprehend this; but when you can, it will be to you a matter of great consolation. (Journal of Discourses, 7:333).

This implies that there was never a time (into the infinite past) when created objects of such description never existed; and there are some LDS gospel scholars who still adhere to this view. In my opinion, however, this theological position contains an inherent logical inconsistency. To say that something is both created and has always existed is a logically contradictory position to hold; because to say that something is created necessarily implies that before it was created it did not exist. The building blocks out of which it was created may have always existed, but the created object itself could not have always existed. If I built a house out of bricks, mortar, and stone, that house before it was built never existed. The bricks and mortar out of which it was built may have existed; but that is not the same thing as saying that the house itself has always existed. The house clearly didn’t exist before it was built. A sparrow isn’t any different. Before that sparrow was created (I mean the first of its kind, wherever and whenever that may have been), it couldn’t have existed. The building blocks out of which it was created—the carbon, hydrogen, and other atoms that compose its body; as well as the “intelligence” with which it was endowed—may have always existed; but that is not the same thing as saying that the sparrow itself has always existed. The timing of the creation is not the issue here. The first sparrow may have been created a billion a years ago, or a trillion years ago in a different part of the universe. But before the first sparrow was created—wherever or whenever that might have been—it could not have existed. To say that something is both created and has always existed is a logically inconsistent position to hold.

If such scholars maintained the view that such objects were never created at all, that is a different position that has to be argued over separately. But that is not the position that they seem to maintain. They are not saying that such objects were never created at all. What they seem to be saying is that such objects were both created and has always existed, which is an illogical and contradictory position to hold. It is like saying that something can be both black and white at the same time, or dead and alive at the same time, or existent and non-existent at the same time. I don’t know how in their minds they are able to bridge this logical divide, and they don’t seem to be very good at explaining it!

Conclusion:

To summarize the above argument, something can have either been “created” or have “always existed”. To maintain that it is both created and has always existed is a logically inconsistent and impossible position to hold. The LDS scholars who maintain that view need to explain to the rest of us how in their minds they are able bridge the logical divide between something having been created, and having always existed at the same time.

Can Anyone See God?

2010-01-08T08:02:00.001-08:00

Mormon critics like to quote verses such as the following to suggest that God cannot be seen, therefore Joseph Smith’s claims to have seen God cannot be true:

Exodus 33:

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

John 1:

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 6:

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Colossians 1:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The number of scriptures, however, that teach that man can see or has seen God are more numerous than those which say that he can’t:

Genesis 18:

1 And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

A close reading of the context of the above verses reveals that one of the “three men” who appeared to Abraham was indeed God, and the other two were the two angels who went on to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and rescued Lot. God stayed behind and continued to converse with Abraham, as recorded in the book of Genesis. God was on such familiar terms with Abraham that He used to come and visit Him at his tent like a guest! That is how Abraham gained the reputation of being the “friend of God” (2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23). Here are some more examples:

Genesis 32:

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 24:

9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Judges 13:

22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

1 Kings 22:

19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

2 Chronicles 18:

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

Isaiah 6:

1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Amos 9:

1 I Saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

Matthew 5:

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

That is a ratio of around two to one in favor of seeing God than not seeing Him! Obviously the question that arises here is how to reconcile this apparent contradiction. But that is a different subject matter. The most immediate conclusion is that the Bible is overwhelmingly in favor of man seeing God rather than not seeing Him. Interestingly, modern LDS scripture confirms this doctrine, of which the following are a small selection:

Ether 3:

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

D&C 67:

11 For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.

12 Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.

D&C 88:

68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.

D&C 93:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

D&C 107:

49 And he [Enoch] saw the Lord, and he walked with him, and was before his face continually; and he walked with God three hundred and sixty-five years, making him four hundred and thirty years old when he was translated.

Moses 7:

4 And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.

Abraham 3:

11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;

Interestingly, modern LDS scripture also provides an answer to the contradiction mentioned above. Why does the Bible appear to contradict itself on whether one can see God or not? Joseph Smith made an inspired translation or revision of the Bible in which many of those apparent contradictions are clarified. Here they are (the words in italics were added by Joseph Smith):

Exodus 33:20 is rendered by Joseph Smith as follows:

And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.

And John 1:18 as follows:

And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.

For Whom Did Christ Die?

2009-11-23T05:30:00.000-08:00

Did He atone for the sins of all the world, or just for a few? Did He die to redeem all mankind, or only the “elect”? According to Calvinism (which encapsulates the broad spectrum of the so called “Reformed” churches, Evangelicals, and Baptists), He died only for a select few, not for all mankind. The Bible, however, teaches differently:

John 1:

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 6:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

1 John 2:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

1 Timothy 2:

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 Timothy 4:

10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

2 Corinthians 5:

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

Hebrews 2:

9 But we see Jesus, … that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

And curiously enough, this is also affirmed by the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 9:

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

* * *

21 And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.

22 And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.

23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

24 And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

2 Nephi 25:

16 And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.

Alma 34:

9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

D&C 18:

10 Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God;

11 For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him.

12 And he hath risen again from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him, on conditions of repentance.

13 And how great is his joy in the soul that repenteth!

14 Wherefore, you are called to cry repentance unto this people.

15 And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!

The more fundamental theological problem of Calvinism, however, relates to their belief in predestination. The reason why they believe that the Atonement was partial and not universal is that they believe that the Atonement automatically saves those to whom it is applied, who are predestined to be saved without any voluntary act on their part. Therefore the only reason why some are saved and some are not is because the Atonement was never performed on their behalf. The Bible, however, teaches that the Atonement was universal for all mankind; but salvation in conditional on individual faith and repentance, which is a voluntary act on the part of the believer. They, on the other hand, associate universal Atonement with universal salvation (through predestination); and since salvation is not universal, they conclude that the Atonement could not have been universal either. That is just one of the many perverse doctrines of Calvinism.

What is the Gospel?

2009-11-16T03:50:00.000-08:00

The question is often asked (not just of the Mormons), “What is the gospel?” For Latter-day Saints, that question is clearly answered in the modern scriptures of the Church, which includes the Book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants:

3 Nephi 27:

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be lifted up at the last day.

D&C 33:

10 Yea, open your mouths and they shall be filled, saying: Repent, repent, and prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;

11 Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

12 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and remember that they shall have faith in me or they can in nowise be saved;

13 And upon this rock I will build my church; yea, upon this rock ye are built, and if ye continue, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

14 And ye shall remember the church articles and covenants to keep them.

D&C 39:

5 And verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth my gospel receiveth me; and he that receiveth not my gospel receiveth not me.

6 And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

D&C 76:

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;

42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;

43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

D&C 42:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

13 And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit.

D&C 34:

5 And more blessed are you because you are called of me to preach my gospel—

6 To lift up your voice as with the sound of a trump, both long and loud, and cry repentance unto a crooked and perverse generation, preparing the way of the Lord for his second coming.

D&C 112:

28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;

29 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

The Achilles’ Heel of Jehovah’s Witnesses Theology

2009-08-14T07:34:00.000-07:00

Jehovah’s Witnesses theology centers on the Deity referred to in the Old Testament by the name of Jehovah, Jesus Christ being one of the main players (perhaps even the main player) in that elaborately constructed theology. It hinges on the assumption that Jehovah and Jesus are two different beings. That assumption is so central to JW theology that if it can be proved conclusively from the Bible that Jesus Christ is in fact the same as Jehovah, it has the effect of destroying their elaborately constructed theology from the foundation up. It brings the whole structure crashing down. The biblical proof that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the same as Jehovah of the Old Testament, however, is indisputable. Here are some references:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple … (John 8:58-59.)

The expression “I am” is the standard trademark of Jehovah in the Old Testament, with which the Jews were familiar; hence their taking offence at His remark, and trying to stone Him, implying that He had committed blasphemy by identifying Himself with Jehovah. Here Jesus informs us that He is in fact Jehovah.

And [the Israelites who came out of Egypt] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4.)

The “Rock” referred to by Paul in the Old Testament signified Jehovah, thus implying that Jesus of the New Testament was in fact Jehovah. In the following scriptures “LORD” is a direct translation of the Hebrew “Jehovah”:

For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour … (Isaiah 43:3.)

This verse becomes more meaningful in the light of the quotations from Zechariah given below.

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto me, cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was priced at of them … (Zechariah 11:12-13.)

According to Matthew 27:9, this verse is a prophecy of the betrayal of Jesus Christ; yet it is Jehovah who is speaking, thus identifying Jesus with Jehovah.

In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I [LORD, Jehovah] will seek to destroy all nations that shall come against Jerusalem. And I [LORD, Jehovah] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me [Jehovah] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him … (Zechariah 12:8-10.)

By all accounts, this is an indisputable prophecy of the Second Coming of the Savior (see Revelation 1:7); and the identification of Jesus with Jehovah is undeniable. Jesus [Jehovah] is returning as the “Savior” of the Jews at His Second Coming in the last days, and they shall look upon Him Whom they have pierced.

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his [LORD, Jehovah’s] feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in twain in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west … (Zechariah 14:3-4.)

Again, this is an indisputable prophecy of the Second Coming of the Savior, identifying Jesus with Jehovah.

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jeremiah 23:5-6.)

This is another obvious and well-known prophecy of the coming of the Savior, who is named here THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS! “LORD” is a translation of Jehovah. In other words, this future king, the Savior, Jesus Christ, who will be born of the house of David, and will reign over Israel, shall be called JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS! I think that these references are pretty conclusive that Jesus of the New Testament is the same as Jehovah of the Old Testament. It presents a serious challenge to JW theology which I don’t think they have an answer for.

A Challenging Question for Latter-day Saints!

2009-07-19T16:44:00.000-07:00

In the well-known official “Proclamation” concerning the family published by the LDS Church in September 1995, the following paragraph appears:

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. . . . Source

This raises a question in LDS theology: How do you reconcile the above statement with the scriptural passages which suggest that our spirits in the preexistence were in fact created by Jesus Christ?

Mosiah 26:

23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

Ether 3:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

D&C 93:

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

In the past when I have discussed this subject with Latter-day Saints, they have replied that it refers to the physical or natural creation, not the spiritual one. That might have been a satisfactory explanation if it could be shown to be scripturally viable; but judging by the text of the scriptural references, I don’t think that it is. The use of the past tense, or of present perfect tense (which implies action completed) in the above verses, applied to all mankind not just to those in the past or present, implies more than just the physical creation. Take for example the last verse in the last quote: “The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him”. The use of the past tense, and the inclusion of “all things,” implies something more comprehensive than just the natural or physical creation. The same can be said for Ether 3:15.

In the book of Genesis, and especially in the book of Moses, it makes it clear that creation had two stages: first the spiritual, and then the natural; and that the two creations go in tandem. The two acts of creation are inseparable. The same God who created the second created the first:

Moses 3:

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

I don’t think it is possible in the economy of God to speak of only a “one-stage” creation of man, or of anything else, as further affirmed in the following verses:

D&C 29:

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my Spirit.

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—

32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

In the light of the above, I don’t think it is possible to conceive of anything other than a “two-stage creation” with the Divine. If Jesus indeed created “all things” including men, as it is stated in the scriptures, then that necessarily must include the spiritual as well as the temporal creation. Therefore I don’t think that that explanation is borne out by the scriptures. A different explanation will have to be given that is more in line with what has been revealed.

Moving on a little beyond that, further ambiguity surrounds the spiritual creation in LDS theology. Joseph Smith taught that the intelligence of man was not created, but is co-eternal with God. But a careful reading reveals some ambiguity in his teaching:

The mind of man is as immortal as God himself. . . . their spirits existed coequal [coeternal] with God, . . . Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. . . . I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. . . . God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. . . . Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. (Teachings, pp 352–54.)

Here Joseph Smith is not just talking about the “intelligence” of man, or whatever constitutes the “intelligent part” of him. He is actually talking about the spirit of man. He equates “mind” and “intelligence” with the spirit; and he says that it is the actual spirit of man that is eternal, has not been created. Joseph Smith of course did not pull that out of thin air. He obtained that information from the revelations that God had given to him, notably in the Book of Abraham:

Abraham 3:

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

* * *

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

In these verses the Lord equates “intelligence” with “spirit” and “soul,” and says that it is the actually spirit of man that is eternal, and has not been created. But the ambiguity doesn’t stop there. In section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord identifies this uncreated “intelligence” with the “light of truth,” as follows:

D&C 93:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

And in the following verses the “light of truth” is equated with the Holy Spirit which is also known as the “Spirit of truth”:

D&C 124:

9 And again, I will visit and soften their hearts, many of them for your good, that ye may find grace in their eyes, that they may come to the light of truth, and the Gentiles to the exaltation or lifting up of Zion.

D&C 88:

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth.

And of course, going back to the Book of Moses passages already cited, we are informed without hesitation that God is indeed the creator of the spirits of men in the pre-existence, which appears to contradict the Book of Abrham account, as well as the teachigs of Joseph Smith. All of this raises a number of theological questions for Latter-day Saints that may be summarized as follows:

1. What exactly is this part of man that has “not been created”? Is it his spirit, his intelligence, or his mind; or are they in fact all the same? How do you account for the different scriptural readings on the subject?

2. If the spirit of man was created, who did the creating: God the Father or Jesus Christ?

3. If the spiritual creation of man was indeed carried out by Jesus Christ, as many scriptural passages attest, how do you reconcile that with the teaching of the Proclamation on the family that each of our spirits is a “beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents”? Should we redefine the meaning of “procreation,” or “parantage,” in the pre-existence, or in the spiritual sphere, to accommodate the doctrinal discrepancies, or is there a different explanation?

A Friendly Advice to LDS Who Want to Debate Mormonism on the Internet

2009-04-23T06:46:00.000-07:00

I am sure many Latter-day Saints who like to debate Mormonism on the Internet think that they are smart enough to take care of themselves, and don’t need any advice from me—and they are probably right. This is intended for those who may find it useful.

The most important lesson you will learn from debating Mormonism on Christian discussion boards on the Internet is knowing when not to reply to someone. Very often it happens that the best reply you can give to someone is not to reply to them at all. In those situations, any other answer you give will be the wrong answer, and will put you at a disadvantage. It is difficult to lay down hard and fast rules when exactly to do that. It is like “teaching by the Spirit” (D&C 42:12). If you have the Spirit, you will know.

There are some people who as a general rule one should not reply to at all, except on rare occasions, and under the “constraint of the Spirit”:

D&C 63:64 “Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation.”

There are people out there who are in denial of the Holy Ghost; and it is actually a sin to engage them in debate:

1 John 5:16 “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.”

2 John 1:10–11 “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

So if we are not supposed to pray for them, and even say hello and good bye to them, then it stands to reason that we should not debate with them either. There are such folks around; and they tend to congregate on Christian message boards on the Internet. We recognize them by the Holy Ghost. (Apostates from the Church sometimes fall into this category.) This does not mean that one should never reply to them. On rare occasions it might be necessary to do so. But there is a difference between giving them an occasional appropriate response, and engaging them in lengthy and protracted debate. Jesus gave appropriate responses to the devil when He was being tempted by him (Matthew 4:1–11); but He did not sit down and argue with him!

You also need to decide whether you want to inform people or argue with them. There is a difference between somebody who has a genuine disagreement with us and is willing to engage in a genuine discussion about those differences, and somebody who has no interest in the answers you give and just wants to argue. Again, we recognize them by the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps some would say, When these folks challenge our beliefs, it becomes necessary to address their challenges because not to do so would amount to some kind of defeat. That is not true. Firstly, when someone is making bogus challenges, you are not the only one who will recognize it. Others will recognize it too, and will understand when you do not reply to them. Secondly, did you know that the most devastating response you can give to a persistent critic of the Church is to consistently ignore them? They feed on your replies. They thrive on it. Ignore them, and they will die away.

These are some of the rules of the game and tricks of the trade that I have picked up as I have discussed Mormonism with Christians of other faiths on the Internet over several years. You can have the benefit of my experience, or learn it the hard way!

Why Did God Put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden?

2009-04-16T17:02:00.000-07:00

Some questions arose during my discussions on Christian message boards regarding the doctrine of the Fall of Adam and the Original Sin, which may be summarized as follows:

Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden?
Why did He command them not to partake of it? What was wrong with having a knowledge of good and evil?
Why did He allow Satan to tempt them to partake of the fruit?
Why was the penalty of death assigned to partaking of the fruit?

My answers to these questions are given below:

Q1. Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden?

The purpose of man coming to earth was so that he could be tested and tried to see if he would be obedient to the will of God, and choose good over evil; and ultimately be rewarded accordingly:

Abraham 3:

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.

This is also attested by many passages in the Bible, where man is enjoined to always do good and avoid evil:

Deuteronomy 10:

12 And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

Micah 6:

8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God

1 Peter 3:

10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

And God has appointed a day of judgment in which mankind will be judged according to their works, and each will receive a reward according to how their works have been:

Acts 17:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

None of these would have been possible without the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil; for without it man could have chosen neither good nor evil. The acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was a necessary prerequisite so he could be placed in a situation so that the above testing could take place. God placed the tree in the garden so that man by partaking of it might acquire a knowledge of good and evil.

Q2. Why did God command them not to partake of the fruit? What was wrong with having a knowledge of good and evil?

There is nothing wrong with the knowledge of good and evil per se. Indeed, as shown above, it was even necessary so that man could be made accountable for his actions and tested. But there was also a problem with it. Partaking of the fruit did not just give them a theoretical knowledge of good and evil; it placed them in a condition in which they would have to choose between good and evil—and suffer the consequences. It put them in a position where they would have to learn by experience the difference between good and evil. But God knew that if He placed mankind in that situation, that most (if not all) men, through the weakness of human nature and the force of circumstance, as well as the temptations of the devil, would choose evil rather than good, and fall into sin, and could not be saved. Therefore a plan was devised from “before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:18–20; Revelation 13:8) that would rescue man from his fallen state, should he partake of the fruit; and that plan was the Atonement of Jesus Christ. But in order for that plan to be put into effect, another condition had to be fulfilled; and that was death.

When Adam and Eve were first created, they were immortal and eternal beings. There was no death. If they sinned in that state, and remained in that state, their sin would have eternally remained with them, and there would have been no opportunity for repentance. That is why after the resurrection there is no possibility of repentance (Alma 34:33–35). Death was required so that this period of mortality would become a state of probation, a “preparatory state” (Alma 12:26; 42:10, 13) in which man could “repent and prepare to meet God” (Alma 12:24). Then, through the Atonement, a resurrection would take place which would “restore” mankind to that immortal and eternal state that they were in before the Fall (Alma 11:42–44; 40:22–24); and a final judgment would decide everyone’s fait. (Death was also necessary to fulfill the Atonement; if the sentence of death had not been passed on Adam, Christ could not have died to atone for the sins of the world.) So there were two trees placed in the Garden: one the tree of life, which enabled them to live forever; and the other the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which (necessarily) led to death. Thus the tree of good and evil was put in the Garden of Eden, and the penalty of death was affixed to partaking of it; and man was given the opportunity to eat from it and suffer the consequences if he chose to. But a plan was put in place to rescue him from the consequences of his actions should he partake of the fruit. The punishment of death for eating of the fruit was not exactly a “punishment” as such; but a necessary requirement to bring about the eventual salvation of man. Without it mankind could not have repented after sinning, and without repentance the plan of salvation could not have been put into effect. And without it also Christ could not have died to atone for the sins of mankind.

Partaking of the fruit was a sin because God had commanded them not to do it; not because it was something inherently wrong or immoral. The explanation that God gave to Adam and Eve for not partaking of the fruit was that if they did so, they would “surely die”:

Genesis 2:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It is like being warned not to eat a certain poisonous substance because if we did, we would certainly die! Eating the poisonous substance is not immoral. It is just not a good idea if you intend to stay alive! The only thing that made it a sin was the commandment of God to them not to do it; but the reason why God had commanded them not to do so was the penalty of death that was (necessarily) affixed to it, not because it was something inherently wrong or immoral. Thus the tree was planted in the Garden of Eden, and man was given the opportunity to partake of it if he chose to; and the commandment was issued not eat of the fruit, the penalty of death having been assigned to breaking commandment in order to fulfill the “merciful plan of the great creator” (2 Nephi 9:6). This doctrine is explained in the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 9:6–7; Alma 12:23–35; 34:33–35; 42:3–24.

Q3. Why did God allow Satan to tempt them to partake of it?

This is explained in the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 2:11–27.

Q4. Why was the penalty of death assigned to partaking of the tree?

This has already been explained earlier; but to summarize: the penalty of death was not so much a punishment for partaking of the forbidden fruit, as a necessary consequence of it in order to put into effect the plan of salvation through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. But it became a kind of punishment for it because of the commandment that God had given them not to partake of the fruit.

Do Mormons Believe in the Original Sin?

2009-04-05T16:18:00.000-07:00

That depends on whose Original Sin you are talking about. According to this Wikipedia article on Original Sin, it has a wide variety of meanings and definitions depending on which church you go to and what Christian tradition you adhere to. LDS believe in a limited version of the Original Sin, but not the full-blown version of it that some Christian churches believe in. We accept that aspect of Original Sin that says that as a consequence of the sin of Adam, mankind has acquired a tendency or disposition to commit sin. This is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:19 “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.”

Ether 3:2 “. . . for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires.”

But we reject that aspect of it that says that mankind is guilty because of the Original Sin. That has been the traditional Christian theology of the Original Sin. According to that theology, a man is guilty because of the Original Sin, even if he himself has not done anything wrong. That has been the logic behind infant baptism. According to that theology, a newborn infant is guilty not because he did something wrong, but because Adam did something wrong; and he will go to hell if he died in infancy without baptism. That is the aspect of the Original Sin that we reject completely. Our second Article of Faith states: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” That is why we don’t baptize infants. We believe that all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven without the need for baptism.

As regards infant baptism, it was not a practice of the early church; it was a later development. Jesus and His Apostles did not baptized little children. Catholics would say otherwise; but they have no evidence to prove it. Not only is there no direct evidence that it was practiced; there is even evidence against it. It contradicts the theology of the gospel taught in the New Testament. One obvious reason is that repentance was a necessary prerequisite to baptism; and since infants cannot repent, they cannot fulfill the necessary requirement for baptism. Another obvious reason is that baptism was performed for the remission of sins. Again, since infants cannot sin, their baptism cannot have any theological validity—unless, of course, you believed that infants have “sinned in Adam;” which was indeed the original catholic position regarding infants—hence their doctrine of infant baptism. Here are the scriptural references:

Matthew 3:6 “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”

Matthew 3:11 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”

Mark 1:4 “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

Luke 3:3 “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Acts 19:4 “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

These requirements obviously cannot apply to infants, who can neither repent, nor have they committed any sins that need to be “remitted”.

Another obvious indication is that Jesus clearly taught that little Children are unconditionally saved, without the need for any sacraments:

Matthew 19:14 “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Mark 10:14 “But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

Luke 18:16 “But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

So not only there is no evidence for infant baptisms in the primitive church; all the available evidence points in the contrary. Therefore we can safely conclude that infant baptism was not a practice of the early Christian church.

When I have discussed this subject with Catholics, they nearly always respond by saying that the Catholic Church does not teach that an infant will go to hell without baptism! That may be true today; but it was not always so. That is a relatively new development. The earliest Catholic teaching was that infants will go hell without baptism. Then in the 12th century Peter Abelard proposed limbo, which became the standard Catholic teaching until around the council of Trent. Since then the doctrine has changed once again to what it is today.

The Catholic Church’s current position is that it is not known what happens to infants who die in infancy without baptism! Again, Catholics often deny that “Limbo” was the official teaching of the Church; but evidence suggests otherwise:

Pope Innocent III accepted Abelard’s Doctrine of Limbo, which amended Augustine of Hippo’s Doctrine of Original Sin. The Vatican accepted the view that unbaptized babies did not, as at first believed, go straight to Hell but to a special area of limbo, “limbus infantium”. They would therefore feel no pain but no supernatural happiness either (only natural) because, it was held, they would not be able to see the deity that created them. Source.

Do Mormons Believe in the Trinity?

2009-04-05T06:24:00.000-07:00

The answer is yes; we believe in the Trinity of the Bible; but not the Trinity of post-Apostate Christendom. The English word Trinity is derived from Latin Trinitas, meaning “the number three, a triad”. The corresponding word in Greek is Τριάς, meaning “a set of three” or “the number three”. (See Wikipedia article on the Trinity.)

It simply referred to the three members of the Godhead—the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. It did not have the connotations that modern Trinitarians like to put on it. Other English equivalents of the word could be trio, triad, trilogy, triple, triumvirate, or trine. They all basically convey the same idea. They mean three! Its use in early Christianity came out of the realization that the three members of the Godhead are sometimes referenced or invoked together or as though acting in concert, as in these quotes:

Matthew 3:16–17: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (See also Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32.)

Luke 1:35: “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Hebrews 9:14: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Acts 7:55: “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,”

Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.”

That is how the word Trinity originated. It simply meant the three members of the Godhead. It was not an attempt to define how the three are united, act in unison, or are “one”. Well, Latter-day Saints very much believe in the three members of the Godhead—the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. Our very first Article of Faith states that “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. That is the Trinity.

Latter-day Saints who discuss this subject with Christians of other faiths, or with LDS critics, are often unwilling to say that we believe in the Trinity, because they associate the word with the Trinitarian theology of traditional Christianity. But that is a mistake. When the critics of the Church assert that Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity, they want to create the false impression that Mormons do not believe in the three members of the Godhead—the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost—which of course is not correct. Mormons very much believe in the three members of the Godhead. So the correct answer to that question is that Mormons believe in Trinity of the Bible, which is the correct doctrine of the Trinity; but not in Trinitarianism, or in the Trinitarian theology of traditional Christianity. They are two different things. Trinitarianism has no biblical basis. It is a false theology that developed after the Apostasy of the early Christian church.

Answering Bill McKeever!

2009-01-27T07:11:00.000-08:00

Bill McKeever, who has gained a reputation as a critic of Mormonism, has written a book in collaboration with Eric Johnson entitled, Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend: Challenging the Claims of Latter-day Saints in a Constructive Manner. It has received critical reviews from two LDS academics which can be read here.

My style of answering such critics, however, is different from the way in which LDS scholars usually reply to them. His style of attacking Mormonism is more conversational than written; and I believe the best way to address his questions is through a one-to-one dialogue. I haven’t read his book; but according to one of the reviews mentioned above, his book can be summarized into fifteen short questions that he recommends one should ask of a Mormon. Below are my answers to his “fifteen questions”:

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q. If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?

A. Yes, when you are baptized!

Q. Which First Vision account should we believe?

A. All of them.

Q. How do you determine doctrinal truth?

A. By the standard works.

Q. What if the Bible is translated correctly after all?

A. Which translation of the Bible are you referring to? And do you intend to guarantee that it is 100% error free?

Q. If the Bible is corrupt, why doesn’t the LDS Church use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

A. We don’t claim that the Bible is “corrupt;” and we do use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

Q. Why should a person pray about the Book of Mormon when the Bible says we should not rely on such a subjective test?

A. Prayer is not a “subjective test”. That says more about your lack of faith in God than the objectivity of prayer.

Q. Is it wise to place blind trust in mere mortal men?

A. Obviously not—and so?

Q. Why does the Mormon church ignore Jesus’ role as prophet of God’s Church?

A. Absurd question. Makes no sense.

Q. Is the Mormon priesthood really of ancient origin?

A. Yes.

Q. Where in the Bible does it say a person has to be worthy to enter the temple?

A. 1 Corinthians 3:17.

Q. What historical support does the Mormon Church have to justify baptism for the dead?

A. 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Q. If Mormon families will be together forever, where will the in-laws live?

A. Irrelevant question.

Q. Do you really believe you can become a God?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever sinned the same sin twice?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you keeping the whole law?

A. Which law? And what is “the whole law”?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is my way of answering his questions. A lengthy and elaborate reply is not required. If he has a problem with these answers, he can come here and tell us why, and I can discuss it further with him here, or in a more suitable venue elsewhere.

Who Scuppered the Chances of a Republican Victory in the U.S. Presidential Election?

2008-11-05T02:23:00.000-08:00

The Evangelicals did! The Republicans had a winning candidate in the election. It was Mitt Romney. If he had been able to remain in the race, there is every likelihood that he would have prevailed over Barack Obama. The Evangelicals sabotaged his chances because of their hatred and jealousy of Mormonism. The Republicans have them to thank for their loss.

Mitt Romney was not only a strong candidate to win; he was also a man who was ideally suited for the job, with his track record of excellent economic management, at a time of serious economic and financial difficulties in the United States and abroad. The Evangelicals thought that if he won, that would be too good an advertisement for Mormonism, so they went into overdrive to do all in their power to ruin his chances of success. At first they embarked on a viscous round of negative campaigning centered on his religion. When they discovered that that strategy was not working (it was in fact counterproductive. Americans don’t like mixing politics with religion; even the religious ones don’t), then they finally hit on a winning strategy. They made Mike Huckabee to run as a stalking horse to draw away the Christian vote from Romney.

Huckabee was an outsider. He joined the race quite late in the campaign, almost as an afterthought. He and everyone else knew that he did not have a chance to win. So why did he do it? Well, he did have one qualification that suited the purpose of the Evangelicals: he was a Southern Baptist minister as well as being a politician. That made him the ideal candidate to draw the conservative Christian vote away from Mitt Romney—and it worked! He appeared from nowhere, and disappeared again into nowhere. He was like a meteorite that briefly appeared on the political horizon, and then just as quickly disappeared again. But that brief moment was sufficient for him to decoy the Christian vote away from Romney, thus robbing the Republicans of a winning candidate for the presidential election. Now they know whom to thank for their great loss.

I think that the Evangelicals and Mormons ought to declare a truce. They have more in common than they have differences. They share many of the same ideals. They can achieve a lot more by working together for the common good of society—the values that they share—than by working against each other. Romney’s agenda would have been closer to the Evangelicals’ than Obama’s. They have hurt themselves as well as their country by their unpatriotic act. When the country wakes up, I don’t think that they will easily forgive them for that. People have their own ways of punishing those who have deceived them, when they discover that they have been deceived.

Evangelicals will never be able to defeat Mormonism. It will go from strength to strength, and they won’t be able to stop it. In ten years time Mormonism will be twice as big; and in twenty years time it will be four times as big. What will they do about it then? The Evangelicals are “kicking against the pricks” (Acts 9:5) by fighting against Mormonism; and they will only hurt themselves in the process.

Mormonism has its own momentum. It will not grow faster or slower depending on who becomes the President of the United States—or who doesn’t. The only thing that will make it grow faster is opposition from its adversaries. Brigham Young said that you can only kick Mormonism upstairs, not downstairs! (JD 7:145.) That was a true statement born of experience. History and experience had taught him that Mormonism is strengthened and grows faster when it has been under the greatest pressure, and faced the greatest opposition. Evangelicals will only hurt themselves by fighting against Mormonism. Eventually they will have to come to terms with it and make peace with it, or suffer greater losses.

______________

P.S.

The purpose of this article was not to express disappointment with Obama’s victory, but to highlight the role of the Evangelicals (or of their leaders) in the Republican defeat. Obama is now the new President of the United States, and he deserves the support and good will of all Americans. He ran a good campaign, and deserves the victory he got. It was not his fault that he Republicans messed up.

Actually, the Republicans didn’t mess up. The Evangelicals (or rather their leaders) sabotaged their chances for them. What they need to do now is to put in place a mechanism in their party structure that will minimize the chances of that happening again. No religious group should have so much influence that they can change the course of political history contrary to the wishes of the majority of its citizens.

Imagine what would have happened if somebody had made Jesse Jackson to run alongside Obama in the Democratic primaries in order to split the Obama vote; chances are that neither of them would have won, and Hillary Clinton would have come out the winner. Well, that is what the Evangelicals did to the Republican Party.

A straight fight between Romney and McCain would have led to a Romney victory; a straight fight between Romney and Huckabee would have led to a Romney victory; but the presence of all three of them together led to the Romney defeat, and with it the defeat of the whole party. That is a perversion of the democratic process. It shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

The Evangelicals basically said, We would rather have a Democrat in the White House than a Republican President who is a Mormon. The result of that was that they got a Democrat in the White House. If the Democrats had said, We would rather have a Republican become President than a Democrat who is black, they would have been in the same situation as the Republicans are. But they had the good sense not to—and they won. They deserved to.

When religion (or racism) starts taking over the course of events in a political party, that is bad news for any political party that allows it to happen. I fear there is a faction in the Republican party which is guilty of both. The Republicans need to figure out how they can prevent that situation from arising in the future.

______________

P.P.S

A note about the leadership in the Evangelical Movement will be instructive. The Evangelicals do not have a centrally organized structure like the LDS Church or the Catholic Church. It is a loosely organized body of independently operated Churches. Their leaders are not “appointed” to that position, or paid a “salary” for it. They are more “self-appointed” than anything else. They “emerge” by demonstrating talent, oratory skills, and the ability to attract a crowd. At the local congregational level they may be appointed and be salaried ministers.

Then there is another group of people in the Evangelical movement whom I would describe as “activists” rather than “leaders”. They are a larger group than the first, and they tend to be more extreme and fanatical in their views. They are the “foot soldiers” in the Evangelical movement who do the dirty work for them. Lawrence O’Donnell’s TV rant on Mormonism is a typical example (he is is not Evangelical, but he drinks from the same trough). A lower quality video (wmv) file of the same show can be downloaded here. Hugh Hewitt’s radio interview with O’Donnell is an interesting follow-up, the transcript of which can be read here.

That video clip provides an interesting case study. All of Lawrence O’Donnell’s raving and ranting against Mormonism and Mitt Romney actually backfires, because everyone else on the show (none of whom are Mormons!) is made to defend Mormonism and Mitt Romney. Pat Buchanan does a great job of it, and so does everyone else in fact who is there.

The Evangelicals’ initial strategy of smear campaign against Romney based on his religion backfired quite badly. It is only when that strategy manifestly failed that they had to think of a different one, which finally worked—that of making Mike Huckabee to run as a stalking horse to split the conservative Christian vote. The only trouble with that strategy was that it worked too well! It not only put Romney out of the race; it brought down the entire Republican Party! Served them right I guess. With such friends, who needs enemies? LOL!

This post was revised on the 25th December 2008.

What is a Christian?

2008-10-23T16:16:00.000-07:00

In the days when Jesus walked the face of the earth, His followers were not called “Christians”. The word “Christian” had not yet been invented—and would not be until quite some time after His death. In the days of Christ, His followers were called disciples.

The word disciple(s) occurs 272 times in the New Testament. The great majority of these relate to the discipleship of Jesus Christ. There are a few that don’t, because Jesus was not the only one that had disciples. The Pharisees and John the Baptist also had disciples. But the great majority of the references relates to the disciples of Jesus Christ.

The word disciple was applied to the followers of Jesus Christ not only during His lifetime, but also for some time after His death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. Here are some examples:

Matthew 28:

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

In this verse “teach” means “make disciples of.” The following are some more verses that illustrate this point:

Acts 1:

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, …

Acts 6:

7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied …

Acts 9:

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, …

* * *

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; …

* * *

36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, …

The word “Christian” occurs for the first time in the New Testament in the following context:

Acts 11:

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

The word “Christian” was in fact a nickname applied to the followers of Jesus by the unbelievers; which is why it took a long time before it gained currency among the Christians themselves as a common adjective to be applied to them. The followers of Jesus still continued to be called “disciples” within the church for a long time after that, as the following verses illustrate:

Acts 13:

52 And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 14:

28 And there they abode long time with the disciples.

Acts 20:

1 And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.

* * *

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; …

Acts 21:

4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: …

Interestingly, in modern LDS scripture the word disciple is used in preference to the word “Christian” when referencing the believers in Jesus Christ. The word “disciple” occurs 54 times in the Book of Mormon, and 23 times in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Mormon is an ancient Hebrew-Christian text, so that is not surprising. But the Doctrine and Covenants is a completely modern book of revelations; and it prefers the word “disciple” over “Christian” when referring to the true followers of Jesus—as is the case in the New Testament. Here are some examples:

D&C 1:

4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.

D&C 18:

27 … and the Twelve shall be my disciples, and they shall take upon them my name; …

D&C 41:

5 He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, …

D&C 45:

32 But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved; …

D&C 52:

40 And remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple.

D&C 84:

91 And he that doeth not these things is not my disciple; by this you may know my disciples.

D&C 103:

28 And whoso is not willing to lay down his life for my sake is not my disciple.

This leads us to the first important conclusion we must draw in our quest to define the word “Christian”:

Point #1: A Christian is a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

Having determined that a Christian is in fact a disciple of Jesus Christ, next we need to establish the criteria by which a true disciple can be identified. In the days of Christ, that was relatively easy. The disciples were those who followed Him and obeyed His instructions. The ordinary Jews or the Pharisees of that time did not appear to have any difficulty identifying the disciples of Jesus, as the following verses demonstrate:

Matthew 9:

14 … Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?

Matthew 12:

2 … Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

Matthew 15:

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? …

Matthew 17:

16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.

Luke 9:

40 And I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not.

Luke 19:

39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.

Of course, not all of those who followed Jesus were necessarily sincere in their discipleship; but Jesus had a way of driving away the insincere ones, and retaining only the sincere and committed disciples. Here are some examples of things He did or said that would drive away the insincere or uncommitted disciples:

Matthew 8:

19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

John 6:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

So in the days of Jesus it was not too difficult to identify His true disciples. Those who followed Him and “walked with Him” were His disciples. The question becomes a little harder when we look to the period beyond His earthly ministry. But luckily, Jesus has not left us completely clueless about that. He has given us many clues as to how we can still identify His true disciples, even after His death:

John 8:

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed

John 13:

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 15:

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Luke 6:

46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

John 14:

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

* * *

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 15:

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1 John 5:

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

* * *

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Matthew 7:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 5:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

These verses (and more that could be given) identify the characteristics of a true disciple of Jesus Christ. A true disciple is someone who believes in Jesus and lives by His commandments. However, since “believing” in Him is something that can be faked; therefore it is the second aspect of the criterion that is emphasized above all else in the scriptures cited. Anyone can falsely claim or pretend to “believe” in Jesus, and identify himself as a true disciple. But faking the “fruits” is not such an easy thing to do. That is why Jesus has made the fruits the determining factor by which a true disciple can be known, rather than the mere expression of “faith”. That was the major fault that Jesus found with the religious teachers and leaders of the Jews—they outwardly professed faith or belief, but lacked the “fruits” to prove it. He quoted to them the prophecy of Isaiah:

Matthew 15:

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

So it is easy to fake a belief in Jesus Christ; but it is not so easy to fake obedience to His commandments. Hence Jesus has made that the final deciding factor by which a true disciple—a true Christian—can be identified. This leads us to the second and final conclusion in our attempts to define the word Christian:

Point #2: A Christian is someone who brings forth fruits expected of a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

Having determined an accurate barometer by which to decide what is and what is not a Christian, it is interesting to see how we can apply this criterion to various Christian churches, and see how they measure up against that standard. Of course, it is not a civil or charitable thing to do to try to judge another church’s Christian credentials. I think that we should allow every church or religion to define itself. If somebody told me that he is a Muslim or a Zoroastrian, I would take his word for it that he is what he claims to be, and respect him for his religion. I wouldn’t tell him that he is not really a Muslim or Zoroastrian; but he is a Jew or a Buddhist! However, since many Christian churches have taken it upon themselves to question the Christian credentials of Latter-day Saints, I think that makes it “open season” for them, and permits us to scrutinize them for their Christian credentials.

With so many thousands of churches in existence, it is not practicable to try to survey every one of them to see how they measure up against this standard—neither is it my intention here to determine which churches are truly Christian and which are not. The purpose of this article is to decide on an accurate, biblical and theological criterion by which the “Christianity” of a church or denomination can be determined. The application of the criterion I leave to others. But an example on how such a criterion might be applied in practice might be helpful.

There are some large Evangelical charismatic “mega churches” (or their leaders) that have been involved in financial and moral scandals. I would say they are not bearing the right “fruits”. Some churches, like the Episcopalian in the United States, not only condone homosexual practices; but even ordain practicing homosexuals to their ministry. I don’t think that they are bearing the kind of “fruits” that Jesus would have approved of. I would be inclined to rank these very low in my scale of Christian credentials. The Catholic Church has had a long history of actions such as the Crusades or the Inquisition that would count as negatives in the list of “fruits”. At times in its history the Catholic priesthood has been very immoral and corrupt. They count as large negatives. But at the same time the Catholic Church has come a long way since those days, and instituted many reforms that cancel out many of the negatives. Of course, not everything in the history of the Catholic Church has been negative. The positive points outweigh the negative ones. I would be inclined to rank them higher in the scale of their Christian credentials than the mainstream Protestantism.

Some small fringe protestant groups like the Amish people have exemplified the “fruits” of discipleship far above their fellow Protestants or Catholics. I would be inclined to rank them higher than all the rest in the scale of Christian credentials.

There is one group, however, that scores lowest of all in my estimation in the scale of Christian discipleship; and they are the Protestant, right wing, conservative, Baptist, Calvinist, “Evangelical” Christian groups who not only have very little “good fruits” to show for themselves; but even reject it as a matter of theological principle. They say you don’t need to do good at all! All you have to do is “believe,” and you are done! It is one thing to accept a correct principle, but fail to live by it; it is quite another to adopt a totally false principle, and actively promote and teach it and live by it, and be ideologically fanatical about it. For the first there is a hope; for the second there is no hope! They fail the test of “judging them by their fruits” at the most basic level, because they don’t believe in any “fruits” at all! I would rank them the lowest of all in the scale of Christian credentials as true disciples of Jesus Christ.

A Response to Dr. R. A. Mohler on Mormonism

2008-05-01T13:38:00.000-07:00

In June of 2007 a debate was initiated by Beliefnet between Dr R Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and also Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary (and a vocal critic of Mormonism); and Orson Scot Card, a freelance writer and a Mormon. During this discussion each posted three essays in response to the other arguing their case, which may be seen on Beliefnet’s website. The first article by Mohler was posted on 28 June 2007, and the last by Card on 26 July 2007. Each post attracted many comments from readers. As I studied these exchanges, I felt that Orson Card had not tackled the challenges to Mormonism presented to him by Dr Mohler head on, and Mohler was to some extent justified in claiming that his main objections had not been addressed. In this essay I will attempt to address his objections more directly. Mohler begins his first article, which he titles: Mormonism is not Christianity, with these words (emphasis added):

Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.

The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.

We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.

Notice that the criterion that is used here to determine the “Christianity” of Mormonism is what is termed “Christian orthodoxy”. That in itself raises some important questions, before we can even attempt to discuss Mormonism: What is “Christian orthodoxy,” and who gets to define it? For example, is the infallibility of the Pope part of Christian orthodoxy? If not, why not? What about the Immaculate Conception, the assumption of Mary, the seven sacraments, or Transubstantiation? Are these part of “Christian orthodoxy,” and if not, why not? How about the belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, or the Pope is the Anti-Christ? Those were the core beliefs of the Protestant Reformers and the Protestant Religion to which Dr Mohler belongs. Is that part of “Christian orthodoxy”? If not, why not? What has changed? What determines “Christian orthodoxy”?

The trouble with using “Christian orthodoxy” as a yardstick is that there is no generally accepted definition of it across mainstream Christianity that one can adopt. I have searched the Internet for such a definition, and found none. It is a yardstick that Dr Mohler can determine the size and length of it himself—very convenient!

Asking whether Mormonism is Christian or not according to the arbitrary criterion of “Christian orthodoxy,” as determined by Dr Mohler, is like determining whether the Earth is flat according to the criteria laid down by the Flat Earth Society. Well, according to that criteria it probably is! But those are hardly objective criteria by which to determine whether the earth is flat or not. Card’s biggest mistake was to agree to debate Mormonism on the basis of this narrow, limited, biased, one sided, sectarian definition of what constitutes true Christianity. Mormonism teaches that historical Christianity is in fact Apostate. So what Mohler identifies as “orthodox Christianity” is in fact “Apostate Christianity”. The question posed therefore amounts to: “Is Mormonism Christian according to the standard of Apostate Christianity?” Well, I should think not! Card made a fundamental error to agree to debate Mormonism on the basis of such a flawed criterion. If a criterion is to be used, it should be one that is acceptable to both sides; not one that Mohler and Beliefnet have cooked up between them to corner Mormonism.

Dr Mohler has also been a shade dishonest in his use of this criterion. When Card raised an objection to it, in his second article Mohler responds with these words:

The first matter of concern is to clarify the question. When I asked, “Are Mormons ‘Christians’ as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?,” I was stating the question exactly as it was put to me [by Beliefnet]. The words “as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy” were part of my assignment, not my imposition.

Well and good—but there is a catch. The catch is that Dr Mohler does not limit himself strictly to that conditional definition. He portrays that criterion as being the soul, legitimate, valid, and objective criterion by which the Christianity of Mormonism (or any other church) can be determined. For example, the title of his first article reads: “Mormonism Is Not Christianity”. No sign of the limited conditionality based on a flawed criterion. The title of his third article reads: “Mormonism Is a Sincerely False Gospel”. Again, no sign of the limited conditionality based on a flawed criterion. He follows that subtle deception throughout his articles. Here are a couple of typical quotes from his first and second articles:

Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.

Of course, the only way we know this is because we do have an objective standard by which to judge what is and is not Christianity, and that is the very “traditional Christian orthodoxy” that Mr. Card and Mormonism reject.

The answer to that is, Who says? Was that decided by Beliefnet too? By what right? Who gave Beliefnet the right to lay down the criterion by which the Christianity of any religion should be determined? Dr Mohler wants to have his cake and eat it. When the arbitrary and flawed nature of his criterion is pointed out to him, he backs off and says, “That wasn’t me, that was Beliefnet!” But when nobody is looking, he portrays it as the soul objective criterion by which the Christianity of a religion can be determined—not a very honest way to debate religion.

Dr Mohler’s arguments against Mormonism are rather primitive and limited, and contain very little that is of any substance. He says that the question was put to him “theologically;” but there is very little of “theological” substance that he puts forward as an argument. Most of his criticisms consist of generalized comments that one cannot respond to except with another generalized comment. Here is a typical example from his second article:

Mormonism uses the language of Christian theology and makes many references to Christ. Mr. Card wants to define Christianity in a most minimal way, theologically speaking. If I were arguing the other side of this question, I would attempt the same. But Christianity has never been defined in terms of merely thinking well of Jesus. Mormonism claims to affirm the New Testament teachings about Jesus, but actually presents a very different Jesus from the onset. A reading of Mormonism’s authoritative documents makes this clear.

Well, it is impossible to argue against that (in the same amount of space at least), except by making another generalized statement of the same length to the contrary, which would not be very enlightening to anybody.

The paucity of any solid arguments that he brings against Mormonism, however, also makes it an easy subject for rebuttal. His entire arguments in the three articles that he has put forward can be summarized in just a couple of short sentences, as follows:

1. Mormonism is not Christian because it does not conform to the standard of “historical Christian orthodoxy” (as he chooses to define it himself).

2. For a theological justification he merely cites LDS rejection of the historical Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, without offering anything by way of detailed theological analysis or discussion.

That is easy to answer. In response to the first objection my answer is, What he calls “Christian orthodoxy” I call Apostate Christianity; and Apostate Christianity cannot provide the standard by which to measure true Christianity. The LDS Church teaches that historical Christianity is Apostate. It went into Apostasy in the first century; and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity. Apostate Christianity cannot by any stretch of the imagination provide the yardstick with which to measure true Christianity. Some other criterion would have to be used that could be acceptable to both sides.

As for his criticism of the LDS rejection of traditional Trinitarianism, that has already been addressed and discussed hundreds of times. The most recent example I can think of is the address given by LDS Apostle Elder Jeffrey R Holland in the October 2007 General Conference entitled: “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent”. In this sermon Elder Holland makes a convincing case for the separate identity of the members of the Trinity or the Godhead, which is the LDS theological position. If Dr Mohler is a serious theologian, let him rebut that, instead of making generalized attacks on Mormonism which cannot be pinned down to anything.

For the remainder of this post I am going to quote selected passages from Mohler’s three articles which require special comments, and briefly comment on them:

From his first article.

Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself—that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.

What does he mean by “the structure of Christian orthodoxy”? There is no such thing. There are a thousand and one Christian churches in the world, each of whom have their own “structure”—and each claims to be the right one. There is no such thing even as a “Christian orthodoxy,” never mind its “structure”.

Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

Not true. That is not the theological position of Mormonism. We believe that historical Christianity was able to generate genuine faith in Christ; and all such as have believed and lived by the commandments will be saved. We believe that historical Christianity contains many gospel truths, but also errors. We believe that as the result of the Apostasy the priesthood authority of it was lost, but not its ability to generate saving faith in Christ (see 3 Nephi 16:6–7; D&C 10:53–56).

Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.

That is an utter falsehood and a blatant lie. Mohler claims that he has read the Book of Mormon, and I believe him. Anybody who has read the Book of Mormon will know that that is not true. Here is a link to search results for the word “Christ” in the Book of Mormon. It finds all the recorded instances of it, and quotes the verses in which they occur. The reader can judge for himself the truth of Mohler’s assertion.

Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus.

The LDS Church would not have any problems with the Apostles’ Creed. It is with the councilor creeds that the theological problems begin to arrise. The Apostles’ Creed was not written by the church councils. It dates back to the obscure history of early Christianity, and its teachings are acceptable to LDS.

From his second article.

At the same time, I was glad the question was asked in this manner, for it is the only way I can provide an answer that matters. The question could surely be asked in other ways and we could attempt to define Christianity in terms of sociology, phenomenology, the history of religions, or any number of other disciplines. In any of these cases, someone with specific training in these fields should provide the argument.

The question could simply refer to common opinion—do people on the street believe that Mormonism is Christianity? But then the matter would be in better hands among the pollsters.

In any event, the question was framed theologically, and it was framed by Beliefnet in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” With the question structured that way, the answer is clear and unassailable—Mormonism is not Christianity. When the question is framed this way, Mr. Card and I actually agree, as his essay makes clear.

That is a bit disingenuous. There is another criterion that can be used to determine the Christianity of Mormonism, acceptable to both sides, that Mohler knows about but chooses to ignore—that is the Bible. That is the criterion that the Protestant Reformers used during the Reformation to challenge Catholicism. “Christian orthodoxy” was not the criterion that was used—for a good reason. At that time the Catholic Church owned “Christian orthodoxy,” whichever way you wanted to define it! The Protestant Reformers would not have stood a chance if they wanted to use that as their criterion; therefore Sola Scriptura became the order of the day. Now with Mormonism, Sola Scriptura seems to have gone out of fashion, or conveniently forgotten about; and “Christian orthodoxy” become suddenly fashionable! Very convenient! If Beliefnet is willing to extend to me the invitation, I am willing to challenge Dr Mohler to a debate on Mormonism based on the Bible as the criterion. Let’s see if they will accept!

Nevertheless, if I were a Mormon arguing that Mormonism is Christianity, I would be very reluctant to suggest that those I am seeking to persuade should read the Book of Mormon. Nothing will more quickly reveal the distance between Mormon theology and historic Christianity.

For his information, the Book of Mormon is the greatest conversion tool of Mormonism, with the possible exception of the Joseph Smith Testimony.

Mormons want their religion to be seen as another form of Christianity. In other words, they want to identify with what from their inception they sought to deny.

Wrong! Mormons want their religion to be seen as a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity; not as another form of Apostate Christianity.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,” as Mormonism is officially known, claims to be the only true church. As stated in the Doctrine and Covenants [1:30], Mormonism is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”

Dr Mohler does say some true things about Mormonism on rare occasions (not intentionally I am sure!) and this is one of them.

According to Mormon teaching, the church was corrupted after the death of the apostles and became the “Church of the Devil.”

False! That is not the position of the LDS Church, as explained above. There is such a thing as the church of the devil; but that is not how it is defined in LDS theology. It is defined as follows:

2 Nephi 10:

16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

“Whore of all the earth” is euphemism for the church of the devil. Thus “church of the devil” consists of those only who fight against Zion (meaning the true Church of God), not just to anybody who is a Christian of some other denomination.

Mormonism then claims that the true church was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the 1820s. This restored church was, Mormon theology claims, given the keys to the kingdom and the authority of the only true priesthood.

True!

Why would Mormonism now want to be identified as a form of Christianity, when its central historical claim is that the churches commonly understood to be Christian are part of the Church of the Devil?

Too many falsehoods stuck together. Fact 1: Mormonism sees itself as the Restoration of the original and true from of Christianity; and therefore does not need to seek to identify itself with Apostate Christianity. Fact 2: Mormonism does not see historical Christianity as the church of the devil.

From his third article.

Indeed, the subtitle printed on The Book of Mormon is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” A “testament,” that is, other than that accepted by the historic Christian churches.

That is a misstatement of the LDS position. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Restoration is identified as the “new and everlasting covenant”. “Everlasting” means that it is not a “new covenant”. It is the same covenant that was made in ancient times; but it is renewed in our time because of the Apostasy. The Apostasy means that the old covenant was broken. The Restoration means that that old covenant was renewed to us by means of a new dispensation of the gospel. But it is the same old covenant that was renewed. It is not “another covenant”.

Here is the bottom line. As an Evangelical Christian—a Christian who holds to the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” of the Church—I do not believe that Mormonism leads to salvation. To the contrary, I believe that it is a false gospel that, however sincere and kind its adherents may be, leads to eternal death rather than to eternal life.

Misstated. What that means is that as a representative of an apostate Christianity, he has rejected the new dispensation of the gospel in the latter days which is a Restoration of the only and true form of Christianity. There is nothing new about that of course. Apostate religions have always rejected and opposed new dispensations of true religion. The bad news is that it is this rejection of the new dispensation that leads to death and damnation.

And thus I must end where I began. Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity—it is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.”

The bottom line is that Mormonism is not another form of Apostate Christianity. It is a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity. And it certainly is incompatible with Apostate Christianity.

On the subject of the Apostasy, it is worth noting that Mormons were not the first to come up with that idea. The Protestants recognized it first. They also describe it in more or less the same terms. There are two major differences however: (1) In Protestantism the Apostasy takes on a virulent anti-Catholic form, which in the LDS Church it doesn’t. (2) We define the Apostasy mainly in terms of the loss of the priesthood of the Church, which places Protestantism firmly in the same Apostate camp as Catholicism!

What Do Mormons Think of Evolution?

2008-04-29T13:43:00.000-07:00

I have not come across an official statement from the LDS Church that attempts to directly answer that question. The nearest thing that I have found is this statement from the First Presidency, which does not tackle the question head on: Is Evolution true or false? But I think it is fair to say that officially the LDS Church does not accept Evolution. I think it is equally fair to say that the vast majority of LDS do not accept Evolution. Those who might would be a very small minority. Modern LDS scripture also affirms that Adam and Eve were real individuals who were created by God in the Garden of Eden. The only part of the story that may be considered figurative is the teaching that God made Eve out of Adam’s rib.

Of course the theory of Evolution has several aspects some of which may be true. For example, “natural selection” is something that can be observed in nature. It enables various species to adapt to changes in their environment. If you spray a population of mosquitoes with a given pesticide, for example, a small percentage of them that have a natural resistance to it will survive, and will then reproduce to create a genre that is resistant to that pesticide. But observable natural selection will always take place within a given species. There are no known instances, as far as I know, that through natural selection one species has “jumped” to become a different species. If anybody knows of such examples, I would be interested to hear it.

But Evolution, meaning the development of one species into another, and the development of higher life forms from lower ones, is a false theory that has no support either in science or in scripture. I believe that the LDS Church rejects that theory. This is in contrast with the Catholic position which appears to be conciliatory towards Evolution. Here is a quote from the Pope:

The Pope . . . also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

* * *

In his talk with the priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the United States and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” Source: newsmax.com

I believe that the LDS Church would reject that teaching. There is in fact no scientific proof for the theory of Evolution. There may be proof for natural selection, as explained above; but that is not the same thing as Evolution. There are also many fossilized remains around which scientists can build a theory. But that remains only a theory. That is not the same thing as scientific proof.

The question of how you define a species also becomes relevant here. Interestingly, the scientific definition of species is identical scriptural one! In science, a species is defined as a class of living organisms with identifiable characteristics that can interbreed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. That is the key requirement. For example, a Bulldog and an Alsatian look quite different in appearance; but they are identified as belonging to the same species because they can mate and produce a fertile offspring. On the other hand, there are certain types of woodlice that look identical in appearance, but classed as belonging to different species, because the two cannot interbreed. Some animals of different species can interbreed, but produce an infertile offspring. A horse and a donkey, and a lion and a tiger are two examples. The following are some scientific definitions of species that I found on the Internet:

(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

A classification of related organisms that can freely interbreed

A reproductively isolated aggregate of interbreeding organisms.

A group of organisms that can reproduce with each other.

the taxonomic division of freely interbreeding population of wild or naturally occurring individuals below genus.

a group of interbreeding individuals in a population that is reproductively isolated from other groups of organisms

a group of organisms that share similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring.

In the scriptures a species is defined in the same terms:

Genesis 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

* * *

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Thus both science and scripture define a species on the same terms; and there are no known examples in nature, as far as I know, that one species has jumped to become a different species (mutation of viruses perhaps excluded). God has determined the boundaries, and they are impassable. Scientific “theories” are not sufficient to overturn the decrees of God.

The Theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church

2008-04-22T11:51:00.000-07:00

The main passages of scripture (apart from the Bible) expounding the LDS doctrine of the Sacrament are in the Book of Mormon, with smaller passages in the Doctrine and Covenants. I will quote the passages, with the most significant verses highlighted, and briefly comment on them afterwards. Jesus instituted the Sacrament among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon when He visited them after His resurrection. Here is the account:

3 Nephi 18:

1 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his Disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.

2 And while they were gone for bread and wine, he commanded the multitude that they should sit themselves down upon the earth.

3 And when the Disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the Disciples and commanded that they should eat.

4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.

5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the Disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.

6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.

7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

8 And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his Disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.

9 And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.

10 And when the Disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them: Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you.

11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

12 And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock.

13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

14 Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you.

The first theologically significant clause occurs in verse 5, where it says, “there shall one be ordained among you, . . .” This suggests that the Eucharist is a true sacrament. It requires priesthood authority to be administered. The next significant clause occurs in verse 7, where we are taught that it is done “in remembrance of my body, . . .”. The first part of that clause, “in remembrance of my body . . .” also occurs in the Bible:

Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The significant bits that the Book of Mormon passage adds, that is not found in the Bible, is “And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you”. This adds clarification. It informs us that the Sacrament is indeed a memorial of the sufferings of Christ; not that we will eat or drink His flesh or blood literally. It also informs us how we are blessed spiritually when we partake of the Sacrament worthily. That happens when we are promised that we should have His Spirit to be with us.

The next significant passage occurs in verse 10: “for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you”. Participation in the Sacrament, like baptism, is not a difficult or demanding requirement; nevertheless, like baptism, it is a token of our willingness to obey God’s commandments.

The next theologically significant passage is verse 11, which is a repeat of what was said in verse 7, except that this time it is in relation to the wine rather than the bread. And the last significant verse is 13, which states, “But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.” This is a warning to those who add or remove unauthorized material to the Sacrament, either doctrinally or procedurally. They are building their house on sand; and when the winds blow and rains descend, it shall fall, and “great shall be the fall of it”.

In the continuation to the same chapter, the Lord then proceeds to give the warning to those who partake of the Sacrament unworthily:

3 Nephi 18:

27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me.

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

The interesting thing about this passage is that it uses the same language that Catholics like to associate with Real Presence. Well, since every church seems to have its own definition of Real Presence, I am willing to accept that term provided that I can define the conditions of it myself—although I would rather not use those theological terms at all, because they carry connotations and nuances that do not sit well with the theology of the Restoration. LDS is a new dispensation of the gospel. It is not dependent on those archaic terminologies developed in historical Christianity. It uses its own. Nevertheless, I will accept Real Presence if I can define the terms of it myself. My definition of it (if I have to use that term) is that the administration of the Sacrament makes Jesus “Present” with us when the promise is fulfilled that we will “always have His Spirit to be with us”. That is how Jesus promised His disciples that He would always be present with them:

John 14:

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Ephesians 3:

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love.

That is how Jesus has promised that He will always be “Present” with His disciples—by giving them of His Spirit to always be with them, and dwell in them by faith. The idea that we must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood is not scriptural. That is not what the scriptures really mean.

Chapter 18 of 3 Nephi gives a description of how Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper among the Nephites. The day after that event, Jesus visits them again, and administers the Sacrament to them the second time. This is a shorter passage, but still contains theologically significant verses that are worth discussing:

3 Nephi 20:

1 And it came to pass that he commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts.

2 And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.

3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.

4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.

5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;

7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.

8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.

Verse 8 again uses a language that the Catholics would tend to identify with their understanding of Real Presence; although it uses it to suggest a kind of “spiritual feeding”. Verse 9 describes how that “feeding” takes place: it is done, again, by being filled with His Spirit. The idea of physically eating Jesus Christ is not a theologically valid doctrine. The scriptures that are cited to support that are not correctly understood.

The theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church is even more completely and comprehensively, but in a highly condensed form, taught in the actual Sacramental prayers themselves, which were given by revelation. Here are the two Sacramental prayers for bread and wine:

D&C 20:

77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

There are many theologically significant phrases in these prayers. First, note that the emblems are “blessed and sanctified”. To “sanctify” means to consecrate or make holy. This does not mean that actual emblems in themselves are made holy; rather, they are sanctified “to the souls of all those who partake of it”. The sanctification rebounds on those who partake of it by faith and in worthiness. In the early Christian church, all church members were called “saints”. That did not mean that they were sinless. It means that they had undergone the sanctifying experience of receiving the ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism and confirmation, but most importantly, of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. That is what makes us holy, or turns us into saints. If we wanted to express that in Catholic terminology, I suppose it would translate into “receiving grace”. But I don’t like using those old terms, because they tend to be ambiguous. “Becoming sanctified” is a more meaningful expression for me than “receiving grace,” which seems to defy a clear definition. This process of sanctification as we participate in the life of the Church is referred to in several places in the modern LDS scripture:

D&C 43:

9 And thus ye shall become instructed in the law of my church, and be sanctified by that which ye have received, and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me.

D&C 59:

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

D&C 60:

7 And in this place let them lift up their voice and declare my word with loud voices, without wrath or doubting, lifting up holy hands upon them. For I am able to make you holy, and your sins are forgiven you.

The Bible also teaches that it is required of us to become holy:

Exodus 19:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.

Leviticus 11:

44 For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: . . .

45 For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

1 Peter 1:

15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

1 Peter 2:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light

We achieve this holiness primarily through regular participation in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, while observing to fulfil all the conditions laid down therein.

Returning to the sacramental prayers, there are other significant phrases that need to be discussed. Note first that the words “remember” and “remembrance” occur frequently in both prayers. That is the key word. “Always remember him” means what it says: always! It means remembering Him in every waking moment of our lives. Some may think that is impossible. I don’t think so. God has commanded it. It is through this constant, ceaseless, incessant remembering that we are guaranteed to have His Spirit to always be with us.

Other covenants we make are to declare our willingness to “take upon us His name,” and also to “keep His commandments which He has given us”. To “take upon us His name” means to be willing to be identified by His name, in other words, to become true Christians.

Latter-day Saints often describe the Sacrament as a “renewal of our baptismal covenant”. That is because there is a striking resemblance between the covenants we make at baptism (Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37); and those we make as we partake of the Sacrament.

The only other thing that needs to be added to this brief summary is that we currently do not use wine for the administration of the Sacrament, but water. This is because of a commandment we received from the Lord owing to the circumstances that prevailed at that time, as recorded in the following revelation:

D&C 27:

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

Verse 2 in this passage contains more doctrinal insights into the theology of the Sacrament. It teaches that we partake of the Sacrament correctly when we do so “with an eye single to the glory of God;” and it reemphasizes once again the centrality of “remembering” Jesus Christ as the most important element in the Sacrament.

Such is the simplicity and beauty of the theology of the Sacrament in LDS scripture. Everything is plain, clear, meaningful, and dovetails perfectly with what is taught in the Bible. There are no dark shadows and mysterious ideas to fathom. That is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the Eucharist, or the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.