On the LDS Doctrine of Repentance!

 

My attention was drawn to the above video titled: “Christians Beware of this Cult Deception about Salvation,” in which he argues that “repentance” in the biblical sense, does not mean abandoning, turning away from, or forsaking sin. He is specifically arguing against a number of passages in the Book of Mormon that associate “repentance” with the abandonment of sin. They talk about “repenting” of one’s “sins;” and his argument is that that is not a biblical concept, or how the Bible defines “repentance”. Here is the transcript of the first couple of minutes into the video:

There is a well-known book that tells people in order to be saved, they need to “repent of their sins”. The phrase, “repent of your sins” is repeated several times in that religious book; but here is the thing: it is not the Bible. No, I am not talking about the Bible; I am talking about a cult’s religious book; and I am going to show you where it says, “repent of your sins”. And the interesting thing is, that gets inserted into Christianity so often by Evangelists, and preachers, and pastors—even though there is not one place in the Bible that ever says, “Repent of your sins”. The word “repent” is in the Bible; “repentance” is in the Bible; but not “repent of your sins”. And so we must know what biblical “repentance unto salvation” truly means; and I am going to explain it in this video.

But also, I am going to show you this other book I am talking about, where you are going to see that in order to be saved you need to “repent of your sins”—and I want you to have this question in your mind going forward: Why would God in his word to us, holy scripture—not some cult religious book, but actually God’s word—why would he leave us in darkness about a key requirement of salvation, and never tell us to do it? Why would he leave it out, if it was legitimately required for salvation? When you hear a preacher say, “In order to be saved, you need to repent of your sins, turn from your sins, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”—only that third part is from the Bible; the first two is man-made religious system of “works;” I will prove it in this video.

So anyway, I am Brian, this is Faith on Fire, welcome, I am glad you are here. I am going to share a little bit about this with you today, so … “what is that book?” Okay, I will get right to it, here it is: this is the Book of Mormon; and several places within the Book of Mormon, it tells people they need to “repent of their sins”. The phrase, “repent of your sin”—just like that: “repent of your sins,” shows up seven times in the Book of Mormon.

Well, he is wrong about that. Nothing is more clearly taught in the Bible than that “repentance” means turning away from evil and sin. It means to stop doing what one knows to be wrong, and start doing what is right instead. The following biblical quotes are a selection. First, from John the Baptist:

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

• • •

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, …

In verse 3, “repentance” is clearly tied with “remission of sins;” and in verse 8, to “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” means to do the right thing, instead of doing the wrong thing—that demonstrates genuine repentance. True repentance must be manifested in action—turning away from sin, and doing the right thing instead—for it to be genuine. That is what John is saying. Repentance is not genuine unless it is manifested in action—by turning away from evil and sin, and doing what is good and right instead. That is what is meant by “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance”—which is the direct opposite of what Brian is saying.

Matthew 3:

5 Then went out to him [John the Baptist] Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

The same thing is taught here. Baptism is preceded by “confessing their sins”—implying readiness to forsake them. And to “bring forth fruit meet for repentance” means to demonstrate one’s genuine repentance by action rather than just words. It means to do the right thing, instead of the wrong thing—as a demonstration of true repentance. It means to stop doing what one knows to be wrong (sinning), and start doing what one knows to be right (repenting). That is what John the Baptist was telling the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees, who had come to be baptized of him. He was telling them that verbal confession of repentance wasn’t good enough. True repentance must be manifested in action and deeds for it to be genuine. The following quotes are from Jesus himself:

Mark 2:

17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

In this verse “repentance” is directly linked to “sinning”. The “righteous” (who are not doing anything wrong, not sinning) have no need of “repentance;” because they are not doing anything that needs to be “repented” of. Only sinners need repentance. In other words, to “repent” means to “stop sinning”. It means to actively and willfully turn away from evil and sin. I trust the words of Jesus more than his!

Luke 5:

31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The same here. “Repenting” is for “sinners;” not for the “righteous” who are not doing anything wrong that needs to be “repented of”. In other words, “repentance” is turning away from doing what is evil and wrong, and doing what is good and right instead. The meaning is obvious and unmistakable. The same in this quote:

Luke 15:

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just [righteous] persons, which need no repentance.

• • •

10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

“Repenting” is directly linked to “sinning”. The “just” (righteous), who are not doing anything wrong (not sinning), have nothing to “repent of”. The meaning is so plain and obvious that no commentary is required.

Matthew 9:

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The same thing again. “Repentance” is for “sinners” who are doing something “wrong” that needs to be “repented of”. The “righteous” have nothing to “repent of,” because they are not doing anything wrong. Jesus is my teacher, not Brian!

Luke 13:

2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent [of your sins], ye shall all likewise perish.

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent [of your sins], ye shall all likewise perish.

The link between “repentance” and “sin” is unmistakable. “Repentance” is always directly linked with “sinning” (in the gospel sense). You “repent” of your “sins” (meaning to stop committing them—doing the right thing instead). It is never used in the gospel sense to mean anything else.

Matthew 12:

41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

How did the people of Nineveh “repent” at the preaching of Jonah? The book of Jonah tells us. They did so by turning away from their sins:

Jonah 3:

6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:

8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

That is how the people of Nineveh “repented,” they turned away from their evil ways—and that is what repentance means throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike. It means turning away from evil and sin, and doing what is good and right instead. That is what the people of Nineveh did; and God’s anger was turned away, and he forgave and spared them. The judgement of God against them was averted because they forsook their sins, and turned to doing good instead. The people of Nineveh figured it out, but Brian apparently can’t!

Luke 17:

3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass [sin] against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent [of the trespass, the sin], forgive him.

4 And if he trespass [sin] against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent [of the wrong, the sin, the trespass]; thou shalt forgive him.

The meaning is obvious, no need to repeat the comment. The only thing to be noted here is that in this context, the “sinning” is committed against another person, rather than against God; and therefore the “forgiveness” also comes from the other person, rather than from God. But the meaning of “repentance” in either case is still the same. It means turning away from the evil or wrong one has committed (whether it is against God, or against man); and doing the right thing instead. The next two quotes are from the writings of Paul:

Acts 26:

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Repentance = turning to God = doing works meet for repentance. It means turning away from sin and wrongdoing (whether it is against God or against man); and doing the right thing instead. It means to stop doing what one knows to be wrong, and start doing what one knows to be right. That is the repeated pattern throughout the Bible.

2 Corinthians 7:

10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

“Godly sorrow” means being sorry for offending God by sinning. It means being sorry for sinning, and thus offending God. It leads to “repentance” because it leads one to abandon the sin, which offends God, and doing the right thing instead—which is repentance. “Sorrow of the world,” on the other hand, means being sorry for not achieving the success you were hoping for in sinning. It means being sorry for being caught while stealing something for example—and being punished for it—rather than getting away with it. That kind of “sorrow” does not lead to the abandonment of the sin—which is repentance. But “Godly sorrow” does.

Revelation 2:

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen [in sin], and repent, and do the first [original, good] works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

This was addressed to true believers, converts, true Christians, who had been baptized and joined God’s true Church—but then had fallen into transgression and sinned. God was telling them that they needed to “repent” (turn away from, forsake, abandon their sins); and get back on the right path again that they had started on when they first believed, and became Christians. Thus to “sin” means to do evil and wrong; whereas to “repent” (in this context), means to get back on the right path; get back to the original “good works” that they had started on and were doing when they first believed, and became Christians—by doing the “first [original, previous, good] works”. Thus whichever way you look at it, repentance means turning away from sin and evil, and doing what is good and right instead.

Revelation 3:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

The same thing here. This scripture was addressed to believers, Christians, who had gone astray a little bit and sinned—not to unbelievers. To “repent” in that context means to get back on the right path; to stop doing what is evil and wrong, and do the right thing instead. And genuine repentance is a prelude to obtaining forgiveness and remission of sins:

Luke 24:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Thus throughout the New Testament, to “repent” in the gospel sense (that leads to forgiveness, remission of sins, and eternal salvation) means to turn away from sin. It means to stop doing what is evil and wrong, and do the right thing instead. In the Old Testament, too, repentance has the same meaning. Here are a few quotes (in addition to the Jonah quote given previously):

Proverbs 28:

13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

That is another word for “repentance” in the New Testament sense. To “repent” means to turn away from sin and evil, and do what is good and right instead. It means to stop doing what one knows to be wrong, and doing what one knows to be right instead. The result is that one shall “obtain mercy”—meaning obtaining forgiveness and remission of sins, that leads to salvation and eternal life.

2 Chronicles 7:

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

The same thing is taught here. The meaning is too obvious to require comment. That is another word for repentance. To “sin” means to do evil and wrong; to “repent” means to stop doing what is evil and wrong, and do the right thing instead—which leads to forgiveness, remission of sins, and eternal life.

Ezekiel 18:

21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his [evil] ways, and live?

The same thing here. The meaning is obvious. To “sin” means to do evil and wrong; to “repent” means to stop doing what is evil and wrong, and do what is right instead. That is the teaching of both the Old as well as New Testaments—which in either case leads to obtaining forgiveness and remission of sins, and salvation and eternal life.

In the Old Testament, the word “repent” is used with another meaning. It is sometimes spoken of God “repenting” (as in Jonah 3:9-10, quoted above), by which is meant God altering his decision, or averting a previously threatened destruction—which is a separate thing entirely. But to “repent” in the New Testament gospel sense (which results in forgiveness, remission of sins, salvation and eternal life), means to turn away from sin and evil, and do what is good and right in the sight of God instead. That is the teaching of both Old and New Testaments—including the words of Jesus himself. Thus the Book of Mormon teaching is 100% biblical and correct. It is his doctrine and teaching that is 100% damnable, abominable, unbiblical, heretical, and false. It is a recipe for damnation rather than salvation.

In the video he has used a couple of proof-texts from the Bible that I will briefly comment on. One is concerning Abraham, that he was approved because of his “faith alone,” and not any “good works”. Here is the quote, starting at around 5:55 minutes into the video:

Justification is by faith, established by God, as far back as Genesis 15 with Abraham: “And he believed in God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” He was not saved because of his works, he was saved because of his faith in God, believed in God, counted to him as righteousness.

Not correct. According to the Bible, Abraham was approved by God primarily because of his obedience, faithfulness, and good works, as well as his faith:

Genesis 22:

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Genesis 26:

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

James 2:

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

The next proof text he gives is from Matthew 7:23. At around 10:22 minutes into the video he says the following:

In Matthew 7 Jesus says, “I never knew you, depart from me, you workers of iniquity,” right? They were trying to earn their way into heaven by their works. And notice what they lacked was relationship. Jesus said, “I never knew you,” not that “I knew you for a little bit, when you were saved; but then you did some bad things, and you lost your salvation,” right? … they never believed on him; they believed in their own good works, and therefore they lacked the relationship required for salvation.

Wrong about that as well. He is quoting that verse out of context. The context of it is as follows:

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 [i.e. miracles]?

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

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The entire passage is about doing good, about keeping God’s commandments. Those who were condemned failed the test of good works, the test of doing God’s will. What Jesus is saying in that passage is that if you have faith to do great miracles—to prophesy, to cast out devils, and do other “wonderful works” (i.e. great miracles); but fail the test of doing good, of keeping God’s commandment, you will be condemned. (In that passage, “wonderful works” literally means “great miracles,” it has no other meaning. That is how it is translated in the following Bible versions: AMP, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, DLNT, DRA, ERV, EHV, GW, GNT, HCSB, ICB, ISV, LSB, LEB, TLB, NOG, NASB, NASB1995, NCB, NCV, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLT, NMB, OJB, TLV, VOICE. Link) If you profess belief in Jesus Christ, and even have faith to perform great miracles, but fail the test of being righteous, of doing God’s will, doing what is good and right in the sight of God, you will be condemned. That is what Jesus is saying in that passage of scripture. In other words, what that passage is teaching is diametrically the opposite of the interpretation that he is trying to put on it. And when Jesus says in verse 23, “I never knew you,” that is simply a word of rebuke. It doesn’t mean that he literally never knew them. And throughout the New Testament—and especially the teaching of Jesus—good works is required for salvation:

Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 5:

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Matthew 16:

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Luke 12:

47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Luke 6:

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Romans 2:

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew [or Christian] first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew [or Christian] first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 14:

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Galatians 6:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

1 Corinthians 3:

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

2 Corinthians 5:

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

1 Timothy 6:

17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Hebrews 13:

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

1 Peter 1:

17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

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.

James 1:

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

James 4:

17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Revelation 22:

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Psalm 62:

12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

The whole of the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus (Matthew 5–7) is about doing good, and abstaining from evil. The whole of the Bible, from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation—including practically all the teachings of Jesus—are about doing good, and abstaining from evil.

When Paul speaks against “works,” and talks about “faith alone” etc., what he is referring to is the works of the Law of Moses—which is what the Rabbis, Pharisees, Sadducees etc. believed in. They believed that adherence to those elaborate ritualistic rites and performances of the Law of Moses saved them—apart from faith in Jesus Christ; or independent of the saving and redeeming work of Jesus Christ. That is also what the Judaizers (certain Jewish converts to Christianity) at the time believed in—and were trying to persuade the Gentle converts to Christianity to believe in. That is what Paul was arguing against, and trying to oppose. All his talk about “faith alone” and “no works” is a reference to that. He never meant it to be understood that we don’t need to repent of our sins, and keep the commandments of God to be saved—as Calvinists and Reformed theologians have misunderstood them to mean.

In that video Brian is teaching pure Calvinism—but doing it in disguise! I think he is in it for the money. He has figured that there is more money to be made in supporting Calvinism (and opposing Mormonism) than in opposing Calvinism; so he is switching over to supporting Calvinism—but he doesn’t want to appear like a hypocrite, so he is doing it in disguise! He is trying to reinvent Calvinism in his own image to make more money out of it! He wants to create the impression that he is still opposed to Calvinism, while supporting it in a roundabout way—and doing it while attacking Mormonism to cover it up! The entire exercise is pure hypocrisy, dishonesty, and deception.

On Jacob’s Response to Alex O’Connor

 

Alex O’Connor in the past has been a very staunch, uncompromising young atheist who it seems has softened his stance quite a bit recently, which I hadn’t been aware of until I watched the above video by Jacob Hansen; and Jacob does a good job of quoting and engaging with his remarks. But Jacob has also made some technical errors, which if he fixes he will be able to do a much better job of engaging with Alex. Jacob begins the video with the following statement:

“So about five or six years ago I discovered a young British YouTuber named Alex O’Connor. Initially he just seemed like a mini-Christopher Hitchens, recycling the same old atheist talking points. However, one day I saw a video where he went through the many logical fallacies made by Christopher Hitchens, and why many of Hitchens’ arguments were actually very weak, or nonsensical. I was surprised, and then I began to notice in subsequent videos that Alex’s tone began to change. Suddenly, despite his continued atheism, he seemed totally earnest in his seeking.”

Then he shows a video clip from Alex, the transcript of which is as follows:

“The last time I debated Jonathan a number of years ago, when I was just a few months out of being a teenager, I said that even if I found Christianity to be true, I still wouldn’t want to worship the God that it promotes. I now since then have realized how irrational and self-defeating this assertion is. I stand before you today as an example of a non-resistant non-believer. I think it would be great if God existed; I really do. I would absolutely love to escape death. I would relish being the recipient of unconditional love. Less selfishly, I would love to be able to worship that which deserves to be worshipped. So when faced with a Psalm, like Psalm 139, I am overwhelmed with a sense not of beauty and consolation, but envy and disappointment: ‘Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?’ Where can I go, I should ask in response, to find it?

“Of course you cannot know my heart, you can’t know if I am truly as non-resistant as I claim; but I hope that my actions here might betray me. As a Catholic child I was once an altar boy; I would serve the altar of Mother Church every Sunday, dressed in a white robe. In the time since then, I have to put it mildly, been looking for God. I went to Catholic schools; I studied philosophy and theology at A levels; I made a career out of engaging with religious arguments; I have explored arguments from contingency, from fine-tuning, from motions, from mathematics, indeed from irreducible complexity, and the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

“It may surprise my followers online to learn that at university I visited numerous churches, on the invitation of various friends; I spent hours talking with religious friends, until the sun rose again, if you like. I attended Bible groups regularly too, which might surprise people as well—and in fact, I still do attend such groups. Just recently I agreed to embark on a series of study of the wisdom literature, specifically reading it again in the hopes that this time I might finally feel a divine presence seeping from between the lines. I moved into a house for a year with two devoutly Christian housemates, with the express intention of seeing if the obvious truth of Christianity and theism that people like to talk about can be found in the minutiae of daily life.

“I read Athanasius and Anselm; I read Augustine and Aquinas; I looked in Julian of Norwich, and Katherine of Siena; I looked at the sociological origin of religious belief in Durkheim, and Marx, and Freud, and Young. I looked at religious experience in William James, and Rudolph Otto. I have looked in the modern works of people like Ed. Feser, and Bill Craig, and Michael Murray, and Richard Swinburn, Alvin Plantinga. I have looked in poetry; I have looked in the Psalms; I have looked in Job; I have looked in Ecclesiastes; I have looked in Dostoevsky. I read C.S. Lewis; I listened to worship music; I prayed; I studied the gospel; I even got an actual degree in theology from a university.”

I am impressed! I commend Alex for his honest research into religion, in the hope of finding some revealed truth, or some genuine indication of God’s existence. He didn’t mention the Book of Mormon! I am guessing that is because he hasn’t read it yet! I highly recommend him to read it. Here is an interesting quote from the Book of Mormon for him to think about:

“For he that diligently seeketh shall find, and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them by the power of the Holy Ghost; as well in these times, as in times of old; and as well in times of old, as in times to come; wherefore the course of the Lord is one eternal round.” (1 Nephi 10:19)

If he sincerely and honestly wants to know of the truth about the existence of God, the Book of Mormon can help him. That is why it was given, to reveal that truth (and much more) to those who honestly and sincerely seek it. That truth will be revealed to him as he sincerely and prayerfully reads and ponders the contents of the book. Jacob then continues his comments as follows:

“Now Alex still holds on strong to the idea that God does not exist; but over the years he has become far less dogmatic, and he is open to hearing all points of view. Alex is one of the rare people who genuinely steelmans the other side, before offering critiques; and frankly, Alex has some excellent critiques of credal Christianity. With that in mind, it has also been really interesting to see how his honest seeking has also led him to some extremely similar conclusions to those held by Latter-day Saints. For example Alex makes a very sharp and well-founded critique of the credal Christians’ notions about Adam and Eve. In the following he offers a response to the Christian apologist Ken Ham’s view on the Fall:”

The only issue I have with this statement is that there is no such thing as “creedal Christianity”. Something is either “Christianity” or it isn’t; but there is no such thing as “creedal” vs. “non-creedal” Christianity. If he wants to distinguish between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the one hand, and traditional or historical Christianity on the other, that is not the best way to make that distinction. The two major creeds of Christendom, generally accepted and adopted by mainstream Christianity in general, are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed; both of which teach doctrines fully acceptable to LDS. And the LDS Church also has a creed; it is called the Articles of Faith.

The implied suggestion of the above statement is that it is inherently wrong to have a creed! Or that the LDS Church does not have a creed! That is incorrect on both accounts. There is nothing wrong with having a creed; and LDS Church very much has a creed. The Articles of Faith is a fully fledged creed, no difference. So both sides are “creedal” in that sense of the term. They both have a creed. What really distinguishes LDS from traditional or historical Christianity is the belief in the restoration of the gospel in the latter days. That is the real difference between the two sides that needs to be focused on and emphasized, not the “creeds”. Constantly harping on about and obsessing with the “creeds” obscures that essential distinction.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Church to officially declare once for all exactly where it stands with regard to the historic creeds of Christianity; which ones it accepts, and which ones it rejects, and why; so that Latter-day Saints can then focus on more important theological differences between the two sides that distinguishes between them—and engage more intelligently in a discussion of them. The actual theological differences between the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and traditional and historic Christianity are far more significant and important than this LDS obsession with the creeds.

Then the conversation enters into some complex philosophical issues most of which I will skip, except for two points brought up which I will briefly comment on:

The first is the problem of evil. In LDS theology, the problem of evil is resolved by accepting the complete libertarian freewill and moral agency of man. God respects that moral agency, and grants man the freedom to exercise it at his own discretion—to choose between good and evil—so that the judgement that God will bring on them on judgement day will be just. Evil exists in the world because mankind are free to yield to the enticing of Satan and choose evil rather than good—and many do. In Evangelical, Calvinist, and Protestant theology in general, that freewill is non-existent. Everything has been predestined and predetermined by God. But that is not true of all Christendom. In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (which are the majority), freedom of the will is fully accepted.

The second point brought up is the meaning of “sin”. Sin is not “missing the mark”. Sin is identified, in both the Bible as well as in modern LDS scripture, as the “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4; James 2:11; Romans 5:13; 2 Nephi 2:7, 13; Mosiah 2:33; Alma 42:17-24; D&C 88:35). “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness” etc. is the “law”. You “sin” when you break the law. You “repent” when you stop breaking that law, and start keeping it. And Jesus is not standing by us helping us to “try and try again” until we “hit the mark!” He is there to forgive us our sins when we believe in him, exercise faith, and genuinely and sincerely repent of our sins—so that we can then be forgiven, and move on in the path of eternal life:

“Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I the Lord remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold he will confess them, and forsake them.” (D&C 58:42-43)

LDS Theology is Sola Scriptura!

 

I came across the above video on the Thoughtful Faith channel which I thought was interesting and worth commenting on. It is about 51 minutes long, and it would be a bit too tedious to unpack it and discuss it in detail. Luckily that is not necessary, because the main message that he wants to convey through it is well expressed and summarized in the video title:

“Why Protestants Are WRONG About The Bible – Sola Scriptura Debunked”

And that is what I am going to focus on (and also the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture that is inherent in it). In short, LDS theology and doctrine is very much Sola Scriptura—the only difference being that we have a lot more “Scriptura” than traditional Christianity does. In addition to the Bible, we also have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, which together with the Bible constitute the canonized scriptures of the Church—or what we refer to as the Standard Works. But strictly speaking, the theology and doctrine of the LDS Church, the restored gospel, is derived exclusively from that scriptural canon—and from no other source. Sure enough we believe in continuing revelation, and in modern prophets and Apostles. That is what distinguishes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from all other Christian churches. But unless a new revelation is received and canonized, the theology and doctrine of the Church, the restored gospel, is strictly and exclusively contained in, and derived from, the existing scriptural canon. Anything that deviates from that, or is not supported by that—regardless of its source or origin—is not LDS doctrine. This has been the verdict of the past leaders of the Church (emphasis added):

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said; if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed [in scripture], we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only insofar as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203–4.)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve, and sustained by the body of the Church [i.e. canonized]. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973.)

“If it is not in the Standard Works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969, p. 13.)

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. These have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (July 24, 1921) sec. 4:7.)

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world … to be satisfied with anything I do [or say], unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied … Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 3:5.).

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book, 1976. p. 194)

And LDS scripture also confirms this:

1 Nephi 15:

23 And they said unto me: What meaneth the rod of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?

24 And I said unto them that it was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction.

25 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did exhort them to give heed unto the word of the Lord; yea, I did exhort them with all the energies of my soul, and with all the faculty which I possessed, that they would give heed to the word of God and remember to keep his commandments always in all things.

Doctrine and Covenants 10:

52 … Behold, I do not bring it [Book of Mormon] to destroy that which they have received [Bible], but to build it up.

Doctrine and Covenants 33:

16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.

Doctrine and Covenants 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.

• • •

59 Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law [including doctrine], to be my law to govern my church;

Doctrine and Covenants 84:

43 And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of eternal life.

44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

The above statements also affirm the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture—the word of God—from the LDS point of view; because if scripture was errant or fallible, then it could not serve as the infallible rule of faith, of theology and doctrine, as the above statements imply. This does not mean that there cannot be a sentence in there somewhere that might contain a minor error. What it means is that overall, scripture can be trusted to teach true, sound, reliable, inerrant doctrine, which leads to salvation and eternal life, if accepted, believed, trusted, and obeyed.

In the above video, a quote is also given from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland; but in that quote Elder Holland is not arguing against Sola Scriptura; what he is saying is that in LDS theology and doctrine, Sola Scriptura is not limited to the Bible; it includes modern LDS scripture—plus any further revelations or scripture that might subsequently be canonized.

In that video, the way in which Hayden Carroll argues against Sola Scriptura in Protestantism, however, would equally undermine Sola Scriptura in Mormonism—because both are equally Sola Scriptura. The fact that Latter-day Saints also believe in continuing revelation, and in modern day prophets and Apostles, and in additional scripture besides the Bible, does not alter that fact. The nature of the argument remains the same. The theology and doctrine of the restored Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is strictly contained in, derived from, and determined by the scriptural canon of the Church—the Standard Works—and from no other source. To summarize: LDS theology and doctrine is💯 Sola Scriptura; and adhers💯 to the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture. That is the inescapable conclusion from references given above. So Jacob Hansen and his guest, Hayden Carroll, go off on a tangent again, substituting their own ideas, views, and concepts for LDS beliefs and doctrines.

Incongruous Discussion About LDS Beliefs!

 

I found the above short clip in which Jacob Hansen (LDS) and Trent Horn (Catholic) are having a friendly conversation about LDS beliefs; and I found that I had as much problems with what Jacob Hansen was saying, as I had with what Trent Horn was saying. Jacob begins the conversation with the following statement:

“It comes down to, there is that question of, are Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints, Christians, right? Now a lot of Latter-day Saints get very annoyed by that question, because of course, we are Christians! But I always say, You got to ask them what they mean by that? Because if by a Christian you mean, you are defining a Christian as a person who believes and holds to the doctrine of the Trinity—like, if that is a requisite characteristic of a Christian—well then, we are not!”

There are lots of issues with that statement. Firstly, when non-LDS folks (Evangelicals mainly) accuse LDS of not being “Christians,” their main focus is not the Trinity. They object to the whole concept of the Restoration of the gospel in the last days—including having additional scripture like the Book of Mormon, or modern day prophets and Apostles. They consider the canon of scripture closed, and the offices of prophets and Apostles ceased. They say all of that came to an end in the first century, and there will be no more prophets, Apostles, or additional scripture given. That is their main objection. Secondly, Latter-day Saints certainly believe in the Trinity. The Trinity refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—which is what Latter-day Saints believe in. Our first article of faith says, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. That is the Trinity. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost—which is the Trinity. LDS modern scripture make references to the Trinity:

2 Nephi 31:

21 … and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mormon 7:

7 … to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, ….

Testimony of the Witnesses:

… And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

That is the Trinity. How you theologically define that Trinity is a separate issue from the Trinity itself. Latter-day Saints believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—which is the Trinity. Over the centuries, Christians have formulated several different theological definitions, descriptions, or explanations of that Trinity, which is a separate issue from the Trinity itself. The Bible declares, assumes, and requires belief in the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But nowhere in the Bible does it attempt to theologically define that Trinity. That is something that Christians have attempted to do for themselves. In the above video, both Jacob Hansen as well as Trent Horn repeatedly confuse those two concepts, and fail to distinguish between them. You can’t have a serious discussion on the subject of Trinity without differentiating between those two concepts—the Trinity itself; and the theological exposition of it as expressed by Christians in later Christian history. Disagreeing with that theological exposition is not the same as rejecting the Trinity. To that then Trent Horn gives the following reply:

“But you know what is funny here, Jacob, is that I have noticed this reveals a problem with many Protestant views of authority; because there are many Protestants who will, you know, say, Mormons aren’t Christians—and I would say that LDS theology is not Christian—my authority for that is what Christ Church [Catholic] teaches; and that it is taught what is required for someone to be a Christian, according to Catholic theology, is a valid baptism—a valid Trinitarian baptism; that the Trinity is necessary to be a Christian, going back to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds.”

There are several issues with that statement. Firstly, Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity, as explained above. Secondly, LDS very much believe in the need for proper priesthood authority to baptize (and administer other sacraments); and that they are in fact the only ones who do have that authority; and nobody else does, including Catholics. By that definition, Latter-day Saints are the only true Christians, and nobody else is, including Catholics. Thirdly, LDS baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Trent then continues:

“But if you are a Protestant, and you believe in sola scriptura—the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith—then you have a bit of a problem, because I could ask a Protestant, Where does the Bible say you must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? Because many Protestants … because here is the thing, Protestants will say, Well yes, the Bible teaches the Trinity, you don’t need Tradition to know that. I say okay, I agree with you that it teaches that; but just saying the Bible teaches X, it doesn’t follow that X is necessary to be a Christian; because many Protestants will say, The Bible teaches Calvinism; but they are not going to say, you must be a Calvinist to be a Christian; or the Bible teaches is cessationism—that is, spiritual gifts ended in the first century—which you don’t have to believe that to be a Christian; or the Bible teaches all sorts of things; they would agree with that; but not that you need to be a Christian. So then the problem becomes, well, where does the Bible say what you need to believe to be a Christian? And I have covered this in several episodes of my channel. I think that that is a gigantic flaw in sola scriptura as an authority, as a structure for Protestantism; because the Bible is supposed to be our only and rule of faith; and yet the Bible doesn’t teach us probably one of the most important truths we could know: What must I believe to be a Christian—like do I have to believe in the Trinity or not, or can I believe in Jesus, and I trust in Jesus for my salvation, and I believe the blood of Jesus takes away my sins, and I have faith in him for my salvation; but have a Jehovah’s Witness Christology, or a Mormon Christology. They really I think put themselves in a bind here, that they really wish they could have the ecumenical councils, and that strict teaching; but they don’t want the authority behind them.”

The Bible doesn’t specifically define what it means, or what is required to be a Christian. The closest thing that the Bible comes to defining a Christian is that it means being a “disciple” [follower] of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26). And in Acts 8:35-37; 16:27-33, the only criteria that is given as a qualification for baptism is belief in Jesus Christ. Those who want to identify themselves as “Christians” have to define for themselves what it means to be a Christian. They can’t call themselves “Christians” if they don’t have a definition of what that means; or how to define or identify a “Christian”. The problem there is that Christianity is not a unified, monolithic group. There are many different factions with disagreements. But if they want to call themselves “Christian,” they must have some kind of definition by which to identify that category. They can’t call themselves “Christians” without having some idea of, and being able to define what that means. Jacob then concludes:

“Yes and I agree 100%. That is I think is one of the many reasons that I have such a deep respect for the Catholic faith. I think that you guys have a lot more going for you because of that. Now what is funny though is that for a Latter-day Saint like me, the whole paradigm gets thrown out the window in a certain way, because belief isn’t really the thing that we care about as the dividing line; …”

I have to disagree with that. LDS theology and doctrine is very much “belief” oriented. The Articles of Faith (which is part of the canonized scriptures of the Church) outlines the core essential doctrinal “beliefs” of Latter-day Saints. If you have difficulty accepting any of those “beliefs,” you cannot rightly identify yourself as a Latter-day Saint. He continues:

“… because for a lot of—especially for Evangelical Christians—the idea is, do you accept Jesus? If you do, you are saved. Okay, right, … so then it becomes, well, but what does it mean to accept Jesus? Well you have to accept, as they say, the “right” Jesus. I am like, okay, I get that, I get that they are saying that. Here is the thing though, is that okay, then what you are saying essentially is that proper theological understanding is what constitutes your ability to be saved, right? And Latter-day Saints reject the—like we have a very wide sort of um leeway when it comes to belief.”

Not according to my understanding of LDS theology and doctrine. “Belief” is very much an essential part or ingredient of it. He continues:

“Our thing is about, are you making and keeping covenants with God, right? When you get baptized, you make a certain commitment to obey the Lord’s commandments, to live as he would have you live; and even if your understanding of God is imperfect, and is not quite right—now there are there is a limit to that, I mean you can’t believe whatever you want, right? There are things that are authoritative; but it is much broader. What we care about; and this is the thing if you go to our churches, what you hear us talking about all the time isn’t, “Do you accept Jesus into your heart” per se; although we want people to do that. Our thing is, is your faith in Christ manifesting in you keeping the commitments that you have made to him? And you are never going to be able to do that perfectly; but are you striving for it? Are you seeking the Lord in your life?”

Sure. That is something that sets apart Latter-day Saints from Evangelical Christians, and Protestants in general. We lay emphasis on being obedient to the will of God, keeping his commandments, and obeying his will. But that does not diminish the importance of “belief” in the theology of Latter-day Saints:

Doctrine and Covenants 68: 8 Go ye into all the world, preach the [restored] gospel to every creature, acting in the authority which I have given you, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 9 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.

Doctrine and Covenants 112:

28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my [restored] 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 restored gospl of Jesus Christ is all about “belief”—believing in the restoration of the gospel in the last days; believing in true sound doctrines; believing in all the right things.